Blog

The main objection to replacing the closed primary election system in Nevada is that political parties have a first amendment right to select who represents their party in general elections. This has most recently been expressed by leading Nevada political commentator Jon Ralston, the editors of the Las Vegas Review Journal, and Reno political columnist Orrin Johnson. I totally agree.

But as Justice Scalia noted when writing for the majority in California Democratic Party et al. v Jones, Secretary of State of California, et al. using a non-partisan blanket primary, or for that matter, no primary, does not violate this first amendment right. Such a system not only protects that right but also protects the right of the state to regulate elections to ensure greater voter choice, participation, and fairness.

The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) and its predecessorlast session, were designed with this in mind; to let the state exercise its right to expand voter choice, participation, and fairness while not infringing on the political parties’ right of association. This is a win-win.

Why would any political party oppose engaging more voters and increasing membership and potential donations? It is important to note that except for the few months leading up to the presidential caucuses and primary, the only group regularly gaining voter share is Non-Partisan. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties have been losing voter share over the same period. Saying those who left the party can re-register if they want to vote ignores the message of these voter registration trends and gives the perception that party is more important than country, state, or county.

Why would any political party not want to have its positions supported by a wider segment of voters? Tailoring their message to a small segment, those more ideologically pure, is what has prompted voters to leave the parties, reduced voter turnout, and increased the negative influence of partisanship in all aspects of our lives. 

What would be the message if one or both of the major political parties endorsed and actively worked for passage of NEMRA – 2017? It would be one of inclusiveness, one where the needs of the state and country come before the needs of the party. It would be one of “we believe every voter, not just those who 100 percent agree with us, matter.” The result of this message would be increased voter interest, increased voter participation, and potentially increased party membership.

Non-Partisan primaries do not violate political parties’ freedom of association. They do strengthen our electoral and governing processes to the benefit of the parties and the state.    

o   Service

There are four strategic priorities central to all areas:

o   Efficient and Responsive State Government

The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) could be an essential tool in meeting the framework’s priority of efficient and responsive state government. It clearly embraces the seven values of action, collaboration, inclusiveness, integrity, leadership, optimism, and service.

NEMRA – 2017 allows legislators to do what is best for the state without having to fear being “primaried”. Use of ranked choice / instant runoff voting (RCV / IRV) has proven to return civility to campaigning and legislating. With elections and legislating requiring appealing to more than just the small party base, candidates and legislators can address issues in a pragmatic fashion rather than ideologically pure dogma.  

Governor Sandoval’s Nevada’s Strategic Planning Framework 2016 – 2020 is an initiative that will be mostly undertaken after he leaves office. Successful implementation will take a willingness to continue on its path by his successor as well as legislators who may succeed those currently serving. It will require putting in place processes that allow transition of personnel while encouraging open, respectful, and honest debate. NEMRA – 2017 is such a process.  

Approximately 41 percent of eligible voters in Nevada are not registered to vote. Of the 59 percent who are, less than 46 percentvoted in the general election of November, 2014. Or to put it bluntly, 73 percent of eligible voters in Nevada just didn’t care.¹

Eligible voters do not register to vote, or do not vote if they are, for basically the same reasons, mostly no interest or lack of time. Missing the registration deadline or not knowing where or how to register are also major reasons for not registering followed closely by lack of knowledge about the candidates or issues, lack of confidence in government, and voting doesn’t make a difference.

 In an attempt to fix low voter registration, states are starting to consider automatically registering eligible voters when they apply for a driver’s license or state identification card. The governors of Oregon and California signed bills in 2015 implementing such a system. Similar bills are pending in 25 states and the District of Columbia. The concept of automatic voter registration (AVR) initially had bipartisan support. However, with the increased partisan rhetoric of the presidential campaigns, support is now aligning along party lines, Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

I’ve heard that in keeping with their Nevada Blueprint, Democratic lawmakers in the Silver State plan on filing a bill draft request (BDR) for the 2017 Nevada legislative session seeking to bring AVR to the state. But will automatically registering a person to vote get that person to actually vote or will the impact of AVR be simply to decrease election turnout rates?

For those who fail to register to vote because they missed the deadline or did not know where or how to register, automatic voter registration will resolve their issue, provided they apply for or renew a driver’s license or state identification card. But what about the remaining 75 percent of eligible voters not registered to vote? 

Simply being registered to vote will not convince the person who didn’t register because they were not interested, didn’t want to take time to learn about the candidates or issues, have lost confidence in government, or don’t think their vote matters, to vote. Opponents of AVR stress voting is a personal responsibility. I believe these reasons for not registering support their argument. However, if those voters’ interest were piqued, if they saw government return to being an institution that embraced respectful disagreement and worked towards collaborative consensus, if they were given a reason to learn about the candidates and issues, and saw that their vote did matter, would the likelihood of them becoming active voters increase? The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) is a means to make the answer, “yes”.

The current hyper-partisan political environment has turned people off not only to the political parties but to the entire process. A single election held in November using Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting (RCV / IRV) as proposed in NEMRA – 2017 can help reverse this trend. RCV / IRV forces candidates to reach out to a more diverse electorate. Appealing simply to the small party base is no longer a clear path to election. Second-choice votes could be the difference between winning and losing. Voters exposed to RCV / IRV elections have noticed a decrease in the negative tone of campaigns.

The goal of those who support AVR is to remove roadblocks to voting allowing more eligible voters to go to the polls. The goal of RCV / IRV is to return civility to the election and governing process and increase voter participation in elections. These goals are mutually supportive to the benefit of all. Question to Nevada legislators; companion bills?

The overwhelming perception, and there’s much truth behind it, is that money plays the most important role in American politics, from the lowest level campaigns and policies to those of national and global importance. Whether that power is rightfully earned or is the result of voters, candidates, and elected officials unwittingly bestowing it is a question up for debate. Given the apparent level of distain for the influence of money in our political system, is there a way to curtail it?

While data is extremely scarce given the relatively short period of time the process has been used in elections, there is a belief that Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff voting (RCV / IRV) could provide a path towards loosening the grasp of money on our political and governing system.

In a March, 2014 MinnPost opinion piece, former Minnesota United States Senator David Durenberger explains how. RCV / IRV changes the dynamic of elections and policymaking possibly reducing the need for excessive dollars. His opinion cannot be discounted.  Could voters be ready to cause a shift away from money’s influence in state and local races?

In state and local races, national super political action committees (Super PACs) are increasing their spending in an attempt to influence election results. The goal is to elect candidates that share their positions on national issues. This can redirect campaign debate away from important local and state issues towards the hyper-partisan national debate. However, this needn’t be the case.

Elections where voters go to the polls once, for a general election using RCV / IRV, requires candidates speak to a wider audience. Appealing to the small party base as is done in a low turnout primary will no longer ensure election. They must focus on appealing to all voters, general election mode, but with the added advantage that besides first-choice votes, they are looking for second-choice votes that could be the difference between winning or losing. According to Senator Durenberger, this type of campaign requires increased use of forums, town halls, and knocking on doors. Talking directly to voters, addressing the issues, is what wins the election. Attack ads and mudslinging will not guarantee victory on Election Day. Meeting and speaking with voters costs less. A candidate or incumbent running for re-election is a safe district, one where voter registration overwhelmingly favors one party over another, may still have an advantage, however, given the continuing growth of voters registered as Non-Partisan, even safe districts are not so safe. At the end of January, 2016, the number of Nevada voters registered as Non-Partisan or when combined with those registered in a minor party either exceeded or was within five percent of those registered as either Democratic or Republican in 11 of the 21 (52.38%) state senate districts and 25 of the 42 (59.52%) state assembly districts.

I’ve been told that holding a single election in November using RCV / IRV will increase the money needed to be spent because a candidate in a safe district has to be in general election mode, appeal to the greater electorate. The ability to win the election in the primary, where the focus is on only the smaller party base would not be present. I’ve also been told that large donors such as major companies would have to change their donation practices, either increasing the amount of money they allocate to political purposes or reducing the amount of individual donations. Supposedly these donors give to several candidates in the primary election so their chance of having influence following the general election is increased. I do not refute the validity of these statements. However, is it possible the opposite would happen? Less cash available across the board would require candidates to conduct their campaigns as alluded to by Senator Durenberger. RCV / IRV could actually decrease the influence of money in our political system. It is also possible that because RCV / IRV has the potential to increase interest in the election, the amount raised from individual voters could grow.  

Change is not easy. But where would we be today if society had not embraced the many changes that have occurred over the past 50 years? Baby Boomers (my generation) gave way to Gen X and Millennials (our children and possibly grandchildren). The Millennials, those 18 – 34 years of age are now the largest generation. They also are registering to vote as Non-Partisan at much higher rate than other generations. All indications are they are not embracing and will not embrace the politics of the past.  If our cities, counties, state, and nation are to make progress, the younger generations must believe their participation now will make the difference between success and failure.  

In one year, February, 2017, the Nevada legislature can take a major step in showing the generations that are our future their opinions matter, that their participation in our governing processes is important by enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017).  

In an update to their 2014 study, “The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown,” to be released this week, the Pew Research Center along with their former executive vice president Paul Taylor present data that should not surprise anyone. The hyper-partisan divide infecting our political structure is not only still active, it may have gotten worse.

Some highlights:

The use of partisan ideology as criteria for personal relationships is increasing. Added to this is an increasing level of distrust, denial of opposing facts, and doubt of motives and love of country. The authors observe “It’s as if they belong not to rival parties but alien tribes.”

The two major parties are becoming more demographically homogeneous. As the country grows less white and social tolerance gains acceptance among the younger yet largest generation, the shrinking party bases are becoming less inclusive. The Republican Party base is now whiter, older, more religious, and socially conservative. In contrast, the Democratic Party base is younger, racially diverse, secular, and more acceptant of social differences. This homogeneity is further highlighted in the growing generational gap in voting trends.

 Partisan beliefs continue to be a major and growing consideration in determining where we chose to live, who we chose as friends, who we marry, and where we get our information.

As the partisan divide becomes wider, more voters are choosing to abandon political parties in general. While this trend is present in all generations, it is most prevalent among the millennial generation, those between the ages of 18 and 34. This becomes more important since this generation is now the largest. As I post each month, this is true in Nevada where the percentage among this age group registered to vote as Non-Partisan is 10 percent higher than the overall state percentage.

Those wanting elected officials to collaborate, work together, and compromise are the new “silent majority”. However, in this age of social media and the accompanying pontification, there is no leader able to overcome the volume of the hyper-partisan extremes.

Election turnout plays a major role in allowing this partisan divide to survive. Historically, older voters tend to vote in non-presidential years in far greater numbers that younger voters. With ideological extremes dominating, this has created the large swings we have witnessed; a Democratic president re-elected and a strongly conservation congress maintaining a majority on the national level and a shift to the right in state governments

I posted two articles highlighting the growing partisan divide in 2014. Those posts are available hereand here. As shown in this updated work by Pew Research and Paul Taylor, this divide is widening, negatively impacting our political systems and overall society.

The Nevada legislature can take a step to reverse this polarizing trend when they next meet in February, 2017 by enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act.