Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – The Details

Problem: Partisanship is now one of the top divisive issues impacting all aspects of our lives (even more than race). It prevents legislative bodies from governing effectively and efficiently

Solution:

·         Create a more informed electorate by focusing candidate discussion on issues.

·         Open up the electoral process allowing an earlier and broader discussion of the issues through implementing an open top-three non-partisan primary system.

·         End plurality victories by implementing ranked choice voting (RCV); also known as instant run-off voting (IRV) process for the general election for all state and federal elected offices. Winner has majority mandate.

·         Between 2012 and 2014, the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan grew by 10%. Both major parties lost members

·         Currently over 20% of Nevada voters are registered as Non-Partisan; close to 30% for those between the ages of 18 – 34. With minor party registrations, 26% and 37% of voters respectively are not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party

·         The primary factor is a strong opinion that neither party represents the views of a majority of  voters

·         Nevada used open non-partisan primaries until 1918

·         Four states; CA, WA, LA, and NE have top-two primaries. NE is a non-partisan, unicameral state legislature. 38 states have some form of open primary

·         4 states and 12 cities use RCV / IRV.  According to the government agencies overseeing elections in these jurisdictions, voter education was key to implementation and exit poll data shows voter understanding and acceptance of RCV / IRV.  Process is endorsed by many elected officials, organizations, and publications.

·         RCV / IRV has been in existence since the late 1800’s

·         Three states; MA, MN, and NY have legislation implementing RCV / IRV pending.  Six states; MI, MN, MT, PA, RI, and WI have legislation implementing open or non-partisan primaries pending.

·         No state has implemented these two systems on a state-wide basis. Nevada would be the national leader in setting the example for the rest of the country.

·         Broadens the scope of the debate by bringing in more ideas / solutions earlier in the election cycle

·         Enhances the chances of all candidates by forcing discussion away from extreme positions  towards specific solutions, appealing to more voters and likely increasing voter turnout

·         All candidates for a partisan position; major party, minor party, independents, listed on the ballot

·         All voters regardless of party affiliation vote increasing voter turnout as available pool of voters increases by the percentage of Non-Partisan and minor party voters

·         Change will apply to non-partisan offices so there is only one system

·         Top three vote getters advance to general election using RCV / IRV
Eliminates cost of primary if 3 or less candidates. All move to the general election. If a candidate receives at least 50%+1 of the votes cast in the primary, that candidate is elected, except for Congress due to federal law and the office would not be contested in the general election again reducing the cost of the campaign. This currently happens if all candidates are from the same party. However, the “majority” received is only from a small portion of only the one party, not all voters. Same vote using a top-three primary, the majority would be of all voters. Winner has a true mandate.

·         The right of political parties to select a preferred candidate, either through party caucus, central committee action, or any other method specified in party rules is specifically upheld.

·         Re-enfranchises those voters not registered to vote as members of a major party to the primary election process.

·         Process upheld by U.S. Supreme Court in Grange v Washington. Justice Scalia recommended open, blanket, non-partisan primaries in his decision of California Democratic Party v Jones

·         Ensures person elected wins with a clear majority of no less than 50% + 1 of total votes cast for each particular office.

·         Further protects the “None of the Above” option and drastically reduces or eliminates the impact of perceived spoiler votes.

·         Winner can declare a rightful mandate in legislative voting decisions

·         Voters who like two candidates or who like a third-party or independent candidate but believe their vote would be wasted can vote for one candidate as second choice – a logical decision that removes confusion or perceived self-conflict

·         If no candidate receives at least 50% +1 of the total first choice votes cast, the candidate finishing third is eliminated. The second choice votes of those who voted for the eliminated candidate as first choice are counted and distributed to the appropriate candidate. After counting of second choice votes, it is possible for the candidate who finished second with first choice votes wins with at least 50% +1 of the total votes cast

·         Provide an atmosphere where political parties can regain lost membership. Candidates would not have to take extreme positions that conflict with their actual views to win nomination

·         Encourage voters who believe their vote has no impact to return to the polls

·         Act as a positive discriminator to businesses considering moving or establishing in Nevada. State having the most inclusive voting process in the nation would appeal to the growing number of socially conscious companies. (Discussed with CEO EDAWN and LVGEA)

·         Las Vegas Valley League of Women Voters

·         Randi Thompson – Reno Gazette Journal and Nevada Newsmakers columnist

·         Other endorsements pending introduction of bill

·         The Nevada Secretary of State’s office and both the Washoe and Clark County Registrar of Voters have stated there would only be a one-time system upgrade and voter education cost. This cost should be minimal.

·         With minor exception, because of newness and limited use of open non-partisan blanket top-two primaries, studies do not include analysis of this system. However, results focused on use of traditional open, semi-closed, and closed primaries could be reasonably extrapolated to apply to the proposed top-three system.

·         Comments in parenthesis are mine. 

2011 University of Utah, Alvarez / Sinclair; Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: The Effects of Primary Processes – Analyzing California legislature, legislators elected under a blanket primary are more open-minded than legislators elected under a closed primary system.

2013 Cornell College, Hassell; The Non-existent Primary-Ideology Link, or Do Open Primaries Actually Limit Party Influence in Primary Elections – Political parties still maintain influence regardless of primary type. How this influence is used depends on competitiveness of the race(s); increase eligibility of voters or cater to extremism and allow for uncertainty of voter turnout.  (Under top-three primary and RCV / IRV, parties could influence choice towards a preferred candidate at the primary or first or second choice selection at the general election)

2011 UC Irvine, Robb;  The effect of instant runoff voting on democracy – The use of RCV / IRV creates a less negative campaign environment, produces higher voter turnout, and increases minority participation and representation.

2014 Public Policy Institute of CA, McGhee; Voter Turnout in Primary Elections – Top- two primary increases primary turnout especially among independent voters. (Top-three should increase turnout to a greater degree because of increased importance of vote. See separate document on primary election voter turnout for potential impact)

2010 UC San Diego, Hill; The Persuasion Region: A Theory of Electoral Change – Election outcomes change when either voters change decision points or when new voters enter the pool. The size of the electorate determines which is more prevalent. Either can force a shift towards moderation dependent on voters’ knowledge of candidates’ positions.

2008 University of Texas at Dallas, UC Irvine, Brunell / Grofman; Testing sincere versus strategic split-ticket voting at the aggregate level: Evidence from split house–president outcomes, 1900–2004 – Sincere voting, possibly resulting in split-ticket results when voting for members of Congress and President will occur as voters try to bring government towards the median of their views. (Top-three primary and RCV / IRV are designed to encourage candidates to be closer to the views of the middle area of all voters)

When One Vote Matters: The Electoral Impact of Roll Call Votes in the 2010 Congressional Elections – Study shows the impact on democrats in Congress based on their votes on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and the economic stimulus package. While most individual votes do not affect chances for re-election; overall voting record weighs more, democrats’ votes on these three pieces of legislation definitely caused election losses in 2010. (The 2010 congressional elections showed these members of Congress were not in sync with the majority of the voters in their districts. A top-three primary, resulting in a candidate closer to the views of the median voter could have impacted the votes in Congress)

2013 UC Berkeley, Ahler / Citrin / Lenz; Do  Open Primaries Help Moderate Candidates? An Experimental Test on the 2012 California Primary – While voters do tend to vote for a candidate closer to their beliefs, a lack of voter knowledge of the candidates can result in a voter choosing a candidate they believe is close to them while in reality that is not true. (This highlights the importance of voter knowledge. While a top two-primary may not adequately address this issue, a top-three primary places a greater burden on candidates to ensure voters know their positions. This supports my belief that my proposal will result in a more informed electorate)

2006 Naval Post-Graduate School, UC Irvine, Owen / Grofman; Two-stage electoral competition in two-party contests: persistent divergence of party positions– Under the current two-stage; primary and general electoral process, the party closer to the median attitudes of the electorate has a better chance of winning. If a candidate, regardless of party meets this criterion, they also can be victorious. (The top-three primary combined with RCV /IRV will draw the contest towards the median)

2004 UC Irvine, Grofman; Downs and two-party convergence – Plurality elections produce candidates closer to the median voter in their party rather than the overall median voter. Using a more inclusive primary process tends to produce candidates closer to the overall median. (In a system where parties and / or candidates are drawn to moderation, abstention from voting can occur by extremists wishing to force a return to the extreme. Under top-three and RCV / IRV this strategy could be reduced. 

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