Category: Polls, Studies, and More

Research and polling on partisanship and election reform

Posted on

Nine States and Washington, D.C. Share a Spot on the Political Stage

Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. These nine states and our nation’s capital currently share a place on the political stage.
Nineteen. That is the number of bills dealing with the implementation of ranked choice / instant runoff voting (RCV / IRV) currently under consideration in the nine state legislatures and Washington D.C. city council. Voters in Maine are not waiting for the legislation. A ballot initiative implementing RCV / IRV for all state and federal elected offices except President of the United States is on the ballot this November.
Legislators in nine states and the District of Columbia city council realize that just talking about the heightened level of political polarization does not solve the problem. They realize that to effectively govern, to do the job they were elected to do, requires people with opposing views to work together, respectfully listen to all opinions, and then develop solutions to the problems facing their constituents. To create the environment where that can take place takes action. They have not just talked. They have acted.
 In 2017 when the next regular session of the Nevada legislature convenes, state legislators can join the ranks of those who choose action. By enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017), lawmakers will address the issues of:
  •         Political polarization
  •          Low voter turnout
  •          Strategic voting
  •          Voter dissatisfaction  

NEMRA – 2017 will also contribute to solving another major problem facing Nevada’s elections. Our voting equipment and software is old and nearing obsolescence. Both will need to be replaced in the very near future. By eliminating at least $3 – 4 million from the cost of administering elections, NEMRA – 2017 will allow county governments and the legislature to redirect those funds towards this critical need.
Nine and nineteen. That is only a piece of election related legislation pending in the states. At present there are 567 bills dealing with issues such as absentee ballots, voter registration, internet voting, voting by mail, types of primary elections, and the creation of committees and task forces to look into voting-related topics pending in various states.

The issue of election reform has the attention of state legislators and voters. Nevada legislators do not have to wait until 2017 to act.  A bill draft request (BDR) can be filed now. 
Posted on

Will Voters in South Dakota and Maine Set the Stage for the Nevada Legislature?

In November 2016, voters in South Dakota and Maine will have the opportunity to change the way elections are held in their state. The changes, placed on the ballot by initiative petition, recognize the growing numbers of voters not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party and the importance of ending the hyper-partisanship that dominates much of the political landscape.
In South Dakota, voters will decide whether to change the state’s Constitution, replacing the current partisan primary elections with a non-partisan primary and general election. Under the proposed constitutional amendment, all candidates will be listed on the primary ballot without party affiliation or status as an independent. All voters, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof will be allowed to vote. Party affiliation or status as an independent will also not be listed on the general election ballot. The right of any persons to belong to a political party is maintained as is the right of political parties to endorse or support a candidate or candidates. Public funds may not be used by the parties for these purposes.  Currently, 21 percent of South Dakota voters are not registered in either the Democratic or Republican Party. The Democratic Party currently has 33 percent voter share while the Republican Party has 46 percent.
In Maine, 44 percent (39 Independent / 5 other) of registered voters do not identify as either Democratic or Republican.  Voter share for the major parties currently is 33 percent and 23 percent respectively. This measure has roots in the state legislature. The initiative was started by a current and former member of that body. Supporters gathered enough signatures so voters will decide whether or not to eliminate the state’s closed primary system and instead use a single general election using Rank Choice / Instant Run-off voting (RCV / IRV).  This is similar to the proposal now being presented to Nevada legislators.
It’s too soon to know what voters in South Dakota and Maine will decide. Enough voters signified support by signing the petitions placing the measures on the ballot.

The growing trend of dissatisfaction with the two major political parties is not likely to be reversed in the near future. To successfully govern may require elected officials to adopt systems that create an environment where collaboration and cooperation are rewarded by increased voter approval. The 2017 session of the Nevada legislature can do its part, by enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – 2017 (NEMRA – 2017). 
Posted on

Nevada’s Aging Voting Machines; NEMRA – 2017 Provides Part of the Solution

Electronic voting systems in 43 states, including Nevada, are at least 10 years old. These systems, both hardware and software are approaching, or have already exceeded their lifespan. The potential for mechanical breakdown and technological failure possibly compromising the voting process and / or election results is great. This is the conclusion of an extensive report recently released by the Brennan Center for Justice.
Nevada election officials and legislators are well aware of the situation. On July 22, 2014 a group of legislators, legislative staff, and state and county election officials met to discuss the status of the state’s aging voting machines and ways to address the issue. As long as vendors continue to support the machines and software, repairs can be made as needed. However, as technology improves, vendors stop supporting older versions. This has already happened for some software.  Prolonging the inevitable is not an acceptable plan of action. Legislators need to make voting system upgrade and replacement a priority if we are to avoid an election disaster.
Given recent low voter turnout, it’s hard to predict how many voters will participate in the 2016 general election. However, given voters will be choosing a president, a replacement for Senator Harry Reid, and deciding whether to legalize recreational marijuana and stricter background checks for the purchase of firearms, I’d expect at least 75% turnout, the average for presidential yearelections, if not higher. Will 2016 be the year Nevada’s voting machines decide to really show their age?
The task for legislators in the 2017 Nevada legislative session will be to find the money stream to pay for software upgrades and eventual replacement of the physical equipment.  The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – 2017(NEMRA – 2017) provides one source of funding.  By eliminating at least $3 – 4 million from the cost of administering elections each election cycle, NEMRA – 2017 would allow that money to be allocated for needed software upgrades and / or towards total system replacement.
Providing funds to avoid an election catastrophe is not the only benefit of enacting NEMRA – 2017. By implementing the reforms proposed, Nevada legislators would be putting a process in place that would increase participation and voter turnout while not infringing on the rights of political parties. There is a potential the legislation could strengthen the parties themselves.

The decision for legislators is not “if” to act, it’s “when”. Nevada cannot risk the consequences of an election system failure; long delays at the polls, voters unable to cast votes, votes not recorded or recorded incorrectly, any resulting lawsuits. NEMRA – 2017 is part of the solution. 
Posted on

How Partisan Was The 2015 Nevada Legislative Session – A Look At The Votes

From shouting matches, members storming out of the chamber, to alleged physical confrontation, the 2015 session of the Nevada Legislature had all the signs of being one of the most, if not the most, partisan session of that elected body. I talked to a few legislators and legislative observers following the session and all agreed on that point.
The stage was set by the 2014 election results. Republicans took control of the legislature and all executive offices. Republicans won races in Democratic majority districts because Democratic voters did not go to the polls.  Statewide turnout was less than 46 percent.
Between the election and the start of the legislative session, anticipation of the debate on education and taxes was high, with both sides of the aisle laying the groundwork for high intensity discussions. The session did not disappoint.
Was the 2015 session one of the most partisan? To answer this question, I looked at every vote on every bill, both in committee and on the floor, from the last four regular legislative sessions; 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015.
How many bills were not voted out of committee?
How many bills did not receive a floor vote?
How many votes were unanimous?
How many votes were along party lines?
How many bills were not voted out of committee?
Just under 30% of the bills did not get a committee vote in the originating chamber. Another 5% did not get a committee vote in the second chamber. Third and fourth respectively and around the average.
How many bills did not receive a floor vote?
8% of the bills did not get a floor vote in at least one chamber. This includes bills that were referred to a second committee and not voted on. This was the highest percentage of the four sessions. The average was 7%.
How many votes were unanimous?
Of the bills that received floor votes, 54% got unanimous votes in both chambers. This was the second lowest total and well below the average of almost 58%. Conversely, the session had the highest percentage of bills with a unanimous vote from one chamber, almost 41%.  Again this was well above the average of slightly over 34%.
This trend was similar for committee votes. Of those making it out of committee, just over 69% received unanimous votes from committees in both chambers (2nd highest) while over 35% received unanimous votes from committees in one chamber. Again, this was the highest of all four sessions and those votes were mostly Senate committees. The average for unanimous votes from all committees was just under 68%; slightly over 31% for one chamber.
  
How many votes were along party lines?
The antithesis of unanimous is party line. For reasons I do not know, 2011 had the highest number of party line votes, both on the floor and in committee of these four sessions. However, 2015 was close behind. The average for party line votes on the floor in both chambers was 1%. 2015 was 1 ½%. The average for party line votes in one chamber was just under 5%. 2015 came in second at the average.
For party line votes in committee, again 2015 was second highest just after 2011. The average for party line votes in all committees was slightly less than 2%. 2015 came in second at 2 ½%.  For party line votes for committee votes in one chamber the average is 9 ½%.   During the 2015 session, almost 12% were along party lines in one chamber.   
The 2015 session of the Nevada Legislature was one of the most partisan, if using the last four sessions as a reference point is accepted as valid.

There’s nothing wrong with respectful disagreement. There’s nothing evil about votes that are not unanimous. They are just indicators. What is important is that the political environment, where regardless of the level of disagreement, respectful discussion and collaboration can take place so the interests of all residents can be best served is maintained. The type of actions mentioned in the first paragraph shouldn’t happen. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) is a means to ensure that type of environment exists.
Posted on

National Conference of State Legislatures ID’s Problem – NEMRA 2017 Provides Fix

 A study released this month by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the Pew Charitable Trusts answers an important question; how closely do the demographics of the legislature match the demographics of the state?  
Except for the number of Black / African-Americans in the legislature; 10 percent versus 8.6 percent of the population, Nevada state legislators do not reflect the population of the state. This should not be a problem since the role of a legislator is to make decisions that best coincide with the beliefs of their constituents. That is supposedly the reason people voted for them. However, one’s view of the issues and most likely their partisan affiliation or leaning are shaped by who they are; age, gender, level of education, ethnicity, religion, occupation.  
The root of the problem most likely is related to the level of political participation. If the motivation to vote is low or fluctuates based on the questions at hand, a person will not be inclined to run for office or volunteer in a campaign effort. Perhaps worse, the feeling that “my vote and opinions don’t matter” dissuades people from registering to vote.  While all age groups make up this demographic, the voter registration statisticsfrom November, 2015 appear to show those between the ages of 18 – 34 may hold this opinion more frequently.
The key to increasing participation and then perhaps increased presence in the Nevada legislature is to reduce, hopefully significantly, the feeling of insignificance of participation in the state’s political process. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) provides a means to accomplish this goal.
While savings taxpayers $3 – 4 million every election cycle, NEMRA – 2017 makes every vote important, restoring the belief that “my vote counts.” At the same time, NEMRA – 2017 does not infringe on a political party’s right of association or right to choose a nominee or nominees for any partisan elected office.  
The decision to address the problem revealed in the NCSL / Pew study rests with members of the Nevada legislature. By filing a Bill Draft Request (BDR) and then passing NEMRA – 2017, the 2017 legislative session would mark the beginning of the process that makes every voter in Nevada feel important, increases voter turnout, and encourages candidates to seek elected office.  

 

Legislators by Generation
LEG
STATE
Millennial
4%
31%
 Gen X
48%
29%
Baby Boom
33%
29%
Silent
15%
10%
Greatest
0%
1%
Note: Millennials, those born tween 1981 – 1997 are now the largest generation, overtaking the Baby Boomer (1946 – 1964) this year.
Voter Registration as of November, 2015
Age*(Ages may cross generation years
% Population – NCSL/Pew Study
% of Reg Voters
% N/P
% Minor Party
% Not D or R
18 – 34
31
23.58
29.37
7.92
37.29
35 – 54
29
32.39
20.32
6.65
26.97
55 +
40
44.05
13.97
5.22
19.19
Legislators by Gender
LEG
STATE
Female
33%
50%
Male
67%
50%
Legislators by Education
LEG
STATE
< Bachelor’s
6%
77%
Bachelor’s
13%
15%
Advanced
52%
8%
Unknown
29%
0
 Legislators by Race and Ethnicity
LEG
STATE
Am Ind/Nat Alaskan
0%
1.1%
Asian/Pac Islander
0%
8.5%
Black/Af American
10%
8.6%
Hisp/Latino
14%
27.8%
Multiracial
6%
13.9%
White/Cauc
70%
68%
Legislators by Religion
LEG
STATE
Protestant
11%
35%
Catholic
14%
25%
Other Christian
8%
6%
Non-Christian
2%
5%
Unspecified
65%
n/a
Unaffiliated
n/a
29%
Legislators by Occupation
Agriculture
3%
Attorney
17%
Business Owner
17%
Business Other
10%
Educator
11%
Consultant/
Nonprofit/Prof.
11%
Legislator
0%
Retired
11%
No Data
11%
Other*
8%
Posted on

How Well Do Politicians Know What Their Constituents Think

Politicians, whether incumbent or candidate, do not know what their constituents think. Even worse, they may not care. Is this important? What impact could this have on voter turnout? And how does the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA – 2017) help resolve this problem?
In a studydated July 17, 2015; “What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions and Prospects for Constituency Control”, David E. Broockman, Assistant Professor, Stanford Graduate School of Business and Christopher Skovron, Graduate Student, Department of Political Science, University of Michigan studied the perception of constituent opinion of nearly 2,000 state legislators then compared those perceptions to the actual opinions of voters in their districts. The results raise concerns that state legislators are out of touch with the true opinions of their constituents. Campaign activity, the time when politicians have the most direct contact with voters, does not appear to change this mismatch. Given that Broockman and Skovron contacted all candidates, both incumbent and non-incumbent, running for election in 2012 as of August of that year (9,825 of 10.131 for whom they could get contact information) and had a response rate 19.5% (25.6% if just those contacted are used as the base), candidates in Nevada were most likely included in this study.
Overall, politicians’ perception of their constituents’ opinion was off by over 10%. Conservative candidates and incumbents over-estimated their constituents’ opinion on conservative issues by more than 20%. These numbers did not change when the authors did a follow-up study immediately after the election in November. Additionally, candidates running in the same district had different perceptions of the opinions of the same constituents more than 20% of the time. You can read the study here.
If public opinion is supposed to be the force behind decisions made by our elected representatives and their perception of that opinion is not accurate, just whose opinion is being represented? Better yet, how can these wrong perceptions be corrected?
Is this important? Yes. Representative democracy requires elected officials to accurately understand the opinions of those they represent and express that understanding so voters can make more informed decisions at the polls. Likewise that understanding will allow those elected to make decisions that realistically reflect the desires of their constituents. Perhaps this is why voters believe politicians represent only the interests of a select few.
What impact could this have on voter turnout? Potentially quite a bit. When voters do not see their opinions being addressed and / or acted upon by those they elect, they could lose interest. Attitudes of “why bother” and “my vote is not important” are allowed to take hold.
For incumbents and candidates to have an accurate perception of their constituents opinions they need to focus on a greater number of potential voters. At the same time, voters need to believe their involvement in the electoral process matters and their opinions are valued. This is how the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA – 2017) can help resolve this problem.
By focusing on a single general election held in November using ranked choice / instant runoff voting (RCV / IRV), candidates must concentrate on the entire electorate rather than just 20% of political party loyalists (average turnout for primary elections where most races are really decided). They are not only looking to be the first choice of voters, but also looking to be the second choice of voters not willing to fully support them. To be successful, they will have to accurately comprehend the opinions of all their constituents and convey how they will act on those if elected. Elected officials win because by accurately understanding the beliefs of their constituents they can make decisions reflecting the true will of those they represent. Constituents win by knowing those they elected truly represent them, that their opinions and their votes matter.   

In February, 2017, those we elect or re-elect next year to represent us in the Nevada legislature will take their seats in either the assembly or senate. They can show their willingness to discuss this important issue by filing a bill draft request (BDR) and then introducing the bill. By enacting NEMRA – 2017, the Nevada legislature can take the lead and show the nation that state leaders are willing to change the electoral process for the better, recognizing the importance of all voters.  
Posted on

How Serious Are The Democratic and Republican Party About Regaining Membership

It’s no secret; I point this out every month. The two major political parties have been, and continue to, lose share of registered voters. These voters are not switching parties. They are registering to vote as Non-Partisan. They are choosing not to affiliate with any political party knowing full well they will no longer be able to vote in primary elections or participate in party caucuses. This is happening even as we approach the February, 2016 presidential caucuses and the June, 2016 primary election.
As voters leave the parties, they take their money with them. Neither party can afford this as members are donating to national PAC’s and Super-PAC’s instead of the local party.
Both major political parties know why this is happening. In spite of this, they appear to be unable, or unwilling to stop it. They say they have to make their current positions on issues more appealing to one demographic or another. But I doubt that will reverse the trend of lost support.
Why:
  •  Are voters fleeing the Democratic and Republican Parties?
  •   Did only 8% of active Republican and 3% of active Democratic voters participate in the 2012 presidential caucuses?
  •  Did only 19% of active registered voters participate in both the 2012 and 2014 primary elections?
  •  Did only 45% of voters cast ballots in the 2014 general election?
  •  Do 57%of State Assembly districts have a difference of less than 5% between the number of voters not registered as either Democratic or Republican and those that are? (In 38% the number not Democratic or Republican is greater)
  •  Do 64%of State Senate districts have a difference of less than 5% between the number of voters not registered as either Democratic or Republican and those that are? (In 43% the number not Democratic or Republican is greater)
  •  Is the percent of voter share for the Democratic and Republican Parties falling month after month while the percent of Non-Partisan voters is increasing?

 The answer to these questions is simple. The parties have, for one reason or another, staked out positions on the issues that are on the far left or far right of the ideological scale with no room for differences of opinion.  Campaigns and legislative action tend to be based on what is best for the party brand rather than what is best for all constituents. This has left a small minority of vocal, ideologically pure party members in control. Voters have been alienated.  They believe they have been abandoned by the parties. Accordingly they have given up party registration. As it is human nature to want to belong, this decision has most likely been very difficult. But even more disturbing, they have given up on participating in elections.
Lower voter turnout, mostly the so-called party base, requires many candidates to take positions outside their normal comfort zone to get the party nomination then struggle to find a way to not lose that base while convincing the broader spectrum of voters to support them in the general election. If they are successful in being elected, they must often choose between doing what is best for their entire constituency or cast votes that please a vocal yet small percentage of the party. The decision could decide if they are challenged by another party member in the next election.
How then do the Democratic and Republican Party stop the “bleeding”, make it easier on their candidates and elected officials, and get the voters who have left to return? The answer again is simple.
Lawmakers of both parties need to pass legislation that enacts an election system making it easier and less risky for candidates to take positions allowing them to remain in their comfort zone. That allows them to appeal to the broader electorate without jeopardizing their chance for election and subsequent success as an elected representative. That allows them and the party to adopt positions that attracted those who left to join in the first place.  The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) provides such a system.
By changing the way Nevada conducts its elections, requiring candidates to address all voters, both parties will benefit.  By returning to positions that represent the voters who also “lean” or who are truly in the middle rather than just those who are ideologically pure, those who left will once again feel they belong and possibly rejoin the party. With them will come their donations of time and money.
The decision is up to the legislators who will be the 2017 Nevada Legislature. They can decide to retain the current path of voter registration, intra-party dissention, and low voter turnout or return the electoral and legislative process to a place where collaboration, consensus building, and problem solving take priority.  The later will allow the Democratic and Republican Party to regain membership.
Pre-filing a bill draft request (BDR) will show legislators are serious about solving this problem. How serious are the Democratic and Republican Party about regaining membership? Legislators will have to answer that question.
Posted on

$3 – 4 Million Savings Possible For Nevada Taxpayers

Nevada taxpayers would realize a savings of at least $3 – 4 million every two years if legislators enact enabling legislation during the next legislative session in 2017. This savings is not hypothetical. It is money that is currently being spent that would no longer be required. Taxpayers would not forfeit any current services or benefits. Dollars saved could be used by the counties and state for other purposes or to reduce taxes.
The enabling legislation is the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) – 2017. The savings was not part of NEMRA that was heard by the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee last session. That bill, SB 499, had the original language stripped and replaced. The resulting bill, extending the filing deadline for minor political party and independent candidates, was passed and enacted.
Regardless of the outcome, the fact that a Bill Draft Request (BDR) was filed and a bill introduced by the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee shows that legislators recognize the growing need for election reform and are willing to seriously consider legislation aimed at improving the election process in Nevada.
NEMRA – 2017 provides the savings while:
  •          Not affecting the political parties’ right of association
  •          Not affecting a political party’s right to select nominees
  •          Maintaining general election ballot access of minor party and independent candidates
  •          Solving the problem of low voter turnout primary elections, maximizing voter turnout and the importance of every vote
  •          Eliminating strategic voting; voters changing registration for the primary to vote for the weakest candidate to strengthen the electability of their preferred candidate in another political party 
  • Addressing what Harvard Business School calls the main obstacle to economic progress and competitiveness

 What would happen if members of each political party, both major and minor, still selected their candidates to appear on the general election ballot along with all qualified independent (Non-Partisan) candidates but the general election was the only election held?  

  •          Tax payers would save $3 – 4 million per election cycle. This is what it costs the counties and state to conduct a primary election
  •          The problem of low voter turnout for primary elections would be eliminated and turnout would be maximized. General election turnouttypically runs over 75% in presidential years and over 60% in non-presidential years. Conversely, primary election turnout has been averaging below 20% (NOTE: 2014 general election turnout was well below this average – 45.56%)
  •          Voters would have more choices. All voters, not just those often described as the party base, would be courted during the campaign. The debate and discussion will focus on what concerns most voters. This will contribute to larger voter participation and turnout. Those elected would truly represent the will, beliefs, and values of their constituents.
  •          Candidates could focus their time and dollars on one election
  •          The Republican and Democratic Parties could see a reversal of the trend of losing members.

The Nominating Process
  •          Prior to the filing deadline each political party, whether classified as a major or minor party, determines the number of candidates it desires to represent it on the general election ballot. This can be anywhere from one (1) to no restriction.
  •          The parties decide to officially nominate or endorse one or more of their candidates.
  •          Voters not registered to vote in a particular political party do not participate in the nominating process of a political party in which they are not registered. Voters registered as Non-Partisan do not participate in the process of any political party unless allowed to do so by that party.
  •          The process of nominating or endorsing may be by any method approved by the individual parties except that no tax dollars may be used
  •          Independent candidates for partisan offices and all candidates for non-partisan offices must meet current qualification criteria
  • If a political party limits the number of candidates on the general election ballot under the party name, the person(s) desiring to run but prevented from doing so by the party would be allowed to change their voter registration to Non-Partisan and attempt to qualify for the ballot as an independent candidate 

By enacting NEMRA – 2017, Nevada would join the 17 political jurisdictions, 101 political parties, organizations and corporations, the Utah Republican Party, the Arlington County, VA, County Democratic Committee (ACDC), and 68 colleges and universities that use some form of single election Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting (RCV / IRV). (* These numbers represent those reported. Actual use could be higher) These numbers do not include pending votes in 2016 in Duluth, Minnesotaand the state of Maineto implement RCV / IRV; Maine would be the first state to implement this process state-wide if the initiative passes, and legislation in New York that would allow New York Cityto test RCV / IRV. Other jurisdictionsare also exploring RCV / IRV. Roberts Rules of Order, the leading parliamentary standard includes the use of RCV / IRV and several politicians, political organizations and publications endorse RCV / IRV. Since this list was assembled, The Washington Post and Mississippi Clarion-Ledger have added their endorsements. Additionally, Mississippi and Arizona are exploring the use of RCV / IRV. RCV / IRV was first used in the late 1800’s is still in use today.
Louisiana has used a similar process since 1997, however, their election in November is followed by a separate run-off election in December for offices where no candidate receives a majority in the November contest.  
The Election Process
  •          This is a general election. As with any general election, all candidates are listed and all voters vote the one ballot
  •          When casting their ballot, voters mark their first and second choice
  •          If a candidate receives a majority of first choice votes, that candidate is elected.
  •          If no candidate receives a majority of first choice votes, the top four vote-getters advance to the instant run-off. This is not a separate election. It is a continuation of vote tabulation.

o   The system looks at the candidates marked as second choice on the ballots of candidates eliminated based on first choice votes and assigns the votes to the remaining candidates as appropriate.
o   The candidate now in fourth place is eliminated and the tabulation process repeated.
o   If no candidate has a majority following this tabulation to step is repeated.
o   If following that tabulation no candidate has a majority, the process is repeated one more time to determine the winner.
o   If there are less than four candidates running for any particular office, the tabulation is adjusted for the number of candidates.
o   If only two candidates are running for a particular office, voters will be instructed to only mark their first choice.
RCV / IRV is easily understood and accepted by voters where it is used. In an article published on this blog on December 28, 2014, Ensuring A Majority; Top-Three With RCV / IRV – Can Voters Accept and Understand? I highlight several polls.
·         In one group of polling data looking at San Francisco, CA; Burlington, VT; Takoma Park, MD; Cary, NC; and Hendersonville, NC, an average 89 percent of voters understood RCV / IRV.  78.4 percent preferred its use.
·         In Portland, ME, 94 percent of voters understood RCV / IRV with 66 percent finding it easy. Voters also found campaigns to be more positive with more information available.
·         In Minneapolis, MN, 90 percent understood the process and 95 percent found it simple to use. When asked if they favored RCV / IRV, 68 percent either preferred it or said it didn’t matter while 65 percent wanted it used in future elections.
When the BDR for NEMRA was submitted last session, the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) issued an opinion that RCV / IRV violated Article 5 Section 4 and Article 15 Section 14 of the Nevada Constitution. Article 5 Section 4 states that when votes are counted, the candidate with the most votes is declared the winner. Article 15 Section 14 states that a candidate may be elected with a plurality of the votes. NEMRA – 2017 and implementation of RCV / IRV does not violate these two sections.
RCV / IRV is a method of tabulating votes to determine the winner. A second run-off election is not held. According to an opinion from a former Director of the LCB, the legislature can exercise its authority and include in the bill a statement that it is their intent the process used in tabulating the votes under RCV / IRV meets the definition of a vote as stipulated in Article 5 Section 4.
RCV / IRV is a plurality voting system and therefore does not violate Article 15 Section 14.  The winner of an election conducted using RCV / IRV does have a majority of the votes tabulated in the final round. However, that may, and in most cases is, a plurality of total votes cast due to ballots becoming exhausted, first and second choices eliminated. This is supported by court decisions (Moore v. Election Comm’rs of Cambridge, 35 N.E.2d 222, 238 (Mass. 1941), Dudum v. Arntz, 640 F.3d 1098, 1110–11 and n.18) and electionresults.  It should be noted that in most RCV / IRV elections, the candidate who received the highest number of first choice votes usually ends up as the winner.
During the hearing on SB 499, testimony against the bill centered on the perception that voters registered as Non-Partisan would be voting to select a party’s nominees.  NEMRA – 2017 addresses these concerns. Political parties control the selection of their candidates for the general election. At the same time, NEMRA – 2017 accomplishes the reforms needed to increase voter interest and participation in the election process.  
Posted on

Nine Assembly Districts Targeted – Who Will Actually Decide

In a story published Sunday, October 11, 2015 in the Reno Gazette Journal, Ray Hagar reports on the nine key assembly districts being targeted by the Democratic Party in 2016. Democratic Party leadership sees these districts as key to regaining the majority in the State Assembly for the 2017 Nevada Legislature session.  The article highlights the advantage the Democratic Party has in voter registration in each of the nine districts as being the largest factor in the Democratic favor. However, assuming voter turnout will be high; the average turnout in presidential yearsis over 75%, those affiliated with the two major political parties will not decide the outcome. That privilege belongs to the nearly 27% of voters registered as either Non-Partisan (21%) or as members of a minor political party (6.9%).
As of September 30, 2015, voter registration in the nine targeted districts is:
District
Dem
Rep
NP
Minor Party
Total not D or R
5
40.4
34.6
19.6
5.4
25.0
8
43.3
29.1
21.8
5.8
27.6
9
39.0
32.8
22.1
6.1
28.2
10
48.3
25.1
20.7
5.9
26.6
21
40.0
33.6
20.1
6.3
26.4
29
38.0
35.8
20.2
6.0
26.2
34
43.6
31.1
19.5
5.8
25.3
35
37.6
33.0
23.1
6.3
29.4
41
39.5
33.3
21.0
6.2
27.2

As I highlight on this blog each month, the number of voters not registered to vote in either the Democratic or Republican Parties continues to grow. To win any race, candidates will have to win the support of those voters.
Posted on

Would Use of Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting Violate the Nevada Constitution?

When the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) was filed as Bill Draft Request (BDR) 1149 for the 2015 session of the Nevada Legislature, the Legislative Council Bureau (LCB) issued the following opinion:
“After researching the constitutionality of the BDR, we believe that the “instant runoff” system violates: (1) Section 4 of Article 5 of the Nevada Constitution, which requires that candidates “having the highest number of votes” be declared elected; and (2) Section 14 of Article is, which provides that a candidate wins an election by receiving a “plurality” of votes (rather than a majority of votes). The proposed instant runoff system violates these provisions because it prohibits a candidate who receives the highest number of votes from being declared the winner unless the candidate receives a majority (i.e., 50 + 1) of votes. (According to our research, a number of municipalities nationwide have implemented instant runoff systems, while other states have implemented instant runoff systems only in limited circumstances. In each of those instances, the constitutions for the states do not have analogous provisions that would have prohibited instant runoffs in the municipalities or in the limited circumstances that the states were using instant runoff for. California‘s original constitution from 1849 had a provision similar to the “plurality” provision of Section 14, Article is, but that provision was not retained when California adopted a new constitution in 1879.)”
This opinion resulted in the bill, SB 499, being introduced as a modified top-two non-partisan open primary. Following a hearingbefore the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee, the original language of the bill was replaced with language extending the candidate filing deadline for minor party and independent candidates. That language was passed by both chambers of the legislature and approved by the governor. But does Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting (RCV / IRV) violate the two referenced sections of the state Constitution? Probably not.
Section 4 Article 5 of the Nevada Constitution addresses the transmittal and canvassing of votes of the general election.  RCV / IRV is a process used to determine the candidate with the highest number of votes. The question is what constitutes a “vote”. According to a former director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, language in the bill stating the ranking of candidates constitutes a “vote” for the purpose of Section 4 Article 5 and that the candidate who is determined to have the highest number of votes under the process is determined to have the highest number of votes under the meaning of Section 4 Article 5 should resolve the constitutional question.
Section 14 Article 15 is one sentence; “A plurality of votes given at an election by the people, shall constitute a choice, where not otherwise provided by this Constitution[.]” The constitutionality of RCV / IRV is being questioned because it is a common belief that RCV / IRV requires the eventual winner of an election to have received a clear majority of the total votes cast. This is not correct. Because ballots become exhausted before the final round of tabulation or some voters do not mark a second choice, RCV / IRV is in fact a plurality voting system.  The winner does have a majority of votes counted in the final round but not necessarily a majority of the total votes cast. This can be seen in the results of the 2014 election for Mayor in Oakland, California (63.2% final, 46.5% total votes cast) and the 2011 elections for Mayor in San Francisco, California (59.8% final, 43.4% total votes cast) and Portland, Maine (55.8% final, 45.9% total votes cast). A 2003 opinion by the Attorney General for the state of Texas also supports that RCV / IRV is not a majority voting system. Texas law requires winners of an election receive a majority of the total votes cast. The opinion prevented a city from implementing RCV / IRV because it does not meet this requirement.
I am currently working on getting NEMRA, either in its original form or slightly modified, back before the Nevada legislature in 2017. An important part of that process is addressing the concerns of the LCB. The above facts represent the start of that process.

Proudly powered by WordPress