Blog

Posted on

Bipartisan Policy Center Recommendations and Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act Go Hand-In-Hand

On June 24th, following 18 months of study, the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Commission on Political Reform released its report titled “Governing in a Polarized America: A Bipartisan Blueprint to Strengthen our Democracy”. Why is this important and what does it have to do with the proposed Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA)?
First, a little about the BPC. It is a Washington, DC-based think tank dedicated to promoting bipartisanship in governing throughout the nation. It was founded in 2007 by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker (R-TN), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Bob Dole (R-KS), and George Mitchell (D-ME). It’s current Co-Chairs are Daschle; Dan Glickman, Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and U.S. Representative (D-KS); Dirk Kempthorne, Former Governor of Idaho, U.S.
Secretary of the Interior, and U.S. Senator (R-ID); Trent Lott, Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader (R-MS); and Olympia Snowe, Former U.S. Senator (R-ME).  Its 24 Commissioners are either former federal or state elected or appointed officials and leaders of non-profit political or social action groups and think tanks. Nevada can be proud that Elaine Wynn, National Chairman, Communities in Schools and current President, Nevada State Board of Education is among them.
The report examines three major areas of concern; electoral system reform, congressional reform, and increasing citizen involvement,  making specific recommendations that both state and the federal government can act upon to improve and strengthen the process of governing.
Why is this important and what does it have to do with the proposed Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act? Within the section on electoral system reform, the commission looks at primary elections and recommends states enact systems that expand participation allowing the maximum number of voters to cast ballots regardless of party affiliation. Systems put in place should be able to achieve primary election turnout of 30% by 2020 and 35% by 2026. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act should accomplish this by 2018 if implemented for the 2016 election.
The partisan divide in the U.S. goes beyond legislative bodies. It now permeates our daily lives. A poll conducted last year by BPC and USA TODAY shows Americans are self-segregating along partisan lines in their communities and jobs. In that poll, 37% of the Republicans and 34% of the Democrats indicated the people they talk to in their communities are mostly from the same political party while only 17% of Republicans and 18% of Democrats said that most of their neighborhood interactions were with individuals of a different party. On the job, 28% of Republicans and 27% of Democrats indicated the people they talk to are mostly from the same political party and only 12% of Republicans and Democrats indicated that their conversations on the job were mostly with individuals of a different party. It has gotten worse!
In a poll released by Pew Research on June 12th of this year 63% of consistent conservatives and 49% of consistent liberals say most of their close friends share their political views. Of those polled with mixed ideology, only 25% say the same. The Pew poll also showed that 50% of those on the right and 35% of those on the left also are more likely to say it is important to them to live in a place where most people share their political views.
Could political divisiveness impact who we select as a marriage partner similar to religion and race? According to the Pew Poll, “yes”.  30% of consistent conservatives and 23% of consistent liberals say they would be unhappy if an immediate family member married a member of the opposing political party.
Approval ratings for governing bodies are at an all-time low. Yet, as we see from election results, voters do not quite realize they have direct control over who is elected to represent them. The increasing divide and decreasing participation reduces the risk politicians are exposed to by not working towards consensus. By enacting election practices such as specified in NEMRA, states can reverse this trend that infects our government and our society in general. By increasing participation, the risk of not governing effectively and efficiently is increased. In politics as in mostly everything, the more risk accepted the greater the chance of failure.  Conversely, the more effective and efficient our government becomes, the benefits extend to our private lives, raising the quality of life and enjoyment of our personal interactions.
The BPC report recommends that both major political parties take strides to broaden their base of support. Other articles on this blog address how NEMRA does just that and how broadening that base benefits the party both in membership and financially. In addressing polarization, BPC further recommends the political parties try to engage a larger piece of the electorate rather than concentrating on being 100% ideologically pure. They see this resulting in a more engaged electorate. A more engaged electorate will turn out to vote. In a primary election this means those voting represent a more accurate picture of the population at large and hence, those advancing to the general election and being elected would reflect those wider views. This broader appeal increases the likelihood of election. These points are all accomplished under NEMRA.

The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Commission on Political Reform substantiates every goal of the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act. It is now up to Nevada’s legislators. Will Nevada lead the way, set the example for the rest of the country? It is up to us to make it happen

Posted on

Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act Could Benefit Party Finances

Instituting open non-partisan blanket primaries along with ranked choice / instant runoff voting in the general election, reforms that draw candidates and political parties closer to the median voter could actually help the political parties’ financial bottom line.
In an article earlier this year for Politico, Byron Tau analyzed the increasing impact of Super PAC’s on the ability of state political party organizations to raise money and hence control the candidate selection process. The two major political parties in Nevada are experiencing this trend. Review of the state, Clark County, and Washoe County Republican and Democratic Party’s contribution and expense reports available on the Secretary of State’s website bear this out. Could Super PAC’s actually help efforts to reform state and local elections?
As Tau points out, fund raising and reporting rules favoring Super PAC’s are draining state party coffers. This lack of cash diminishes the control state parties have over issues and candidate selection. Outside special interest organizations, focused on maintaining the rhetoric on national issues are dictating many an election agenda.  If allowed to continue, the Republican and Democratic parties at the state level could join the dinosaurs as extinct. How much outside influence will voters and state party leaders tolerate before they realize there is a way to fight back?    
By supporting efforts to implement open non-partisan blanket primaries and ranked choice / instant runoff voting in the general election as proposed in the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA), local political leaders can reclaim the influence they are losing to these national interests. Party members who have given up their party registration could return, new members could register, bringing their money with them. In a primary election where the top three vote getters advance to the general election as provided for in NEMRA, shouldn’t a candidate focused on local and state issues and backed by local and state interests defeat a candidate selected or endorsed by an outside special interest group? Could this have been one of the reasons Democrats did not field a viable candidate for governor or representative for the 2ndCongressional District for this year’s election? If no local party candidate showed promise, state party leaders willing to think out of the box could endorse an independent candidate sharing many of their goals and objectives. In a general election that uses ranked choice / instant run-off voting again as provided for in NEMRA, shouldn’t a candidate backed by local and state organizations defeat a national special interest group’s candidate? In my opinion, the answer to these questions is “yes”.
Many times, actions have unintended consequences or results. Perhaps the elimination of state political party organizations was one not anticipated by Super PAC’s. I’d wager that aiding the effort to reform the election process refocusing the discussion back to the majority of voters, reestablishing the importance of state and local political parties, and returning the focus back to state and local issues and solutions was definitely not considered.

Posted on

Can the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act Really Increase Voter Turnout?

Can increasing the pool of eligible voters for the primary election make a positive difference in voter turnout or are there other factors that really determine how many voters bother to cast their ballot? 
With approximately 24% of registered voters in the state ineligible to vote in any primary race but non-partisan ones; judges, school board, sheriff, and city council, the logical assumption would be “yes”. After all, along with those on the fringe of each major party who also tend to be the most vocal, those registered as non-partisan tend to be politically aware and active. Because of their limited choices, however, only about 7 – 8 % go to the polls for a primary.
Overall primary election turnout has dropped substantially since 2008. Going back to 1992, the first year turnout statistics are posted with election results on the Secretary of State’s website, primary turnout hovered close to 30%. Starting in 2008, it dropped to and remains below 20% (except for 2010).
The potential increase can be seen by looking at general election turnout. In non-presidential years, total turnout is close to 60% and over 75% in presidential years. The Secretary of State nor the Registrar of Voters for Clark or Washoe County list turnout by party for the general election so the percentage of registered non-partisans voting cannot be identified, but given the overall turnout difference between the primary and general election, I believe it is a safe assumption to say non-partisans are voting and would turnout in similar numbers for primary elections if given the opportunity. 
But we won’t know for certain unless Nevada enacts the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) because there are other factors; competitiveness of key races, contentiousness of the issues, voter frustration with the political climate, amount of voter outreach and systemic education, that enter in to a voter’s decision to vote or not. It is up to the state and political organizations to turn any negative impact of those factors into positives. NEMRA provides the opportunity.
One comment I get when speaking with legislators and others about NEMRA is “let’s see what happens in California.” This is because our neighbor to the west in 2012 became the most recent state to adopt a top-two non-partisan open blanket primary. But any state considering changes as I am proposing should not look to just one example of the process. The state of Washington has used a blanket primary since 1935. Nebraska has had a unicameral, non-partisan legislature since 1937, and Louisiana has used a top-two primary since 1975.  What does voter turnout look like in these four states?
            Washington – Average primary turnout 2004-2012; 41.19%
            Nebraska – Average primary turnout 2004-2012; 25.98%
            Louisiana – Average primary turnout 2004-2012 – 55.86%*
* Since 1997 Louisiana holds its primary in November with a run-off in December
            California – Average primary turnout 2000-2010 (before top-two); 28.74%
                                Primary turnout 2012; 31.06%
                                Projected final turnout 2014; 25%
                       
These percentages show Nevada does not need to accept drastically low primary voter turnout. Routine turnout over 30% is realistically possible using a non-partisan open blanket primary. The above states advance the top two to the general election. FairVote.org, a leading voting reform organization, believes advancing more than two will further increase turnout. I agree.  That is why under NEMRA, three would advance.
A majority of states use some form of open primary. The most common form allows unaffiliated voters to choose either the Democrat or Republican Party ballot at the polls. This system does not increase turnout to any degree. Looking at Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Minnesota, Texas, and Virginia, primary election turnout, with minor exception, ranges from below 10% to just under 30%.
A big difference between what other states have enacted and the NEMRA that should also lead to increased voter turnout is the potential for outright election of a candidate in the primary. If one candidate receives at least 50% +1 of the votes cast for a particular office, that candidate is elected to that office. That office would not be contested in the general election. Federal law prohibits this provision from being applied to elections for members of Congress. 
Participation in the political process is a cornerstone of our governmental system. Most citizens’ participation is done through voting. The more people who vote, participate in the system, the more our government, our elected officials, will truly represent the citizens of the state and act in their best interest.
As campaigns shift focus to the general election in November, now is the time for candidates, both incumbents and challengers, to openly support increased participation and commit to improving voter turnout and our electoral process. Now is the time for candidates to say “I will sponsor or co-sponsor the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act.  Now is the time for voters to let candidates know this is what they want.
Posted on

Right of Association, The Supreme Court, and the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act

Any time a major reform to the election process is proposed, a question of constitutionality is present. How does the proposed change impact on the individual’s right of association?  The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has addressed this on several occasions. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) should pass muster.
In each of the cases, the Court looked at the political party’s right of association compared to the government’s interest in regulating elections.
Three cases; Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981), Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986), and Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, 489 U.S. 214 (1989) compare the government’s attempt to regulate the internal operations of a political party. In each case SCOTUS ruled in favor of the party.
Three other cases show why the Court would look at NEMRA in a favorable light.
Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997), involved a minor party’s attempt to have the Minnesota law banning fusion tickets overturned. While the 8th Circuit Court found in favor of the party, SCOTUS reversed that decision, establishing a two-tiered balancing test for resolving conflicts between a political party’s right of association and the government’s right to regulate elections. In the opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote,
“(W)e weigh the character and magnitude of the burden the State’s rule imposes on those rights against the interests the State contends justify that burden, and consider the extent to which the State’s concerns make the burden necessary.  (Citations omitted).  Regulations imposing severe burdens on plaintiff’s rights must be narrowly tailored and advance a compelling state interest.  Lesser burdens, however, trigger less exacting review, and a State’s ‘important regulatory interests’ will usually be enough.”  Timmons, at p 358.
 In other words, the imposition on the party must be severe if not directly related to the internal operations of the party. The Court further emphasized the state interest in protecting the integrity, fairness, and efficiency of ballots and reducing election and campaign-related disorder.
California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000) started the ball rolling on creating a fair and just open primary. In this case the Supreme Court overturned California’s first attempt at a blanket primary finding that by allowing non-members of a political party select the nominees of a particular party, the first amendment right of association of the party was violated.
However, in the decision, Justice Scalia provided the remedy should the state want to resolve the constitutional issue.
            “Respondents could protect them all by resorting to a nonpartisan blanket primary. . .  This system has all the characteristics of the partisan blanket primary, save the constitutionally crucial one:  Primary voters are not choosing a party’s nominee.  Under a nonpartisan blanket primary, a State may ensure more choice, greater participation, increased ‘privacy’, and a sense of ‘fairness’ — all without severely burdening a political party’s First Amendment right of association.” 
            “Respondents’ legitimate state interests and petitioners’ First Amendment rights are not inherently incompatible.  To the extent they are in this case, the State of California has made them so by forcing political parties to associate with those who do not share their beliefs.”  Jones, at p  .
In these words, Justice Scalia gave approval to the idea of the non-partisan blanket open primary. The state is not creating a system whereby voters are selecting the nominees of a party. Rather they are selecting the number of candidates to move forward to the general election regardless of political party.
Washington State Grange v Washington,  06–713 (2008) was the first test of Justice Scalia’s remarks. Plaintiff asserted Washington State’s blanket primary was facially unconstitutional. However the Court found the system does not provide for the nomination of a political party’s candidates or force political parties to associate with or endorse candidates. The Court further found that candidates’ party-preference designations as stated on the ballot will not confuse voters. On its face, the law did not severely burden respondents’ associational rights.

The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act conforms to these previous Supreme Court decisions. The right of association of political parties granted by the first amendment is not infringed. The right of the state to hold fair elections is preserved.
Posted on

Resolving state issues could hinge on enactment of NEMRA

In addition to drastically improving the voting process in Nevada, the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) could be the key to resolving current and future thorny issues in the state.

As I have pointed out, candidates move towards and remain closer to the median voter under a primary system that is more inclusive. Along with  the open blanket primary, the use of Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff voting, where being a voter’s second choice could lead to victory, candidates must not only take this middle road during the election, but must maintain that through a willingness to engage in rational dialogue during the legislative session if they hope to be re-elected.

The willingness to engage in constructive dialog, to collaborate with the opposition, is the key to problem solving. Without this open conversation, the root cause cannot be identified. Without attacking the root cause, no problem is resolved.

It’s true, if you look back on past legislative sessions, there have been periods where committee and floor votes are unanimous or nearly unanimous. Wouldn’t it be something is that became the norm?

We have the chance to to do that. All it takes is getting a bill filed, a hearing and vote in both chambers of the legislature, and the governor’s signature. During this campaign cycle, let candidates know how important this is to you when deciding on who to cast your vote for in November. Let’s have a BDR filed by December 10th.

Posted on

Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – Phase II Kicks Off

While meetings with legislators and applicable organizations continue, it’s time to go public. Lawmakers have expressed interest but to get a bill filed it will take people letting legislators know modernization and reform of Nevada’s voting system is something they want now. 
Randi Thompson, columnist for the Reno Gazette-Journal kicked things off on Sunday, May 25th.  Articles have been published on IVN and Voices.us and a press release (below) has been sent to many media outlets. 
The task of getting these changes passed and signed into law is not easy by any stretch of the imagination. Most legislators and groups I have met with believe this is an interesting proposal worth studying. A big part of this “studying” is hearing from the voters. Working together; voters, legislators, and interest groups, we can and will be successful for the benefit of the entire state.
PRESS RELEASE
Since September of last year, meetings with state legislators, civil liberty, voting rights, and business groups, legislative caucus leaders, and election officials have taken place to determine if a proposal to modernize and reform Nevada’s election process, making it the most inclusive in the nation, could be introduced in the 2015 state legislative session. Most found it worthy of discussion. Some expressed real interest. Phase II, raising public awareness of this proposal and getting their involvement to make it happen has begun. http://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/05/25/randi-thompson-time-election-reform/9567479/
Changes to both the primary and general elections are necessary. The process is not complicated. The primary would list all candidates for each office, regardless of party affiliation or status as a non-partisan, on the same ballot. All voters, regardless of party affiliation or status as a non-partisan would get to vote. This makes sense since our tax dollars, not the political parties, pay the nearly $4 million dollars it costs for each primary. The top three finishers advance to the general election unless one of the candidates gets at least 50%+1 of the votes in which case that candidate is elected. If three or less candidates run all move to the general election. Both these events could reduce campaign costs. Analysis of voter turnout from 2008 – 2012 shows a potential for significant increase in primary election voter turnout.
The general election would be conducted using Ranked Choice voting, also known as Instant Runoff voting. This process is used in several cities with overwhelming voter acceptance. It guarantees the winner receives a true majority, at least 50%+1 of the votes cast, eliminating plurality winners. This is possible because voters would vote for both their first and second choice. If no candidate gets a majority of first choice votes, second choice votes for the top two are added in.
Studies show open blanket primaries draw candidates closer to the median voter. Having more ideas and solutions debated early in the election cycle benefits all candidates regardless of party and the electorate. 
Elected officials like to say they were elected with a mandate simply because they won. Many times though, victory was only with a plurality. Under this proposed system, the result is a true majority, at least 50% + 1 of the votes cast. A claim of a mandate is justified. There is a benefit to voters as well. Many times a voter will face an internal conflict; vote for the preferred candidate or succumb to “I don’t want to waste my vote” syndrome. This conflict is resolved by the use of a second-choice vote.
There are other advantages. Every vote matters so citizens who believe their vote has no impact can return to the polls. Because candidates are drawn closer to the median voter, political parties could regain some of the membership they have lost and continue to lose. And having the most inclusive voting system in the nation could make a difference to companies looking to bring jobs to Nevada. 
Posted on

GOP / Dems Can Regain and Grow Membership

In an era of growing voter frustration with Congress and politics in general, both the Republican and Democratic parties have been bleeding membership. The fastest growing segment in voter registration are those who declare no party affiliation. Recent polls also claim that more than 50% of registered voters consider themselves independent.

The two major parties can reverse this trend. Most people who left the parties have done so because they have, and continue to drift further to the extreme, away from the median voter. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (see Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – The Details) will bring candidates and the parties back closer the the median.

People like being part of a group, the feeling of belonging. Making the decision to leave a group can be difficult, if not traumatic. There’s no reason not to believe that if the Republican and Democratic parties returned to representing the center of their parties, those who left would feel comfortable to return and those who might not have considered registering would do  so. There is only one way to find out…enact the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act.

Posted on

Will Top Three Primary Increase Voter Turnout?

One of the claims often made about an open primary of any type is it will increase voter turnout. Depending on the type of open primary; independents identify as Democrat or Republican at the polls and vote that party’s ballot, independents register as Democrat or Republican by a set date and vote that party’s ballot, or blanket primary where all candidates are listed on the same ballot and all voters cast ballots, the results vary.

One study I link in my post “Nevada Election Modernization and Reform – The Details” states using a blanket format will increase voter turnout especially among unaffiliated voters. But what is the potential in Nevada?

The potential is huge.

Year
Primary Election Turnout / %
General Election Turnout / %
% Increase
2008
188.652 / 18.0
970,019 / 80.3
77.6
2010
320,648 / 30.1
723,515 / 64.6
53.4
2012
199,797 / 18.9
1,016,664 / 80.8
76.6

Considering unaffiliated voters have little incentive to come to the polls under the current system; not much excitement voting for judges and school board, those that do are citizens that are interested in their community. Looking at the general election turnout, imagine the excitement of a 50 – 60% primary turnout. Give unaffiliated voters a reason to show up and they will.

Posted on

Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – The Details

THIS POSTING WAS UPDATED ON NOVEMBER 13, 2014

“The devil is in the details”. That may be true in some cases. In this case, I prefer “success is in the details”. So here they are.

Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act
Problem: Partisanship is now one of the top divisive issues impacting all aspects of our lives (even more than race). It prevents legislative bodies from governing effectively and efficiently
Solution:
·         Create a more informed electorate by focusing candidate discussion on issues.
·         Open up the electoral process allowing an earlier and broader discussion of the issues through implementing an open top-three non-partisan primary system.
·         End plurality victories by implementing ranked choice voting (RCV); also known as instant run-off voting (IRV) process for the general election for all state and federal elected offices. Winner has majority mandate.
Voter Registration:
·         Between 2012 and 2014, the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan grew by 10%. Both major parties lost members
·         Currently over 20% of Nevada voters are registered as Non-Partisan; close to 30% for those between the ages of 18 – 34. With minor party registrations, 26% and 37% of voters respectively are not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party
·         The primary factor is a strong opinion that neither party represents the views of a majority of  voters
Not new / Other jurisdictions use
·         Nevada used open non-partisan primaries until 1918
·         Four states; CA, WA, LA, and NE have top-two primaries. NE is a non-partisan, unicameral state legislature. 38 states have some form of open primary
·         4 states and 12 cities use RCV / IRV.  According to the government agencies overseeing elections in these jurisdictions, voter education was key to implementation and exit poll data shows voter understanding and acceptance of RCV / IRV.  Process is endorsed by many elected officials, organizations, and publications.
·         RCV / IRV has been in existence since the late 1800’s
·         Three states; MA, MN, and NY have legislation implementing RCV / IRV pending.  Six states; MI, MN, MT, PA, RI, and WI have legislation implementing open or non-partisan primaries pending.
·         No state has implemented these two systems on a state-wide basis. Nevada would be the national leader in setting the example for the rest of the country.
Open top-three primary
·         Broadens the scope of the debate by bringing in more ideas / solutions earlier in the election cycle
·         Enhances the chances of all candidates by forcing discussion away from extreme positions  towards specific solutions, appealing to more voters and likely increasing voter turnout
·         All candidates for a partisan position; major party, minor party, independents, listed on the ballot
·         All voters regardless of party affiliation vote increasing voter turnout as available pool of voters increases by the percentage of Non-Partisan and minor party voters
·         Change will apply to non-partisan offices so there is only one system
·         Top three vote getters advance to general election using RCV / IRV
Eliminates cost of primary if 3 or less candidates. All move to the general election. If a candidate receives at least 50%+1 of the votes cast in the primary, that candidate is elected, except for Congress due to federal law and the office would not be contested in the general election again reducing the cost of the campaign. This currently happens if all candidates are from the same party. However, the “majority” received is only from a small portion of only the one party, not all voters. Same vote using a top-three primary, the majority would be of all voters. Winner has a true mandate.
·         The right of political parties to select a preferred candidate, either through party caucus, central committee action, or any other method specified in party rules is specifically upheld.
·         Re-enfranchises those voters not registered to vote as members of a major party to the primary election process.
·         Process upheld by U.S. Supreme Court in Grange v Washington. Justice Scalia recommended open, blanket, non-partisan primaries in his decision of California Democratic Party v Jones
Ranked Choice / Instant Run-off voting
·         Ensures person elected wins with a clear majority of no less than 50% + 1 of total votes cast for each particular office.
·         Further protects the “None of the Above” option and drastically reduces or eliminates the impact of perceived spoiler votes.
·         Winner can declare a rightful mandate in legislative voting decisions
·         Voters who like two candidates or who like a third-party or independent candidate but believe their vote would be wasted can vote for one candidate as second choice – a logical decision that removes confusion or perceived self-conflict
·         If no candidate receives at least 50% +1 of the total first choice votes cast, the candidate finishing third is eliminated. The second choice votes of those who voted for the eliminated candidate as first choice are counted and distributed to the appropriate candidate. After counting of second choice votes, it is possible for the candidate who finished second with first choice votes wins with at least 50% +1 of the total votes cast
Potential to:
·         Provide an atmosphere where political parties can regain lost membership. Candidates would not have to take extreme positions that conflict with their actual views to win nomination
·         Encourage voters who believe their vote has no impact to return to the polls
·         Act as a positive discriminator to businesses considering moving or establishing in Nevada. State having the most inclusive voting process in the nation would appeal to the growing number of socially conscious companies. (Discussed with CEO EDAWN and LVGEA)
Concept Endorsements:
·         Las Vegas Valley League of Women Voters
·         Randi Thompson – Reno Gazette Journal and Nevada Newsmakers columnist
·         Other endorsements pending introduction of bill
System capabilities / Registrar of Voters impact
·         The Nevada Secretary of State’s office and both the Washoe and Clark County Registrar of Voters have stated there would only be a one-time system upgrade and voter education cost. This cost should be minimal.
Academic studies support advantages
·         With minor exception, because of newness and limited use of open non-partisan blanket top-two primaries, studies do not include analysis of this system. However, results focused on use of traditional open, semi-closed, and closed primaries could be reasonably extrapolated to apply to the proposed top-three system.
·         Comments in parenthesis are mine. 
2011 University of Utah, Alvarez / Sinclair; Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: The Effects of Primary Processes – Analyzing California legislature, legislators elected under a blanket primary are more open-minded than legislators elected under a closed primary system.
2013 Cornell College, Hassell; The Non-existent Primary-Ideology Link, or Do Open Primaries Actually Limit Party Influence in Primary Elections – Political parties still maintain influence regardless of primary type. How this influence is used depends on competitiveness of the race(s); increase eligibility of voters or cater to extremism and allow for uncertainty of voter turnout.  (Under top-three primary and RCV / IRV, parties could influence choice towards a preferred candidate at the primary or first or second choice selection at the general election)
2011 UC Irvine, Robb;  The effect of instant runoff voting on democracy – The use of RCV / IRV creates a less negative campaign environment, produces higher voter turnout, and increases minority participation and representation.
2014 Public Policy Institute of CA, McGhee; Voter Turnout in Primary Elections – Top- two primary increases primary turnout especially among independent voters. (Top-three should increase turnout to a greater degree because of increased importance of vote. See separate document on primary election voter turnout for potential impact)
2010 UC San Diego, Hill; The Persuasion Region: A Theory of Electoral Change – Election outcomes change when either voters change decision points or when new voters enter the pool. The size of the electorate determines which is more prevalent. Either can force a shift towards moderation dependent on voters’ knowledge of candidates’ positions.
2003 Appalachian State University, St. Lawrence University, Cherry / Kroll; Crashing the Party: The Impact of Strategic Voting in Primaries on Election Outcomes – The potential for strategic voting is higher in the traditional open primary system; independent voters choose a party ballot at the polls, than in semi-closed or closed primaries. Closed primaries provide the lowest welfare to the electorate. (This study did not look at the top-two system due to its limited use at the time. However, as the next referenced study shows, sincere voting becomes prevalent as voters try to move government closer to the median of their views. A valid assumption would be that a top-three primary would not encourage or result in strategic voting but rather be largely voters casting sincere votes.)
2008 University of Texas at Dallas, UC Irvine, Brunell / Grofman; Testing sincere versus strategic split-ticket voting at the aggregate level: Evidence from split house–president outcomes, 1900–2004 – Sincere voting, possibly resulting in split-ticket results when voting for members of Congress and President will occur as voters try to bring government towards the median of their views. (Top-three primary and RCV / IRV are designed to encourage candidates to be closer to the views of the middle area of all voters)
2008 Columbia University, MIT, Harvard, University of Chicago, Hirano / Snyder / Ansolabehere / Hansen; Primary Competition and Partisan Polarization in the U.S. Senate – Who is elected in the general election contributes more to extreme roll call votes in the U.S. Senate than who gets the party nomination in the primary. Candidates do take extreme positions in the primary but move to more moderate positions during the general election. (While a member of Congress electoral chances can be impacted by their overall voting record, individual roll call votes most often are not considered as crucial; see Masket / Greene study below. A top-three primary, resulting in more moderate choices in the general election could contribute to reduced contentious or extreme votes in Congress)
2011 University of Denver, North Carolina State University, Masket / Greene
When One Vote Matters: The Electoral Impact of Roll Call Votes in the 2010 Congressional Elections – Study shows the impact on democrats in Congress based on their votes on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and the economic stimulus package. While most individual votes do not affect chances for re-election; overall voting record weighs more, democrats’ votes on these three pieces of legislation definitely caused election losses in 2010. (The 2010 congressional elections showed these members of Congress were not in sync with the majority of the voters in their districts. A top-three primary, resulting in a candidate closer to the views of the median voter could have impacted the votes in Congress)
2013 UC Berkeley, Ahler / Citrin / Lenz; Do  Open Primaries Help Moderate Candidates? An Experimental Test on the 2012 California Primary – While voters do tend to vote for a candidate closer to their beliefs, a lack of voter knowledge of the candidates can result in a voter choosing a candidate they believe is close to them while in reality that is not true. (This highlights the importance of voter knowledge. While a top two-primary may not adequately address this issue, a top-three primary places a greater burden on candidates to ensure voters know their positions. This supports my belief that my proposal will result in a more informed electorate)
LA Times, Mehta / Merl, April 15, 2014; Top-two primary might be bad for small-party candidates – Because of the strength of the two major parties, minor parties and unaffiliated candidates have little chance of being in the top two and advancing to the general election. (This is a logical result of the top-two primary. Under top-three, minor parties would not face the same prospect but rather a good chance of advancing in a four-candidate primary. Also, if there are three or less candidates, the minor party would advance automatically; no change to existing system except that their views would be part of the debate earlier in the process)

2006 Naval Post-Graduate School, UC Irvine, Owen / Grofman; Two-stage electoral competition in two-party contests: persistent divergence of party positions– Under the current two-stage; primary and general electoral process, the party closer to the median attitudes of the electorate has a better chance of winning. If a candidate, regardless of party meets this criterion, they also can be victorious. (The top-three primary combined with RCV /IRV will draw the contest towards the median)
2004 UC Irvine, Grofman; Downs and two-party convergence – Plurality elections produce candidates closer to the median voter in their party rather than the overall median voter. Using a more inclusive primary process tends to produce candidates closer to the overall median. (In a system where parties and / or candidates are drawn to moderation, abstention from voting can occur by extremists wishing to force a return to the extreme. Under top-three and RCV / IRV this strategy could be reduced. 

2002 UC Irvine, U.S. House of Representatives, UC Irvine, McGann / Koetzle / Grofman; How an ideologically concentrated minority can trump a dispersed majority: Non-median voter results for plurality, run-off, and sequential elimination elections – Multi-candidate elections under a run-off or sequential elimination system produce a winner between median and mode and more likely to choose the Condorcet winner. (Adopting a top-three primary and RCV / IRV general election would result in a winner more likely to be closer to the center and the one more likely to win by majority)
Posted on

Why Now?

Hyper-partisanship is taking its toll on governments at all levels, city, county, state, and federal. Voters, at least in polls, are fed up with Congress, their own elected officials, and with voting in general. Younger voters, those we call Millennials who are the future, are staying away in numbers never seen before. Casting your first vote used to be a right of passage, looked forward to with the same excitement as getting your driver’s license or having your first legal drink. Not any more. Unless we reverse this trend, our future, the future of our children, and our grandchildren may not be good.

We can’t wait. We can’t procrastinate. We must act now. Our elected leaders must act now. The surest way to accomplish change is to get agreement from those who would be assumed opposed to it. Citizen initiatives can be antagonistic and create a “us against them” environment that could result in failure. Having those affected enact the change creates buy-in, an acceptance that change is needed and will benefit all the citizens of the state.

The next session of the Nevada legislature convenes on February 2, 2015. Legislators can submit bills up to February 9, 2015. The sooner the better. The number of bills each legislator can submit it determined by which chamber, Assembly or Senate, they are a member of  and whether they are an incumbent or newly elected. That is why I started this project September, 2013.

Phase I, which is concluding now, involved meeting with key legislators and groups to gain a sense of acceptance. Would a change be possible? As a result of these meetings, I can say the answer is a qualified “yes”. Comments received ranged from basic interest; will keep an open mind, to genuine agreement.

Phase II starts now. This involves informing the public, letting legislators know there are enough people and groups who support these changes to make it worth their while to introduce the bill and give it a hearing.

Phase III will start on February 2, 2015. That will involve lobbying for passage.

The immediate challenge is to get a bill filed. This is your chance to act. Spread the word, contact legislators, let those running for office know your vote depends on their support for election modernization and reform in 2015.

Proudly powered by WordPress