Nevada taxpayers would realize a savings of at least $3 – 4 million every two years if legislators enact enabling legislation during the next legislative session in 2017. This savings is not hypothetical. It is money that is currently being spent that would no longer be required. Taxpayers would not forfeit any current services or benefits. Dollars saved could be used by the counties and state for other purposes or to reduce taxes.
The enabling legislation is the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) – 2017. The savings was not part of NEMRA that was heard by the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee last session. That bill, SB 499, had the original language stripped and replaced. The resulting bill, extending the filing deadline for minor political party and independent candidates, was passed and enacted.
Regardless of the outcome, the fact that a Bill Draft Request (BDR) was filed and a bill introduced by the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee shows that legislators recognize the growing need for election reform and are willing to seriously consider legislation aimed at improving the election process in Nevada.
NEMRA – 2017 provides the savings while:
- Not affecting the political parties’ right of association
- Not affecting a political party’s right to select nominees
- Maintaining general election ballot access of minor party and independent candidates
- Solving the problem of low voter turnout primary elections, maximizing voter turnout and the importance of every vote
- Eliminating strategic voting; voters changing registration for the primary to vote for the weakest candidate to strengthen the electability of their preferred candidate in another political party
- Addressing what Harvard Business School calls the main obstacle to economic progress and competitiveness
What would happen if members of each political party, both major and minor, still selected their candidates to appear on the general election ballot along with all qualified independent (Non-Partisan) candidates but the general election was the only election held?
- Tax payers would save $3 – 4 million per election cycle. This is what it costs the counties and state to conduct a primary election
- The problem of low voter turnout for primary elections would be eliminated and turnout would be maximized. General election turnouttypically runs over 75% in presidential years and over 60% in non-presidential years. Conversely, primary election turnout has been averaging below 20% (NOTE: 2014 general election turnout was well below this average – 45.56%)
- Voters would have more choices. All voters, not just those often described as the party base, would be courted during the campaign. The debate and discussion will focus on what concerns most voters. This will contribute to larger voter participation and turnout. Those elected would truly represent the will, beliefs, and values of their constituents.
- Candidates could focus their time and dollars on one election
- The Republican and Democratic Parties could see a reversal of the trend of losing members.
The Nominating Process
- Prior to the filing deadline each political party, whether classified as a major or minor party, determines the number of candidates it desires to represent it on the general election ballot. This can be anywhere from one (1) to no restriction.
- The parties decide to officially nominate or endorse one or more of their candidates.
- Voters not registered to vote in a particular political party do not participate in the nominating process of a political party in which they are not registered. Voters registered as Non-Partisan do not participate in the process of any political party unless allowed to do so by that party.
- The process of nominating or endorsing may be by any method approved by the individual parties except that no tax dollars may be used
- Independent candidates for partisan offices and all candidates for non-partisan offices must meet current qualification criteria
- If a political party limits the number of candidates on the general election ballot under the party name, the person(s) desiring to run but prevented from doing so by the party would be allowed to change their voter registration to Non-Partisan and attempt to qualify for the ballot as an independent candidate
By enacting NEMRA – 2017, Nevada would join the
17 political jurisdictions,
101 political parties, organizations and corporations, the
Utah Republican Party, the
Arlington County, VA, County Democratic Committee (ACDC), and
68 colleges and universities that use some form of single election Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting (RCV / IRV).
(*
These numbers represent those reported. Actual use could be higher) These numbers do not include pending votes in 2016 in Duluth, Minnesotaand the state of Maineto implement RCV / IRV; Maine would be the first state to implement this process state-wide if the initiative passes, and legislation in New York that would allow New York Cityto test RCV / IRV. Other jurisdictionsare also exploring RCV / IRV. Roberts Rules of Order, the leading parliamentary standard includes the use of RCV / IRV and several
politicians, political organizations and publications endorse RCV / IRV. Since this list was assembled,
The Washington Post and
Mississippi Clarion-Ledger have added their endorsements. Additionally,
Mississippi and Arizona are exploring the use of RCV / IRV. RCV / IRV was first
used in the late 1800’s is still in use today.
Louisiana has used a similar process since 1997, however, their election in November is followed by a separate run-off election in December for offices where no candidate receives a majority in the November contest.
The Election Process
- This is a general election. As with any general election, all candidates are listed and all voters vote the one ballot
- When casting their ballot, voters mark their first and second choice
- If a candidate receives a majority of first choice votes, that candidate is elected.
- If no candidate receives a majority of first choice votes, the top four vote-getters advance to the instant run-off. This is not a separate election. It is a continuation of vote tabulation.
o The system looks at the candidates marked as second choice on the ballots of candidates eliminated based on first choice votes and assigns the votes to the remaining candidates as appropriate.
o The candidate now in fourth place is eliminated and the tabulation process repeated.
o If no candidate has a majority following this tabulation to step is repeated.
o If following that tabulation no candidate has a majority, the process is repeated one more time to determine the winner.
o If there are less than four candidates running for any particular office, the tabulation is adjusted for the number of candidates.
o If only two candidates are running for a particular office, voters will be instructed to only mark their first choice.
· In
one group of polling data looking at San Francisco, CA; Burlington, VT; Takoma Park, MD; Cary, NC; and Hendersonville, NC, an average 89 percent of voters understood RCV / IRV. 78.4 percent preferred its use.
· In
Portland, ME, 94 percent of voters understood RCV / IRV with 66 percent finding it easy. Voters also found campaigns to be more positive with more information available.
· In
Minneapolis, MN, 90 percent understood the process and 95 percent found it simple to use. When asked if they favored RCV / IRV, 68 percent either preferred it or said it didn’t matter while 65 percent wanted it used in future elections.
When the BDR for NEMRA was submitted last session, the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) issued an opinion that RCV / IRV violated Article 5 Section 4 and Article 15 Section 14 of the Nevada Constitution. Article 5 Section 4 states that when votes are counted, the candidate with the most votes is declared the winner. Article 15 Section 14 states that a candidate may be elected with a plurality of the votes. NEMRA – 2017 and implementation of RCV / IRV does not violate these two sections.
RCV / IRV is a method of tabulating votes to determine the winner. A second run-off election is not held. According to an opinion from a former Director of the LCB, the legislature can exercise its authority and include in the bill a statement that it is their intent the process used in tabulating the votes under RCV / IRV meets the definition of a vote as stipulated in Article 5 Section 4.
RCV / IRV is a plurality voting system and therefore does not violate Article 15 Section 14. The winner of an election conducted using RCV / IRV does have a majority of the votes tabulated in the final round. However, that may, and in most cases is, a plurality of total votes cast due to ballots becoming exhausted, first and second choices eliminated. This is supported by
court decisions (
Moore v. Election Comm’rs of Cambridge, 35 N.E.2d 222, 238 (Mass. 1941), Dudum v. Arntz, 640 F.3d 1098, 1110–11 and n.18) and
electionresults. It should be noted that in most RCV / IRV elections, the candidate who received the highest number of first choice votes usually ends up as the winner.
During the hearing on SB 499, testimony against the bill centered on the perception that voters registered as Non-Partisan would be voting to select a party’s nominees. NEMRA – 2017 addresses these concerns. Political parties control the selection of their candidates for the general election. At the same time, NEMRA – 2017 accomplishes
the reforms needed to increase voter interest and participation in the election process.
