Category: Polls, Studies, and More

Research and polling on partisanship and election reform

Posted on

Another Year and the Partisan Divide Keeps Growing

As we start a new year and a new presidency, Pew Research once again takes a look at the partisan division in this country. The January, 2017 poll does not bode well. I last posted about this last January.

 

With the inauguration of President Trump just completed and what may have been the most negative campaign cycle in recent memory behind us, optimism leads to the thought that perhaps the partisan divide could narrow. If the Pew report is any indication, the reverse is more likely.

 

Going into 2017, 86 percent of those polled say the country is more politically divided. Pew Research has been tracking the partisan divide since 2004 and this is the highest result ever recorded. Even more ominous is the fact that 71 percent think this division will either remain the same or get worse (40 percent remain the same, 31 percent get worse).

 

What about the chances lawmakers will come together and reach agreement? Republicans are more optimistic with 50 percent believing they will not work with the other party. Conversely, among Democratic Party members, 72 percent say that animosity and refusal to come together will continue.

 

For government at all levels to function, this environment cannot exist. Respectful disagreement and discussion of the issues is paramount if collaboration and cooperation are to flourish. Only then will issues be positively addressed.

 

The Nevada legislature has the opportunity to become the first state legislature to implement a process that could lead to lessening the partisan divide. Normally changes that are required are the result of voter initiatives. A bill draft request (BDR) has been submitted by Senator James Settelmeyer (R-Minden) that would put in place a system that has shown to focus campaigns and the act of legislating on the issues rather than on the next election. (Talk of who will run in 2018 and 2020 are already filling the media) The system contained in this BDR forces candidates and elected officials to focus on all voters rather than just their political party’s so-called base. It addresses head on the voter registration dynamics that show the major political parties losing voter share while registrations as Non-Partisan and to minor political parties increase.

 

 

The Nevada legislature convenes in two weeks, February 6, 2017. Let Nevada take the lead in taking the first step to narrow the partisan divide so that future polls show a different result. 

Posted on

Media Continues to Feed Partisan Divide and Campaign Negativity

The electors of the Electoral College will meet in their respective states in one week and cast the votes that will elect Donald Trump the 45th President of the United States. Throughout the campaign season, many questioned the role of the media, both mainstream and online, in making what was envisioned as nearly impossible a reality.  
The campaigns of 2016 were mostly negative, not only at the national level but at the state and local level as well. It is no secret our political environment is deeply divided. Do media play a role in maintaining, or even increasing this divide?  Do journalists strive for negativity over substance?
I first wrote about this subject in March, 2015 in an article “Does The Media Purposely Fan The Flames Of Political Divisiveness?” Now the Harvard Kennedy School, Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy has released a four-part study analyzing media’s coverage of the 2016 presidential election. While both positive and negative coverage is reviewed, the amount of and reason behind negative stories is revealing.  Also revealing is how media culture and its control over our decisions have changed over the years.
The studyis worth the time it takes to read; the cover page gives a good summary. It takes an in-depth look at the pre-primary period; how media impacted the rise of Donald Trump, the interest in Bernie Sanders, and the negative view of Hillary Clinton.  This is followed by analyses of the race to the nomination, the convention month, and finally the November election.
In each segment, the author provides data on not only how and why negative stories overwhelmingly outnumbered positive but also why media focuses on negative reporting (bottom line, it sells). The study traces the history of this attention to negativity, explaining its roots in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Not surprising, the study finds this emphasis on the negative by media is not restricted to politics but cuts across all areas of our lives.
Given the reason(s) behind the trend of negative reporting, the power it gives journalists, reporters, and commentators over our decisions, and the decades it has been allowed to thrive, it is unlikely change will happen fast. The first step in getting media to return to its original purpose of informing the public and providing unbiased facts is for voters to stop “buying” the negativity and start demanding substantive information on which they can base their decisions.
Using Ranked Choice / Instant Run-off voting (RCV / IRV) as outlined in the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) has shown to reduce negative campaigning and return civilityto our electoral and governing processes.   In just eight weeks, on February 6, 2017, the Nevada legislature can begin the process to end negative politics in Nevada by enacting NEMRA – 2017.   

Posted on

State Legislatures Know The Process Is Broken And Are Taking Action

What do these states have in common? At first glance, the answer of “nothing” would be understandable. However, the correct answer is something very significant.
In 2016, the state legislatures in these 13 states along with the District of Columbia, considered legislation dealing with the use of Ranked Choice / Instant Run-off voting (RCV / IRV). This does not include the approval of ballot initiatives in Maine and Benton County, Oregon.
RCV / IRV is not the only election reform legislation considered by state legislatures in 2016. Automatic voter registration (AVR) was approved by the state legislatures in California, Connecticut, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia. Voters in Alaska also approved a ballot initiative implementing AVR. Legislatures in 26 other states also did or are considering legislation to implement AVR.
In 16 states, legislatures are also debating the merits of a top-two non-partisan open primary either through direct legislation or by establishing studies or exploratory committees.
Voters believe our election systems are broken. More importantly, state legislators share this belief and are taking action to reverse the partisan divisiveness gripping our country, our states, our counties, and our cities. This divisiveness not only hinders effective governance but our economic well-being as well. Nevada is not currently on any of these lists though the legislature in 2015 briefly considered a bill to change the primary election process.
That can change in ten weeks when the Nevada legislature convenes on February 6, 2017. By filing a bill draft request (BDR) and passing the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017), Nevada can not only join the list of state legislatures addressing the issue but can be one of the first to pass and implement election reform legislation. (Other states have implemented reforms as the result of ballot initiative)
States Considering RCV / IRV
AZ       ME     
CA      MN
GA      NJ
HI        NY
IN        RI
MA      VT
MD      DC
States Considering AVR
AL       LA       OH
AR      MD      PA
AZ       MI       SC
FL       MN      TN
GA      MO      TX
HI        NJ        VA
IL        NM      WA
IN        NY      WI
IA        NC
States Considering Top-Two
AZ       MN
AK      MS
FL       NM
ID        NY
IL        OK
MA      OR
MD      SD
ME      VA

Posted on

Role of Non-Partisan Voters as Nevada Legislature Returns to Blue

Just under 70 percent of Nevada voters cast ballots for state senator or assemblyperson either through in-person early voting, absentee or mail-in ballots or on election day.  Since overall turnout was approximately76 percent, this means six percent did not vote for their representatives in the state legislature.
Data currently available from the secretary of state’s office does not yet include Election Day votes broken down by party. What is known from the data available is Democratic voters made up 42 percent of that total votes cast, Republicans 36 percent, and Non-Partisan and minor party 22 percent. Turnout in Clark County was below the average at 75 percent while Washoe County and the rural counties were above at 79 and 78 respectively.
The data also shows that 56 percent of Democratic voters, 57 percent of Republican voters, and 48 percent of Non-Partisan and minor party voters cast ballots prior to election day. Breaking out that data by county shows Democratic voters turned out an average of 8 percent less than registration, Republicans 16 percent lower, and Non-Partisan and minor party 11 percent less.  
At the close of registrationfor the general election, Non-Partisans accounted for 21 percent of active registered voters with members of minor parties accounting for another 6.5 percent.  In Clark County Non-Partisan and minor parties accounted for 22 percent and six percent, in Washoe County 20 percent and seven percent, and rural counties 17 and seven percent.
The tables linked here show just how important these voters were to the outcome. Even in races where the majority party easily won the seat, Non-partisan and minor party voters were instrumental.  In several races, they were the deciding factor.
In the state senate, 11 seats were up for election. In the state assembly, all 42 seats were up. All major party candidates received a percentage of the vote higher than the party’s registration in their respective district. The higher the difference, the more Non-Partisan, minor party, and cross-over votes were received. In most races, these votes either increased or decreased the margin of victory. However, in Senate Districts 5 and 6, they determined the winner; the difference between the majority party maintaining or losing the seat. A similar impact can be seen in Assembly Districts 5 and 29. In Assembly Districts 4, 31, and 37 Non-Partisan and minor party voters were responsible for the majority party in the district losing the seat.
On the national level, independent voters made Donald Trump president. National turnout is said to have hit a 20-year low at 55 percent. Independent voters accounted for 31 percent. Of that percentage, exit polls show 48 percent voted for Donald Trump, 42 percent backed Hillary Clinton and 10 percent another or no candidate.

As the number of Non-Partisan voters continues to grow, candidates will have to reach out to those voters. This is the political reality. Enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) would provide a mechanism to embrace this changing political environment. 
Posted on

One of the Leading Methods for Positive Structural Election Reform; NEMRA 2017

A single election in November using Ranked Choice / Instant Run-off Voting (RCV / IRV) is among the top methods to create lasting structural election reform. That is the finding of a study conducted by 14 leading political science and election law scholars. The study, released in January, 2016 was done in coordination with FairVote.org. The full study can be read here.
The focus of the study was what structural changes to current election methods would provide the most positive long-term benefits. It looked at both changes to primary and general elections.   
The top structural reforms all involved the use of RCV / IRV in the general election. Changes to the primary election, such as a Top-Two open non-partisan primary currently in use in California, Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana, were judged not to be as effective because they have not shown impact / change to the choices offered in the general election. Changes to primary election structure were also not considered as effective when compared to structural changes in general election processes due to lower turnout and domination of partisan voters in primary elections. When evaluating each structural change, the panel looked at:
·         Legislative Functionality: Evidence-based, long-term policymaking; majoritarian policymaking; independence of legislators from party leadership
·         Electoral Accountability: Voter ability to flip partisan control of chamber; incumbent turnover; responsiveness of outcomes to electoral shifts
·         Voter Engagement: Increase in voters experiencing competitive elections; general election turnout; primary election turnout; year-round citizen engagement with officials; to what degree elections inform voters
·         Openness of Process: Influence of unaffiliated voters; influence of independent and minor-party candidates; breadth of opinion represented in elected office; representation of women; representation of racial minorities
Structural change to an institutional process such as elections is rarely easy.  It becomes easy when the need for change is known. When the details of the change are provided to those responsible for making and implementing the change, it becomes a matter of will.
Voter registration trends, negative campaigns, highly partisan legislative sessions, and outrage to the single party primary change made during the last Nevada legislative session attest to the need for structural election reform. The Nevada Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee took the first steps towards implementing change in 2015 by filing Bill Draft Request (BDR) 1149 and giving a hearing to SB 499. The Nevada legislature can finish the job started in 2015 by introducing and passing the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) during the session that begins in three months.

Posted on

2016 – Have We Reached the Pinnacle of Negativity?

Campaign Season 2016 backs up recent studies that show partisanship is the most divisive issue facing our nation and that civility has all but disappeared from our political process.  Unless something is done to reverse this trend, could we reach the point where the ability to govern ceases?
According to a Pew Research study released October 18, 2016, elected officials are viewed as least likely to act in the public’s best interest.  A clear majority, 54 percent have “not too much confidence” while another 19 percent express “no confidence”. Only three percent express a “great deal of confidence” that elected officials act in the public’s best interest.  
The impact of negativity on legislating becomes critical when looking at the recent history of divided government; one party has the presidency and the other party controls at least one chamber of Congress, and voters support or opposition for single party control.  It is also important when one party controls both the executive and legislative branches of government, minimizing or shutting out the views and input of the minority party.
It is up to candidates and elected officials to set the tone and climate of the campaigns and legislative sessions. However in recent years, the level of partisanship expressed by the vocal minority of voters (the so-called party base) makes collaboration difficult for out of fear of upsetting the base..losing the next primary election.  It is often difficult for rational, respectful dialog and debate to take place.
It does not have to be this way. Civility, the willingness to listen to opposing views, and then collaborate on solutions can be returned to our political process. Elected officials can rise from the bottom and regain the trust of all Americans. The use of Ranked Choice / Instant Run-off Voting (RCV / IRV) has shown to be the way.
In 2015, Fairvote.org released a two-year study, The Civility Project, which looked at the impact of RCV / IRV on the tone of campaigns. It also looked at voter understanding of the process. Overall, the study found campaigns were less negative according to both voters and candidates. Voters had no problem understanding the process and expressed support for it over previously used systems. Civility during the campaign should translate to more collaboration and civility when legislating.
All elections are “local”. How a state elects its representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives down to how members of a city council are elected is determined by the states. In Nevada, the legislature can take a step towards restoring civility to the campaign and legislative process by enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) during the session that begins in less than four months.

Posted on

Broken Political System Biggest Cause of Negative Economic Progress and Competitiveness

Jobs and the economy are often the top concerns mentioned by voters. Now the state of our political process is being listed as the major contributor to what many see as a sluggish recovery where the middle class is being left behind.
The biggest obstacle to U.S. economic progress and competitiveness is our broken, highly partisan, political system. This is the opinion of a Harvard Business School report published last month (September, 2016).
According to the authors of the report“PROBLEMS UNSOLVED AND A NATION DIVIDED; The State of U.S. Competitiveness 2016 Including findings from Harvard Business School’s 2016 surveys on U.S. competitiveness” “..we believe that our political system is now the major obstacle to progress on the economy..” and “..that dysfunction in America’s political system is now the single most important challenge to U.S. economic progress.”
Before writing specifically about the political dysfunction, the authors cover an overview of economic competitiveness, U.S. economic performance, the business environment, the need for a national economic strategy, and tax reform.  However, there is a constant theme throughout the report. All the issues addressed require a political environment that allows for collaboration, a clear discussion of opposing points of view, and agreement on public and private actions required.
The report also mentions the findings of Pew Research, findings that I have also reported and mentioned several times, that partisanship is the most divisive issue facing this country. It also lists election reforms that could be implemented to return the political process to the point where solutions could be achieved.
If our country, our states, our counties, and our cities are to make economic progress and be competitive, our political and governing mechanisms must facilitate the implementation of programs addressing the various elements of a vibrant economic system. Civility must be a cornerstone. The willingness to actively listen to all points of view, to collaborate on solutions to the root causes must be allowed to flourish.  
During the 2015 Nevada legislative session, the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee introduced legislation to change the political climate in Nevada. The bill as introduced varied from the Bill Draft Request (BDR) and following a hearing, the bill language was stripped and the bill used for another purpose.
In 2017, legislators can take off where the  2015 session left off by filing a BDR then enacting  the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017).

Jobs and the economy are often the top concerns mentioned by voters. The creation of jobs is a key argument as the Nevada legislature considers a tax increase to build a football stadium, as I write this article. Perhaps the Nevada legislature should take the findings of the Harvard Business School seriously. The key to fixing Nevada’s economy could be easier than originally thought.
Posted on

Race for Washoe County School Board District C – Another Justification for NEMRA – 2017

The race for Washoe County School District Board of Trustees District C trustee has become a textbook example of why the 2017 session of the Nevada legislature needs to enact the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – 2017 (NEMRA – 2017).
Because the incumbent resigned before completing one-half their term and after the filing deadline for the primary election, the new school board trustee could be elected with the support of less than 15 percent of the registered voters in the district. Perhaps 80 percent of those who did vote will have voted for someone else. Mandate? Not even close.
 As of July 14, 2016, there were 47,552 registered voters in District C. Since this race is non-partisan, party registration does not matter. Average voter turnout for school board trustee elections in presidential election years (1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012) is 67.9 percent. Using current registration, this means 32,288 voters can be expected to cast ballots for District C school board trustee. With a relatively strong turnout why such low support for the winner and such a strong justification for NEMRA – 2017?
Five candidates, no runoff of the top two vote getters as the case with the other four school board races that were contested in the primary, and 32,288 votes split five ways.  With less than 6,500 votes needed for election, the new trustee will not have the support of a significant majority of voters.
Under NERMA – 2017 this would be different. Regardless of the number of candidates, the winner would have the support of a much larger segment of the district. With a large plurality, if not majority of support, the newly elected trustee would take their seat knowing they truly represent the district and voters would be confident their representative on the school board represents their interests.
By utilizing a system where the primary and general election are rolled into one, where voters only have to go to the polls once, voter turnout is maximized and those elected have a much larger base of support.
Allowing government officials to be elected with low levels of support can make governing, the setting of policy, difficult. Can an elected official make the right decision knowing they are speaking for only a small portion of their constituents? Can voters have confidence in the decisions of their representative when a significant number did not support their election? It’s unlikely. And an election system that fosters such an outcome needs to be seriously re-evaluated and eventually replaced.
The race for Washoe County School District Board of Trustees District C will be the 22ndelection contest this year where the winner is decided by a small minority of voters, perhaps less than 15 percent.

Nevada’s lawmakers can make 2016 the last year where outcomes such as this are possible by passing the NEMRA – 2017 during the legislative session beginning in February.  
Posted on

Partisanship Has Reached A New Level And It’s Not Good

A Pew Research Center study released June 22, 2016, “Partisanship and Political Animosity in 2016” needs to be taken very seriously by all who are concerned with our future. Unless this trend can be reversed, the political landscape will not be pleasant. Will the ability of lawmakers at all levels of government to effectively legislate come to a complete halt?

For the first time in almost 25 years, a majority of party members view the other party very unfavorably. With 70% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans who are politically active saying they fear the other party, how can the necessary dialog and collaboration take place? Answer, it can’t.
A summary of the study can be read here, the full report here. Some highlights:
·         With minor exception results are over 50 percent and in some cases close to two-thirds or three-quarters negative towards the other party and positive towards one’s own party
  •         Those who identify as Democratic are more partisan than Republicans
  •          Party membership is based on fear of the other party’s policies
  •          Those more active are more partisan
  •          Political discussion with the opposite side is stressful
  •          Political views are an indicator of a person’s character
  •          Words such as lazy, immoral, and closed minded describe the other party
  •          Words such as hard working, moral, and open minded describe my party
  •          Political views determine personal relationships
  •          The other party has no good ideas
  •          No compromise if my side doesn’t get more (this is why I prefer the idea of collaboration)

 I have highlighted the extent to which partisanship is impacting our political system in other articles on this blog. This trend is not new. However, as this most recent study finds, the problem is getting worse and shows no signs of getting better.

This is not how it has to be. It will take political will and determination to implement systems that have the potential to reduce the partisanship to a level where the needs and interests of the general constituency can be met. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) is such a system. Will the legislators of the 2017 Nevada state legislative session have the political will and determination to act?

Posted on

Making Low Voter Turnout Primary Elections A Thing Of The Past

Fact: Most voters do not vote in primary elections. In Nevada the average turnout for a primary election is approximately 20 percent. Conversely, turnout for general elections in November averages 60 percent in non-presidential election years and 75 percent in presidential election years.
Fact: Voter turnout rates can be at the general election level for all elections. Voters participate in greater numbers in November for several reasons:
  •         We are conditioned to equate elections with November
  •         General elections are perceived as more competitive
  •         Voters consider their votes more important in November
  •         Candidates and issues are more visible leading up to the November election
  •         Voter interest is higher for the general election
  •          Ballot initiatives and referendum normally appear on the general election ballot

 

 Capitalizing on the elements that produce greater voter participation, exploiting them to the advantage of candidates, political parties, and most importantly to voters, will produce elections that result in elected officials who represent the views of a wider range of their constituents. This in turn will lead to more collaborative legislating at all levels of government.
The path to reach this point is detailed in the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017).  NEMRA – 2017 will achieve general election turnout while:
  •          Increasing voter interest and information
  •          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
  •          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 
  •          Saving tax payers $3 – 4 million per election cycle. 

 

NEMRA – 2017 benefits candidates and political parties by:
  •          Encouraging them to reach out to more voters sooner in the election cycle
  •          Allowing them to better utilize resources
  •          Creating a climate where voters who have left the party are enticed to return

 

 The process is simple. Instead of two elections, a low turnout primary and a higher turnout general election, a single election is held in November using a system called Ranked Choice or Instant Run-off Voting (RCV / IRV). As with any general election, all candidates are listed on the ballot and all voters cast their vote.
Run-off elections are typically a second election between two candidates held on a different day than the general election if no candidate received a majority of the votes in the general election. RCV / IRV is a run-off election built in to the general election. It is a method used to count the votes of the general election if no candidate receives a majority of the votes. Voters do not return to the polls on a different day.
RCV / IRV is currently used mostly in cities. Bills are pending in 13 states to either study or implement RCV / IRV. Voters in Maine will decide this November whether to implement RCV / IRV for all state elections. Many private organizations to include some political parties use RCV / IRV. The Oscars of awarded using RCV / IRV. In places where it is used, voted acceptance and understanding is rated at over 85 percent.
Political parties, as private organizations, have the right to determine the number of candidates on the ballot under their party label. NEMRA – 2017 does not change this except for prohibiting the use of public funds for such purpose. Under NEMRA – 2017 party options range from allowing an unlimited number of candidates to selecting specific nominees through a caucus or other election.  They may also choose to simply endorse one candidate. Political parties’ right of association is not compromised or violated.
RCV / IRV is simple. Voters mark their ballots for their first choice as they currently do. However, under RCV / IRV, voters also select a second choice, but only if there are more than twice the number of candidates to be elected. Normally this is two. If no candidate receives more 50 percent of first-choice votes, the candidate with the lowest number of first-choice votes is eliminated and the second choice votes of those voters who selected the eliminated candidate as their first choice are awarded to the appropriate remaining candidate. This is the run-off . If there are three candidates this tabulation will happen once as one candidate will end up with a majority. If there are four candidates, there could be a second round of tabulation if no candidate has 50 percent plus one after the first round. Under NEMRA – 2017, if there are more than four candidates, only the top four will advance to the instant run-off tabulation.
Positive results:
  •          Maximum voter interest and participation
  •          Winning candidates with a true mandate
  •          Potentially more in-depth discussion of the issues
  •          Political parties appeal  to a broader base
  •          Tax savings

 

Negative results:
  •          Campaign donors may be more selective (this may or may not be a negative depending on one’s point of view)
  •          May result in a longer ballot if more people decide to run

 

What it takes to implement:
  •          Legislator submits bill draft request (BDR)
  •          Bill is drafted and introduced
  •          Bill is giving committee hearing and passed by both chambers
  •          Governor signs

 

 Nevada can continue to struggle with low turnout primary elections. Candidates can struggle with having to shift their views between the primary and general election. The major political parties can continue to deal with declining membership. Or, Nevada can reverse these trends and move forward adopting a system that serves the best interest of the state, the voters, elected officials, and the political parties.
Proudly powered by WordPress