Category: Polls, Studies, and More

Research and polling on partisanship and election reform

Posted on

Majority Of Voters Have No Say In Who Represents Them In Carson City

The primary election is finished and we’re headed to what should be a heated general election campaign. Given we are choosing a president, a replacement for U.S. Senator Harry Reid, and deciding to require background checks for firearm purchases and legalize marijuana, turnout for the general election should have no problem reaching the presidential year average 75 percent. The turnout for the just completed primary election was 18.51 percent or four times less. 
The purpose of the general election is for all voters to have a chance to select who will represent them in the Nevada legislature as well as the U.S. Congress, and local government. Depending on the number of candidates running for a particular office, the winner can be elected with less than a majority of the votes cast. The problem faced this year is that due to a change in state law, only the voters of one of the major political parties had a voice in who represents all voters in three state assembly districts, one state senate district, and 17 county commission wards. As many as 61 percent of voters had no say. Based on turnout, an average of 15 percent of the voters made the decision and the winner received an average of just under nine percent support. Even support within the party averaged less than 17 percent. Far from a mandate.  
District
Party
% Party
% Not Eligible
Party % T/O
% T/O Total Reg Voters
% Party Rcvd by Winner
% Total Reg Voters Rcvd by Winner
SD 4
D
60.69
39.31
17.94
10.89
12.60
7.64
AD 13
R
41.06
58.94
19.61
8.05
12.19
5.01
AD 19
R
38.89
61.11
26.35
10.25
16.12
6.27
AD 26
R
45.73
54.27
30.66
14.02
16.97
7.76
Washoe Cty 4
R
42.72
57.28
26.78
11.44
14.72
6.29
Churchill Cty 3
R
59.33
40.67
30.19
18.42
16.66
9.88
Douglas Cty 1
R
53.42
46.58
43.30
24.73
24.29
13.87
Douglas Cty 3
R
53.42
46.58
43.24
24.69
25.26
14.42
Elko Cty 3
R
56.74
43.26
23.62
13.40
9.62
5.46
Esmeralda Cty 2
R
57.59
42.41
8.38
4.83
4.49
2.59
Humbolt Cty A
R
55.04
44.96
33.65
18.52
21.51
11.84
Humbolt Cty B
R
55.04
44.96
33.72
18.56
21.99
12.10
Lander Cty 3
R
59.45
40.55
40.68
24.18
21.46
12.76
Lincoln Cty A
R
56.86
43.14
32.85
18.68
21.62
12.29
Lincoln Cty E
R
56.86
43.14
32.64
18.56
17.22
9.79
Lyon Cty 1
R
49.16
50.84
25.17
12.38
13.69
6.73
Lyon Cty 3
R
49.16
50.84
25.45
12.51
11.98
5.89
Nye Cty 1
R
46.61
53.39
4.77
2.22
2.71
1.26
Nye Cty 3
R
46.61
53.39
6.31
2.94
2.17
1.01
Pershing Cty A
R
50.21
49.79
43.12
21.67
31.33
15.74
Pershing Cty B
R
50.21
49.79
43.32
21.75
28.42
14.27
  
Based on these results, instead of making it easier on the parties and their candidates, it will be extremely difficult for the winners to claim they represent their constituents in the state legislature or county commission.

The solution is simple. At the very least, the change to state law enacted in 2015 should be repealed with races where only one party has candidates reverting back to being voted on by the entire electorate in the general election. An even better solution would be for the 2017 session of the Nevada legislature to enact the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017). Allowing all races to be decided with maximum general election turnout would ensure results such as those above never happen again.  
Posted on

Why Millennials Don’t Vote In Local Elections

In yet another study on voting trends of the Millennial Generation, “WHY MILLENNIALS DON’T VOTE FOR MAYOR – Barriers and Motivators for Local Voting” published in June, 2015, the Knight Foundation further substantiates what other research has shown, our election and political processes need to change if we value the generation that is our immediate future.
As I’ve written on several occasions, the Millennial Generation, now the largest generation in population and equal to Baby Boomers in the percentage of eligible voters, is the key to our future yet an enigma when it comes to voting. (Articles are here, here, and here)
Millennials are 31 percent of Nevada’s population but only 24 percent of registered voters. Of that 24 percent, 27 percent are registered as Non-Partisan. Adding those who are registered to vote in minor parties, 35 percent are not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party (as of May 24, 2016). That is almost 10 percent higher than the overall state figures.
In my previous articles the common theme is how do we get this generation more interested in participating in the electoral process, take an interest in the issues and vote.
In this 2015 study, The Knight Foundation looks at lack of participation of Millennials in local elections. Why do Millennials vote for president but not for mayor and other local officials? With turnout for local elections hovering around 20 percent, this is central to improving political outcomes.
Why do Millennials not trust government at a rate one-half that of the general electorate and less than 30 percent believe participating in the political process produces positive results?
Millennials, like the rest of us, require information to make decisions. However, with the onslaught of super PACs and the replacement of news with commentary, there is less reliable information on local issues available. With less information, Millennials also do not know which source to trust. They see the existing sources partisan and distorted, not providing the unbiased information they seek. This depresses civic participation. When high mobility is added in, the lack of information further reduces the desire to learn about one’s new community.
How does this impact Millennials participation? In focus groups used for the study, 75 percent rated lack of information about candidates as the reason they do not vote. 62 percent sited not enough information about local issues.
To reverse this trend, the Knight study found Millennials want to know what tangible benefit voting provides them and how government impacts their daily lives. They are turned-off by negativity, cynicism, and talking points.

The Nevada Legislature can make significant strides in addressing Millennial participation by enacting reforms proposed in the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017). By making our election process more responsive to the larger voting sector, not just the small party bases, the concerns of Millennials noted in the Knight study, as well as the concerns of a growing segment of the overall electorate are positively addressed. 
Posted on

Are Legislators, Candidates, and Political Parties Ignoring the Future? (Opinion) – UPDATE May 23, 2016

Not only is the Millennial Generation the most populous, but according to a new study released by Pew Research Center, they now equal Baby Boomers in the number of eligible voters. According to the study, Boomers comprise 69.7 percent of eligible voters while Millennials make up 69.2 percent. 
The similarity stops there and hence the challenge. Millennials are not voting in numbers that gives them political influence. How to change this was the subject of the original article posted March 30, 2016. You can read that below. 
I am a Baby Boomer. Since I turned 30, I have looked forward to every new decade of my life, 70 is rapidly approaching. Every year has gotten better and I relish the idea that this will continue.
Since the 1960’s, Baby Boomers have held the distinction of being the largest generation. That changed in 2015. The honor now belongs to the Millennial Generation, those born between 1981 and 1997. This generation is our future. Boomers and to some extent older Generation Xers need to not only accept this but embrace it.
While leading the pack as the most populous generation, Millennials are trailing when it comes to voting. In Nevada, Millennials are 31 percent of the population but make up only 24 percent of registered voters (41 percent of eligible voters are not registered to vote). Since there is a lack of participation in the process it is not surprising that only 4 percent of Nevada legislators are Millennials.
Millennials do not embrace political parties to the extent of Boomers. Nearly 28 percent of Millennials registered to vote are registered as Non-Partisan. This is nine percent higher than the overall state total. It is important to note that prior to the presidential caucus the percentage was close to 30 percent and a clear 10 percent higher than the state.
Millennials are turned off to the political climate. To be encouraged to participate, they want answers not rhetoric. They want to know how elected officials and candidates will address issues important to them. They do not fit the standard party mold or comprise part of the so-called party base. In a study released by Pew Research in September, 2014, 84 percent hold positions that are not on the ideological fringe.
Given they are our future, it makes no sense to not take the steps necessary to get this generation involved, not only as voters but as candidates and elected officials. Holding on to the politics of the past will not serve our communities, our state, or our nation well.
One way Nevada legislators can demonstrate their commitment to engaging the Millennial Generation would be to enact the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA- 2017) during the 2017 legislative session. NEMRA – 2017 will engage not only the Millennial Generation but all voters who feel rejected by the current hyper-partisan political landscape. NEMRA – 2017 will make our electoral process fully inclusive, welcome all voters’ participation at all elections, encourage meaningful discussion of the issues rather than rhetoric and talking points, and demonstrate every vote, not just those from a small portion of each major political party, truly matters.
  

We can welcome the future and all the promise it holds or stick with the past, leaving our political decisions in the hands of an aging small party base that is not representative of the overall population. The choice is ours and the 2017 Nevada legislature’s to make.
Posted on

Is Election Reform Also a Tax Fairness Issue?

Like it or not, taxes and fees paid by you, me, and businesses are the income that pay for the government services we have come to expect. For these payments, we receive both direct and indirect benefit. And while some may complain about the amount or purpose of a certain tax or fee, most taxpayers accept the fact that they are necessary to keep government working.
But what would be the reaction if taxpayers knew some of their taxes were being used to fund activities of private organizations?

Most may not realize that political parties, even though they play an integral role in our governmental process, are private organizations. Their status as private organizations has been underscored by the U.S. Supreme Court in right of association cases and their tax status is covered in 26 U.S. Code § 527. Yet every two years Nevada taxpayers indirectly provide $3 – 4 million to the Republican and Democratic Parties. This amount is the cost to counties and the state of closed primary elections. These elections are open only to members of each party with the purpose of choosing the individual party’s nominees. As such, they are fulfilling a function of internal party operations. Again, this fact has been highlighted in U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

 

I believe all political parties agree that taxes, when imposed, must be fair and that all taxpayers should receive either direct or indirect benefit from their tax payments. However, using current voter registrationdata, 318,000 Nevada voters / taxpayers (25% of active registered voters) receive neither direct nor indirect benefit from tax payments used to support these two private organizations. I respect but do not agree with the arguments that if the taxpayers who currently are not registered to vote in one of the major political parties wanted to benefit from this public support of private organizations (political parties) they should simply re-register. However, this argument misses the point of why voters have left, and continue to leave both the Democratic and Republican Party.  As State Senator Patricia Farley (R – Las Vegas) recently stated to Las Vegas Review Journal Reporter Sandra Chereb, “If I’m a registered independent and I like a Republican, I shouldn’t have to change my party affiliation.”

 

Contrary to closed primary elections, general elections do provide a direct benefit to all taxpayers and as such should be funded by tax dollars. The winner of each race in the general election goes on to represent all citizens of their district in a legislative body. There are two options available to correct this tax issue.

 

The first, but likely most financially difficult, is to require the political parties to fund their closed primary. How each party raises the necessary dollars would be up to the party. However, removing public funding from such private use would be in keeping with the party’s status.

 

The second, and probably the fairest and easiest to implement, would be for the 2017 Nevada legislature to pass and enact election reform as proposed in the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NERMA – 2017). The proposed systemic changes would ensure all taxpayers receive a direct benefit and justify the use of tax dollars. 

Posted on

Non-Partisan Primaries Do Not Violate Political Parties’ Freedom of Association

“Respondents could protect them all by resorting to a nonpartisan blanket primary. Generally speaking, under such a system, the State determines what qualifications it requires for a candidate to have a place on the primary ballot—which may include nomination by established parties and voter-petition requirements for independent candidates. Each voter, regardless of party affiliation, may then vote for any candidate, and the top two vote getters (or however many the State prescribes) then move on to the general election. 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.”
The main objection to replacing the closed primary election system in Nevada is that political parties have a first amendment right to select who represents their party in general elections. This has most recently been expressed by leading Nevada political commentator Jon Ralston, the editors of the Las Vegas Review Journal, and Reno political columnist Orrin Johnson. I totally agree.
But as Justice Scalia noted when writing for the majority in California Democratic Party et al. v Jones, Secretary of State of California, et al. using a non-partisan blanket primary, or for that matter, no primary, does not violate this first amendment right. Such a system not only protects that right but also protects the right of the state to regulate elections to ensure greater voter choice, participation, and fairness.
The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) and its predecessorlast session, were designed with this in mind; to let the state exercise its right to expand voter choice, participation, and fairness while not infringing on the political parties’ right of association. This is a win-win.
Why would any political party oppose engaging more voters and increasing membership and potential donations? It is important to note that except for the few months leading up to the presidential caucuses and primary, the only group regularly gaining voter share is Non-Partisan. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties have been losing voter share over the same period. Saying those who left the party can re-register if they want to vote ignores the message of these voter registration trends and gives the perception that party is more important than country, state, or county.
Why would any political party not want to have its positions supported by a wider segment of voters? Tailoring their message to a small segment, those more ideologically pure, is what has prompted voters to leave the parties, reduced voter turnout, and increased the negative influence of partisanship in all aspects of our lives. 
What would be the message if one or both of the major political parties endorsed and actively worked for passage of NEMRA – 2017? It would be one of inclusiveness, one where the needs of the state and country come before the needs of the party. It would be one of “we believe every voter, not just those who 100 percent agree with us, matter.” The result of this message would be increased voter interest, increased voter participation, and potentially increased party membership.
Non-Partisan primaries do not violate political parties’ freedom of association. They do strengthen our electoral and governing processes to the benefit of the parties and the state.    

Posted on

Nevada’s Strategic Planning Framework 2016 – 2020 and NEMRA – 2017

On April 11, 2016, Governor Brian Sandoval released the first edition of the Nevada Strategic Planning Framework 2016 – 2020. This plan, put together by the governor and his cabinet, lays out a vision and a framework to achieve that vision. Above all, it requires all sectors of the state government work together to enact and implement all the pieces that will continue to grow the economy and ensure a high quality of life for all Nevadans.
The framework is based on a vision that “Nevada’s best days are yet to come.” From that vision, it sets a mission “To create a new Nevada while honoring and enhancing 150 years of success.”, based on the values of:
o   Action
o   Collaboration
o   Inclusiveness
o   Integrity
o   Leadership
o   Optimism
o   Service
There are four strategic priorities central to all areas:
o   Vibrant and Sustainable Economy
o   Educated and Healthy Citizenry
o   Safe and Livable Communities
o   Efficient and Responsive State Government
With any long-range plan, the fluidity that comes with changing elected leadership, changing organizational structures, and new laws, regulations, and policies must be addressed to minimize the impact of such change on the overall plan. The framework laid out by Governor Sandoval does this by focusing on eight core governmental functions:
o   Business Development and Services
o   Infrastructure and Communications
o   Education and Workforce Development
o   Health Services
o   Human Services
o   Public Safety
o   Resource Management
o                   o   State Support Services
For this long-range vision for Nevada to be successful, the strategic priority of efficient and responsive state government is paramount.  The executive branch, the elected constitutional officers of the state must lead. Along with the elected legislative leadership, they must be able to bring all sides together and create a climate for respectful dialog to work through differences of opinion. The legislature, the 42 elected members of the assembly and 21 elected members of the senate are the workhorses who must fund the programs, make necessary changes to statutes, and provide the resources that will allow the vision to become a reality. This may be easier said than done.
In today’s political environment, elected officials are more likely to be judged on their loyalty to their political party base (a vocal but small segment) and ideological purity than on their dedication and desire to do what is best for the state. Actions and decisions may be based more on fear of being defeated in a primary election than on what the lawmaker truly believes is right. Working together to collaborate on viable programs, having respectful discussions that recognize differences of opinion yet don’t let those differences get in the way of reaching consensus can be risky and difficult. The result is often contentious party-line debate that impedes progress.
The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) could be an essential tool in meeting the framework’s priority of efficient and responsive state government. It clearly embraces the seven values of action, collaboration, inclusiveness, integrity, leadership, optimism, and service.
NEMRA – 2017 allows legislators to do what is best for the state without having to fear being “primaried”. Use of ranked choice / instant runoff voting (RCV / IRV) has proven to return civility to campaigning and legislating. With elections and legislating requiring appealing to more than just the small party base, candidates and legislators can address issues in a pragmatic fashion rather than ideologically pure dogma.  
Governor Sandoval’s Nevada’s Strategic Planning Framework 2016 – 2020 is an initiative that will be mostly undertaken after he leaves office. Successful implementation will take a willingness to continue on its path by his successor as well as legislators who may succeed those currently serving. It will require putting in place processes that allow transition of personnel while encouraging open, respectful, and honest debate. NEMRA – 2017 is such a process.  

Posted on

Critics and Supporters of Election Law Change Agree Some Change is Needed

There has been a lot of media attention recently concerning a change to Nevada election law enacted by the 2015 Nevada legislature. The change focused on how an elected official is chosen when only one political party has candidates vying for a particular office.
Before the change, if only two candidates of the same party were running for the office, both candidates would appear on the general election ballot foregoing the primary election. If more than two candidates from the same party were the only ones running, the top two finishers in the closed primary election would advance to the general election. This would allow all voters in a legislative district to vote on who represented them in the legislative body.
Under the change, all candidates from the same political party will compete in a primary election with the winner advancing to the general election as an unopposed candidate. Supporters of this change say it is the political party’s right to select its nominee and that if voters registered in another party or as non-partisan want to participate they should change their voter registration to the party with candidates. Opponents of the change say all voters of the district should have a voice in who represents them without having to change party. Unlike when a candidate is unopposed; only one person filed to run for the office, two from the same party still represent a choice that should be presented in the general election. This is different from a party choosing its nominee.
In spite of all the back and forth, there is agreement – changes to our election process are needed.
The author of the change, State Senator James Settelmeyer (R – Minden), as vice-chair of the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee along with committee chair State Senator Patricia Farley (R – Las Vegas) were the sponsors (officially it was a committee bill) of the original bill calling for a modified blanket primary system. Speaking of the original bill, Senator Settelmeyer was quoted in an article by Las Vegas Review Journal political reporter Sandra Chereb as saying the concept “is to allow everyone to vote in the primary.” He further said “It’s good to give people choices,” For the most recent article Senator Settelmeyer also stated “I would still support and vote for the bill that I brought,” he said. “To me it’s about the concept of having bold choices in which way we wish to go forward.” Senator Farely added “You want to get everybody’s voice in the process. I would like to see it open up in the primary. If I’m a registered independent and I like a Republican, I shouldn’t have to change my party affiliation.”
In an editorial supporting the change published on April 12, 2016 in the Las Vegas Review Journal the editors closed by saying “To encourage both major parties to field legislative candidates across the board, stop drawing district boundaries to guarantee a predictable outcome. Not only would both Democrats and Republicans have an incentive to field qualified candidates, voters of all affiliations would be more likely to get out and cast a ballot.” The drawing of legislative boundaries is a major issue for proponents of election reform. A bill to create a legislative advisory panel for reapportionment and redistricting was introduced in the 2015 session but failed to pass.
On April 12, 2016, I appeared on the Alan Stock Show on KXNT in Las Vegas. While Stock fully supports the current system, he closed by telling me we need “four strong political parties, Republican, Democratic, Conservative, and Liberal.” To achieve this would require going to multi-member legislative districts. Again, this is a major reform put forward by proponents of election reform.
Orrin Johnson, a political columnist contributing to the Reno Gazette Journal and another supporter of the 2015 change closed his April 17, 2016 column by saying, “I, for one, will be happy when political parties no longer enjoy any official sanction or recognition in our electoral procedures. The First Amendment, as it should, protects the rights of people to assemble into various organizations for political activism, but that doesn’t require us to have statutes with different rules for “major” or “minor” parties.” This sentiment is a driving force behind election reform.

In solving any problem, the first step is to determine if there are any areas of agreement, of common ground. Clearly there is agreement on the need for change in our political processes. Sandra Chereb, through her story highlighting the recent change to elections when only one party has candidates has brought this problem to the surface. Perhaps the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act, the catalyst for the original bill in 2015, is the vehicle to reach the solution. 
Posted on

Automatic Voter Registration and NEMRA-2017; Companion Bills?

Approximately 41 percent of eligible voters in Nevada are not registered to vote. Of the 59 percent who are, less than 46 percentvoted in the general election of November, 2014. Or to put it bluntly, 73 percent of eligible voters in Nevada just didn’t care.1
Eligible voters do not register to vote, or do not vote if they are, for basically the same reasons, mostly no interest or lack of time. Missing the registration deadline or not knowing where or how to register are also major reasons for not registering followed closely by lack of knowledge about the candidates or issues, lack of confidence in government, and voting doesn’t make a difference.
 In an attempt to fix low voter registration, states are starting to consider automatically registering eligible voters when they apply for a driver’s license or state identification card. The governors of Oregon and California signed bills in 2015 implementing such a system. Similar bills are pending in 25 states and the District of Columbia. The concept of automatic voter registration (AVR) initially had bipartisan support. However, with the increased partisan rhetoric of the presidential campaigns, support is now aligning along party lines, Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.
I’ve heard that in keeping with their Nevada Blueprint, Democratic lawmakers in the Silver State plan on filing a bill draft request (BDR) for the 2017 Nevada legislative session seeking to bring AVR to the state. But will automatically registering a person to vote get that person to actually vote or will the impact of AVR be simply to decrease election turnout rates?
For those who fail to register to vote because they missed the deadline or did not know where or how to register, automatic voter registration will resolve their issue, provided they apply for or renew a driver’s license or state identification card. But what about the remaining 75 percent of eligible voters not registered to vote? 
Simply being registered to vote will not convince the person who didn’t register because they were not interested, didn’t want to take time to learn about the candidates or issues, have lost confidence in government, or don’t think their vote matters, to vote. Opponents of AVR stress voting is a personal responsibility. I believe these reasons for not registering support their argument. However, if those voters’ interest were piqued, if they saw government return to being an institution that embraced respectful disagreement and worked towards collaborative consensus, if they were given a reason to learn about the candidates and issues, and saw that their vote did matter, would the likelihood of them becoming active voters increase? The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) is a means to make the answer, “yes”.
The current hyper-partisan political environment has turned people off not only to the political parties but to the entire process. A single election held in November using Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting (RCV / IRV) as proposed in NEMRA – 2017 can help reverse this trend. RCV / IRV forces candidates to reach out to a more diverse electorate. Appealing simply to the small party base is no longer a clear path to election. Second-choice votes could be the difference between winning and losing. Voters exposed to RCV / IRV elections have noticed a decrease in the negative tone of campaigns.
The goal of those who support AVR is to remove roadblocks to voting allowing more eligible voters to go to the polls. The goal of RCV / IRV is to return civility to the election and governing process and increase voter participation in elections. These goals are mutually supportive to the benefit of all. Question to Nevada legislators; companion bills?
1, Based on best available data from U.S. Census compared to current Nevada voter registration statistics.

Posted on

Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting Could Change Campaign Spending

The overwhelming perception, and there’s much truth behind it, is that money plays the most important role in American politics, from the lowest level campaigns and policies to those of national and global importance. Whether that power is rightfully earned or is the result of voters, candidates, and elected officials unwittingly bestowing it is a question up for debate. Given the apparent level of distain for the influence of money in our political system, is there a way to curtail it?
While data is extremely scarce given the relatively short period of time the process has been used in elections, there is a belief that Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff voting (RCV / IRV) could provide a path towards loosening the grasp of money on our political and governing system.
In a March, 2014 MinnPost opinion piece, former Minnesota United States Senator David Durenberger explains how. RCV / IRV changes the dynamic of elections and policymaking possibly reducing the need for excessive dollars. His opinion cannot be discounted.  Could voters be ready to cause a shift away from money’s influence in state and local races?
In state and local races, national super political action committees (Super PACs) are increasing their spending in an attempt to influence election results. The goal is to elect candidates that share their positions on national issues. This can redirect campaign debate away from important local and state issues towards the hyper-partisan national debate. However, this needn’t be the case.
Elections where voters go to the polls once, for a general election using RCV / IRV, requires candidates speak to a wider audience. Appealing to the small party base as is done in a low turnout primary will no longer ensure election. They must focus on appealing to all voters, general election mode, but with the added advantage that besides first-choice votes, they are looking for second-choice votes that could be the difference between winning or losing. According to Senator Durenberger, this type of campaign requires increased use of forums, town halls, and knocking on doors. Talking directly to voters, addressing the issues, is what wins the election. Attack ads and mudslinging will not guarantee victory on Election Day. Meeting and speaking with voters costs less. A candidate or incumbent running for re-election is a safe district, one where voter registration overwhelmingly favors one party over another, may still have an advantage, however, given the continuing growth of voters registered as Non-Partisan, even safe districts are not so safe. At the end of January, 2016, the number of Nevada voters registered as Non-Partisan or when combined with those registered in a minor party either exceeded or was within five percent of those registered as either Democratic or Republican in 11 of the 21 (52.38%) state senate districts and 25 of the 42 (59.52%) state assembly districts.
I’ve been told that holding a single election in November using RCV / IRV will increase the money needed to be spent because a candidate in a safe district has to be in general election mode, appeal to the greater electorate. The ability to win the election in the primary, where the focus is on only the smaller party base would not be present. I’ve also been told that large donors such as major companies would have to change their donation practices, either increasing the amount of money they allocate to political purposes or reducing the amount of individual donations. Supposedly these donors give to several candidates in the primary election so their chance of having influence following the general election is increased. I do not refute the validity of these statements. However, is it possible the opposite would happen? Less cash available across the board would require candidates to conduct their campaigns as alluded to by Senator Durenberger. RCV / IRV could actually decrease the influence of money in our political system. It is also possible that because RCV / IRV has the potential to increase interest in the election, the amount raised from individual voters could grow.  
Change is not easy. But where would we be today if society had not embraced the many changes that have occurred over the past 50 years? Baby Boomers (my generation) gave way to Gen X and Millennials (our children and possibly grandchildren). The Millennials, those 18 – 34 years of age are now the largest generation. They also are registering to vote as Non-Partisan at much higher rate than other generations. All indications are they are not embracing and will not embrace the politics of the past.  If our cities, counties, state, and nation are to make progress, the younger generations must believe their participation now will make the difference between success and failure.  
In one year, February, 2017, the Nevada legislature can take a major step in showing the generations that are our future their opinions matter, that their participation in our governing processes is important by enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017).  

Posted on

True in 2014, True Now – Hyper Partisanship Standing In The Way of Progress

In an update to their 2014 study, “The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown,” to be released this week, the Pew Research Center along with their former executive vice president Paul Taylor present data that should not surprise anyone. The hyper-partisan divide infecting our political structure is not only still active, it may have gotten worse.
Some highlights:
The use of partisan ideology as criteria for personal relationships is increasing. Added to this is an increasing level of distrust, denial of opposing facts, and doubt of motives and love of country. The authors observe “It’s as if they belong not to rival parties but alien tribes.”
The two major parties are becoming more demographically homogeneous. As the country grows less white and social tolerance gains acceptance among the younger yet largest generation, the shrinking party bases are becoming less inclusive. The Republican Party base is now whiter, older, more religious, and socially conservative. In contrast, the Democratic Party base is younger, racially diverse, secular, and more acceptant of social differences. This homogeneity is further highlighted in the growing generational gap in voting trends.
 Partisan beliefs continue to be a major and growing consideration in determining where we chose to live, who we chose as friends, who we marry, and where we get our information.
As the partisan divide becomes wider, more voters are choosing to abandon political parties in general. While this trend is present in all generations, it is most prevalent among the millennial generation, those between the ages of 18 and 34. This becomes more important since this generation is now the largest. As I post each month, this is true in Nevada where the percentage among this age group registered to vote as Non-Partisan is 10 percent higher than the overall state percentage.
Those wanting elected officials to collaborate, work together, and compromise are the new “silent majority”. However, in this age of social media and the accompanying pontification, there is no leader able to overcome the volume of the hyper-partisan extremes.
Election turnout plays a major role in allowing this partisan divide to survive. Historically, older voters tend to vote in non-presidential years in far greater numbers that younger voters. With ideological extremes dominating, this has created the large swings we have witnessed; a Democratic president re-elected and a strongly conservation congress maintaining a majority on the national level and a shift to the right in state governments
I posted two articles highlighting the growing partisan divide in 2014. Those posts are available hereand here. As shown in this updated work by Pew Research and Paul Taylor, this divide is widening, negatively impacting our political systems and overall society.

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