Category: Opinion

By Doug Goodman, Founder & Executive Director, Nevadans for Election Reform

The candidates waged good campaigns. They appealed to the electorate and were victorious. But do they represent their constituencies? The answer to this question does not reflect on the candidates. It is a symptom of a process that prevents a majority from casting a vote for who represents them in state or local government; a clear example of voter suppression by statute. The answer is “no”.

Under current Nevada law, seven candidates won their seats outright in the primary election just held. In four of those races, the winner garnered less than six percent support from all voters in the district and less than 15 percent of their registered party voters. The other three races were only slightly higher. Approximately 55 percent of voters were prohibited from voting.

In the 2016 primary election, when the current law was first applied, there were 21 races that were won outright. In 13 of those races, 13 candidates received the support of less than 10 percent of the total district voters and less than 20 percent of their party. Since most of these races were Republican candidates in largely Republican districts on average just under 50 percent of voters could not cast ballots, however in one race it was 61 percent.

Another cause of these low numbers is that turnout for primary elections averages around 20 percent while general election turnout is between 65 and 85 percent dependent on whether it is a presidential election year. With fewer voters participating, mandating that a final decision is made as a result of the primary, flies in the face of representative democracy.

How could this happen and why did the legislature allow it to continue after voter suppression became clear?

Nevada has closed partisan primary elections. This mean that only members of the Democratic and Republican Party get to vote for partisan offices in their respective parties’ primary. Prior to 2016 this was not a problem because if only one party had candidates, no minor party or independent candidate filed for a particular office, all voters in the general election got to cast their vote for their preferred candidate from that party between the top two candidates from that party’s primary. The 2015 Nevada legislature changed the law so that if only one party has candidates for a particular office and no minor party or independent candidate has filed, the winner of the party’s primary goes to the general election unopposed. Voters from any other political party or voters registered as Non-Partisan have no choice, no voice in who their representative is. Currently this covers almost 30 percent of voters state-wide and close to 40 percent of voters between the ages of 18 to 34.

During the 2017 legislative session, a bill sponsored by a Republican and co-sponsored by three Democratic Assembly members, was filed to reverse this grievous mistake. The bill was voted out of committee on a vote of 9 -2 with two Democratic Assembly members voting “no”. The bill was then pulled from the floor by the Speaker and Assembly Majority Leader, both Democratic lawmakers, denying the full assembly the chance to vote on the bill. The bill died, leaving the voter suppression measure in place. Only two words describe this event, “voter suppression.”

There will most likely be another attempt to right this wrong during the 2019 state legislative session. However, it strongly appears the same leadership will be in control so the chances of passage or a repeat of 2017 are unknown.

There is another way, through the ballot box.

All voters must have a clear choice in all elections and must know their voice will be heard. Nevadans for Election Reform has taken aim at this goal by filing the Greater Choice – Greater Voice initiative with the secretary of state. Signatures are currently being collected to qualify for the 2020 ballot. If passed by the voters, the low turnout primary elections will no longer be held. Voters will go to the polls only in November and have a choice of all candidates. Additionally, voters will be able to cast a vote for their first, second, and third choice, similar to making the many choices we make every day. No more having to “settle” or be concerned about wasting your vote. Taxpayers will also save between $3 – 4 million; the state’s Legislative Counsel Bureau Financial Analysis Division just release the required analysis of the initiative and found if the proposed process had been in place for the 2016 election, taxpayers would have saved $6 million.

Voter suppression, denying voters the opportunity to cast a vote for their representatives must not be tolerated. Those responsible must be held accountable. If they refuse to fix it, the voters must act.

The candidates for all federal state, and local offices up for election this year have filed to run. The number of candidates for any particular office range from one to 23 (CD 3). Click here for the full list. Of course, all voters will not have a voice in who their choices are in the general election and due to a change made by the 2015 state legislature, over 50 percent of voters will not have any say, even in the general election, in who represents them in six races.

Because primary election participation averages less than 20 percent, approximately seven percent of all voters will decide who the rest of the voters get to choose from in the general election and in the six races mentioned above, decide the winner.

Having our choices made by others then having to “settle” is the nature of not only our current electoral process but our current political environment. Yes, eligible registered voters should actually vote. Yes, a voter could register to vote in either the Republican or Democratic Party to be eligible to vote in the primary. But the partisan divisiveness and intra-party bickering has driven voters away from not only the parties but from participation. This is the problem. Party membership is not growing. Nearly 30 percent of active registered voters in Nevada are not registered to vote in either the Republican or Democratic Party. Over 20 percent are registered as Non-Partisan. This percentage increases every month. The numbers are 10 percent higher among those 18 to 34 years of age and the growth is occurring not only state-wide but individually in Clark County, Washoe County, the rural counties, among 18 to 34-year olds, among those 55 and over, and in most congressional, state senate, and state assembly districts.

Because of the dwindling number of voters participating in the nomination process, those making the decision for all voters are usually the small, highly partisan, and most vocal party loyalists. Campaigns are largely attack ads and candidates are rewarded with nomination for remaining steadfast in party dogma and holding to an inflexible position, not willing to collaborate and reach consensus with those holding different opinions. Often this position carries over to legislating, maintaining an environment where solutions remain elusive.

During the general election campaign, there may be an attempt to discuss issues and solutions because candidates must appeal to a wider array of voters (this should be the norm not the exception), however, negativity overshadows genuine discussion of the issues as there is no reason to show a willingness to reach consensus with the “other side”. What if this wasn’t the way it needed to be?

What would this election look like if it was conducted according to the Greater Choice – Greater Voice initiative? Imagine:

• Having to vote only once in the general election
• Having a choice among all candidates
• Not having to settle but actually vote your conscience, vote for the candidate you truly prefer without being considered a “spoiler” vote
• Voting not only for your first choice, but your second and third, knowing your vote will still count if your first choice is eliminated, just as we make many choices on any given day
• Candidates debating the issues and possible solutions rather than just attacking their opponent
• Elected officials having to collaborate, work together to reach consensus and solve problems rather than being rewarded for maintaining the hyper-partisan divisiveness
• The state saving $3 – $4 million each election cycle
• All this while maintaining political parties’ first amendment right of association

Think of the election results if all voters could choose their top three candidates in each race from all; 17 running for governor, 15 running for U.S. Senate, 23 running to represent Congressional District 3. What about the state legislature races where there are three, four, five, or six candidates or the local races with similar numbers? Imagine all voters having a real choice.

With all candidates vying for all votes, a real discussion of the issues would have to take place. Those serious but lesser known candidates would have a greater chance of being heard. No candidate would be marginalized unless they chose to be.

When discussion of the issues is limited to those candidates who, because of existing name recognition, get media attention, ideas and potential solutions from other candidates are only disseminated by the individual campaigns to the extent possible, rarely making it into the main discussion. By opening the entire election process to all voters, all serious candidates have a chance to be heard. Many of these lesser-known candidates are concerned with the direction of government and the lack of real problem-solving. They are concerned with the direction their political party is headed. Some are first-time candidates who have the passion to make a difference and have decided the best way to do that is to run for office. Yet because of the process, their voices are not heard. We have no idea what we are missing. Is a front-runner also missing an idea they had never considered but which may appeal to them?

Take another look at the list of candidates. Answer the following questions:

• Without thinking of their chances to win the primary, which candidate is my favorite?
• Will I vote for this candidate even if they do not have any chance of winning?
• If you answered “yes” to the above question, do you consider your vote to be a spoiler?
• If you answered “no” to the above question, why not?
• If you answered “no” would you have ranked that candidate as your first choice and other candidates second and third choice if that was allowed?
• Would you be upset if your vote went to your second choice if your first choice was eliminated?
• Do you think being able to rank candidates; ranking three from all candidates, gives you a greater voice in the election?

Another school shooting, more “thoughts and prayers”. These words are followed by more rhetoric, dogmatic talking points, and the same recommended “solutions”.

Violence in our schools and neighborhoods is not the only issue suffering from this type of tired response. Immigration, taxes, medical care, affordable housing, transportation and infrastructure, are just a few more. Partisan rhetoric, the same talking points, and the same “solutions” are presented. Since the current election process rewards maintaining divisiveness, there are not real conversations on “solutions”.

But are the “solutions” being presented, dogmatic and repetitive as they are, really solutions to the problem? No, they are merely band-aids addressing symptoms. Even if discussion takes place and remedies implemented, the issues never seem to go away, the remedies don’t last, and the problem “keeps on giving”.

Why is this? The answer is simple; root cause. Find and solve the root cause, the problem should not return.

If it’s simple why aren’t legislators doing this? Most likely they are not aware of the term or its meaning. It could be a lawyer’s mindset, win the case and move on to the next one. It could be finding the root cause is too difficult and takes too much time. These are excuses. Yes, identifying the root cause is not easy and it does take time and commitment. But, if done properly, problems are actually solved.

The current political environment is not conducive to finding and addressing root cause. Our current election process rewards politicians for maintaining the divisiveness, for being dogmatic, and not willing to respectfully discuss all sides of an issue.

Ranked choice voting and the Greater Choice – Greater Voice initiative proposed by Nevadans for Election Reform encourages elected officials to work together, to collaborate, to reach consensus. Once people start talking, the idea of identifying and solving the root cause can enter the conversation. Imagine the time and energy saved if a problem is truly solved, never having to be revisited.

Regardless of the issue, nothing will happen if those responsible for finding the solution are not willing to talk. Changing the process to encourage positive dialog is the first step that that will allow all others to be taken. Once dialog begins, the root cause can be identified. Real solutions not band-aids to symptoms can become the rule not the very rare exception.

We hear it all the time; elected officials must compromise to solve our problems. I don’t agree. Compromise will not address the hyper-partisan division gripping our society and preventing governments at all levels from actually governing. In fact, compromise could create even more resentment. What is needed is COLLABORATION.

Wait, aren’t they the same thing? Not even close. Let’s look at their definitions:

• “Compromise: an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.”
• “Collaborate: work jointly on an activity, especially to produce or create something.”

Please read those carefully. When compromising, each party is required to make concessions, give something up. However, when collaborating, participants are working together to create something.

Issues resolved by collaborating, all sides working together to reach a solution will most likely have greater support, greater buy-in, have a better success rate, and be long-lasting. Conversely, if any side has to make concessions, give in or give something up, the solution will probably be only reluctantly supported, in jeopardy of failing, and create resentment which could carry over to the next need to resolve a problem.

I first became aware of the difference during the 2011 special election for Nevada’s second congressional district. The race was between Republican Mark Amodei, Democratic Party candidate Kate Marshall, and Non-Partisan candidate Helm Lehmann. It was Helm who explained why he never used the word “compromise” but instead used “collaboration”. I have not used “compromise” since.

Our politics are in shambles. Government at all levels has stopped working. Even worse, our society has become almost tribal with political views determining who our friends are, how we treat co-workers, even who we sit next to in church. Our economy has improved, but it could be much better if our governments could actually govern. Business and the economy thrive when business can plan. That’s missing. Social issues are at a boiling point because those responsible to devise and implement solutions won’t talk to one another. Solutions reached as a result of collaboration are needed. If opposing sides only compromise, the issues we face will most likely resurface in the future and when they do, will be more difficult to resolve because one side gave up more than they believe they should have the first time – resentment.

The question we must address is how do we create an environment where collaboration can begin and flourish? We do this by electing leaders who put their constituents over political party and special interests. However, this cannot happen under our current election process. Closed partisan primary elections, where an average of less than 20 percent of either Democratic or Republican Party voters cast ballots for their party’s nominees, produce general election candidates indebted to a narrow party base and special interests. In the general election, minor party and independent candidates are marginalized, and all voters are usually left with choosing the lesser of two evils.

Nevadans for Election Reform has begun the effort to change this, to create a process where candidates must reach out to all voters from the start of the campaign. All voters will have a real choice, a true voice in who represents them. Once elected, the process will require officials to put constituents above party and special interest. Collaboration not only will be encouraged, it will be necessary.  You can read about the Greater Choice – Greater Voice initiative here.

We need to change the mindset. We need to stop saying “compromise” and start saying “collaborate”. When someone mentions the need to compromise, it is up to us to change the conversation to collaboration. People must understand the difference.

We, the voters of Nevada, are in charge. We can make this change happen. We can ensure it is our voices our legislators listen to not those of special interests. We are the ones that will ensure we have a greater choice and greater voice.

If you agree and want to help, please consider donating or volunteering here.

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval has vetoed the legislature’s party line passage of IP-1. This initiative would have replaced the state’s current opt-in system of voter registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) with an opt-out automatic voter registration process. The measure will now be decided by the voters in the November, 2018 general election.

In response to the veto, Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson was quoted in the Nevada Independent;
“Nevadans agree that we need to have a voting system that protects the fundamental right of every eligible voter— Democrat, Republican, non-partisan or otherwise. Voting is a right, not a privilege and we should make it easy for Nevadans to hold their own government accountable.  While I’m disappointed by the governor’s decision to veto IP1, I look forward to the people having the final say in 2018.”

Does the Speaker’s statement imply support for SB 103? In a top-two open primary election the right of every voter, regardless of party affiliation, to participate in publicly funded elections is protected. In a top-two open primary election the right of every candidate to face the voters in all phases of the election process is protected. With full participation as provided for in a top-two open primary, the opportunity for Nevadans to hold their elected officials accountable is maximized.

“..a voting system that protects the fundamental right of every eligible voter— Democrat, Republican, non-partisan or otherwise.”

“Voting is a right, not a privilege..”

“..make it easy for Nevadans to hold their own government accountable.”

In their Nevada Blueprint for the current session of the legislature, the Democratic Caucus is clearly focused on voting rights. “We also need to protect our heritage. That means preserving Nevada’s natural environment, protecting our constitutional rights, and making it easier for our citizens to participate in the democratic process.”