fairvote-2009 blog

Romney vs. Romney

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:13:07 -0800

The majority of media attention is (rightly so) on the current race between Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum, but it's also interesting and informative to compare Romney to another candidate: himself, circa 2008. In the battle of "Romney vs. Romney," who has performed better? While it was the 2012 version in all early states except Iowa, this version has performed poorly in recent contests in Nevada, Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado. See below:
<h3 class="left">States in which Romney 2012 has outperformed Romney 2008:  3 States in which Romney 2008 has outperformed Romney 2012:  5</h3>
 
 
<div class="image left" style="width: 600;"><img src="assets/NewFolder-4/Sheets-1-2-Romney-vs.-Romney-combined.png" alt="" width="600" height="916" /></div>

Rule Breaker: The Florida Republican Primary, Winner-Take-All Allocation, and the Undoing of American Democracy

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:36:52 -0800

<div class="image left" style="width: 593px;">
<div class="image center" style="width: 593px;"><img src="assets/NewFolder/RomneyFL.JPG" alt="" width="593" height="422" /></div>
 </div>
Photo Credit:  <a href="http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/j2hNadaqVw5/Romney+Campaigns+Florida+Final+Weekend+Before/RZ8CKn8t19L">Joe Raedle, Getty</a>
 Alligators and orange juice, space ships and sunshine be damned, Florida’s greatest claim to fame over the last decade has been its penchant for political controversy. Having labored and lucked its way into the spotlight of successive election cycles, the Sunshine State is today an almost mythical place for presidential candidates, a land of both hope and hazard. And more than any other state over the last decade, Florida has demonstrated to Americans the perils of reflexive adherence to current voting procedures and the overwhelming need for election reform. Two days ago, Florida once again found itself on the frontlines of a presidential election, as it played host to a Republican Party searching for clarity amid the disorienting fog of war. In the GOP’s 2012 nomination contest, three states had gone before Florida, each coronating a different would-be nominee—Iowa for Rick Santorum, New Hampshire for Mitt Romney, South Carolina for Newt Gingrich—a lack of concurrence that positioned Florida as an all-powerful tiebreaker with the schedule to itself. After days of attention, a handful of nationally televised debates, and millions of dollars in advertisements, the candidates—having made their respective pitches—could only wait for Floridians to render a collective verdict. In the end, Romney <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/campaigns/florida-primary-offers-a-big-prize-for-winner-with-polls-showing-thats-likely-to-be-romney/2012/01/31/gIQAA4wEeQ_story.html">overwhelmed</a> Gingrich, winning with 46.4% of the vote—his largest plurality of the campaign thus far—to 31.9% for Gingrich, 13.4% for Santorum, and 7.0% for Ron Paul. 
<div class="image center" style="width: 600px;"><img src="assets/NewFolder/_resampled/ResizedImage600318-Florida-2012-GOP.png" alt="" width="600" height="318" /></div>
Not only did Romney right the proverbial ship after a sobering loss in South Carolina, but the former Massachusetts governor collected all 50 of Florida’s delegates to the Republican Convention, the Sunshine State’s winner-take-all rules inflating the strength of his non-majority victory (46.4% of the vote yielding 100% of delegates). Despite combining for a 52.3% majority of the vote, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul exited Florida empty handed, delegate-less.
 
*          *          *
Perhaps most disquieting for Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul is that, had the RNC enforced its own rules, Florida would not have been able to employ winner-take-all allocation. In a <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/if-gop-fight-drags-on-so-could-argument-over-floridas-delegates/1212342">confrontation</a> last year, the RNC stripped the Sunshine State of half its delegates for violating party scheduling rules proscribing a primary date that encroached upon the <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/democracy-lost-Iowa-New-Hampshire-Primaries/#.TynFrMiHOFs">privileged status</a> of Iowa and New Hampshire. With the RNC apparently unwilling to penalize the state by reducing its delegates twice, Floridian powerbrokers subsequently broke the RNC rule requiring all states holding pre-April contests to employ proportional methods of delegate allocation, opting instead for a winner-take-all primary. By breaking these two rules and holding an early winner-take-all contest, Florida, as The Washington Post <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/floridas-winner-take-all-delegate-situation-explained/2012/01/31/gIQAXWhRfQ_blog.html">notes</a>, made itself “one of the most pivotal states in the presidential race.”

<div class="image left" style="width: 229;"><img src="assets/NewFolder/RomneyFL2.JPG" alt="" width="229" height="302" /></div>
While the RNC should be commended for moving to proportional allocation* for convention delegates for the pre-April contests this election cycle, its inability&dagger; to force an insubordinate early state like Florida (soon to be followed Arizona, which also is breaking the rules with a winner-take-all primary) to obey party policy threatens to undermine the key <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/gop-rolls-the-dice-in-2012-with-plurality-winner-take-all-rules#.TynFsMiHOFt">changes</a>—such as a longer nomination battle and its corresponding voter enthusiasm and media attention—the party hoped to effect with its rule modification. Forty-nine confiscated delegates to the Republican Convention in exchange for a much-hyped winner-take-all contest and two weeks of adoration from doting candidates might have been a good deal for Florida, but it was a sour deal for the American people.
Put simply, proportional allocation keeps a nomination battle going in that it enables more than one candidate to seize delegates—and therefore, influence within the party. Winner-take-all allocation—which many states prefer because it provides for larger swings in the delegate race and increases their importance—tends to abbreviate the process, as the candidate with the most votes in a state, no matter her share, lands all of its delegates. Such a result is undemocratic, as it not only leads to delegate counts unreflective of the vote, but also often drives the de facto nomination of a candidate before the majority of Americans have had an opportunity to vote.
For example, in the 2008 GOP nomination battle between John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani, Florida’s January 29 winner-take-all primary <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/us/politics/30florida.html?ref=politics">proved decisive</a>. McCain, despite winning an unimpressive 36.0% of the vote to Romney’s 31.0% (a mere 5% margin), gathered all 57 of the state’s delegates, or 100%. Like Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee, despite 14.7% and 13.5% of the vote, respectively, received no delegates.
 
<div class="image center" style="width: 600px;"><img src="assets/NewFolder/_resampled/ResizedImage600319-Florida-2008-GOP.png" alt="" width="600" height="319" /></div>
Although McCain’s margin was small and the race extremely competitive, Florida’s winner-take-all rules portrayed the Arizona senator’s victory as absolute—the latest step in his inexorable march to the nomination—and gave him enormous momentum heading into Super Tuesday on February 5. In other words, winner-take-all allocation made an admittedly vulnerable candidate look invincible, a storyline that subsequently shortchanged the process, as each of McCain’s challengers—having staked so much on one state, Florida—retreated into premature obscurity, the race essentially over before millions of voters and the majority of states had had a chance to weigh in. Trademark winner-take-all.
 
*          *          *
Never one for nuance, winner-take-all undermines American democracy, reducing million of voters to irrelevancy. The RNC was correct to move away from a winner-take-all system. Importantly, proportional allocation of delegates is more likely to lead to a prolonged nomination fight, which gives more voters an opportunity to evaluate formally the candidates. Proportionality, additionally, is more reflective of the popular vote, including—rather than excluding—candidates, rewarding them for their effort, spreading—rather than concentrating—influence, and granting voters of all stripes a voice at the party convention. The GOP must make an example of Florida in order to deter similar rule infractions in 2016, by Florida or any other state. If it fails to do so, then winner-take-all will continue to slither its way back into American primary politics. _________
* In 2010, the RNC—recognizing that states prefer holding early, winner-take-all contests—changed party rules to <a href="http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf">prohibit winner-take-all</a> allocation of delegates to the Republican Convention for any primary or caucus occurring before April 1, 2012, with the exception of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada (see Rule 15(b)(1) and 15(b)(2)). In other words, states were presented the choice between an early primary employing proportionality and a winner-take-all primary occurring later on the schedule. By doing so, the RNC hoped to accomplish the twin goals of prolonging the nomination battle and deterring front-loading of the schedule.
&dagger; Florida could be <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/floridas-winner-will-lock-in-50-delegates-not-necessarily/">compelled</a> to allocate its delegates to the Republican Convention proportionally, although for now, the winner-take-all method stands. A provision in the RNC’s rules allows a registered Florida Republican to file a challenge with the RNC Committee on Contests, asking the committee to force Florida to allot its delegates proportionally. If such a complaint is approved by the Committee on Contests, the RNC could force the Sunshine State to retroactively give delegates to Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul. If the race between Romney and his competitors evolves into a delegate-driven war of attrition, debate over Florida’s delegates could take center stage once more.

Presidential Tracker: New Evidence of our Shrinking Battleground

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:57:30 -0800

Since FairVote's <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/presidential-tracker-looking-at-the-structure#.TyMUesWXuE4">last presidential tracker update</a> in December, President Barack Obama's travels have followed the standard rule of prioritizing the swing states. Indeed, just like his predecessor George Bush as he prepared for re-election, the president's destinations and the nature of his visits followed the same trends that we've seen in the past: battlegrounds and fundraising.
According to the Washington Post's <a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/potus-tracker/trips/domestic/">POTUS Tracker</a>, since the first of December, Barack Obama has <a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/potus-tracker/trips/domestic/">officially visited 11 states</a> and held a total of 17 events, excluding his personal trip to Hawaii over the holidays. Of the 12 most likely battleground states for the 2012 election, the President visited eight of them in the past 2 months alone.
As indicated in the chart below, events in the New Year are similarly shaping up to be a complimentary mixture of fundraising and swing state public events. During his trips to New York and Illinois, both typically strong blue states, the President held a total of seven events, all of which were for fundraising. And, battlegrounds are gaining momentum, as expected. Last week, the president completed a 3-day battleground tour to Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, and Michigan, with an additional visit to one state that is unlikely to be a real battleground: Arizona.
This is what his 2012 is shaping up like so far:

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="591">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="139">
    States
</td>
<td width="139">
 Type of Event(s)
</td>
<td width="139">
 No. of Events
</td>
<td width="175">
State Status
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="139">
   Ohio
</td>
<td width="139">
  Public & Private
</td>
<td width="139">
    2
</td>
<td width="175">
Battleground
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="139">
   Illinois
</td>
<td width="139">
  Fundraising
</td>
<td width="139">
    3
</td>
<td width="175">
Safe Democrat
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="139">
   Florida
</td>
<td width="139">
  Public
</td>
<td width="139">
    1
</td>
<td width="175">
Battleground
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="139">
   New York
</td>
<td width="139">
  Fundraising
</td>
<td width="139">
    4
</td>
<td width="175">
Safe Democrat
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="139">
   Iowa
</td>
<td width="139">
  Public
</td>
<td width="139">
    1
</td>
<td width="175">
Battleground
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="139">
   Arizona
</td>
<td width="139">
  Public
</td>
<td width="139">
    1
</td>
<td width="175">
Leaning Republican
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="139">
   Nevada
</td>
<td width="139">
  Public
</td>
<td width="139">
    1
</td>
<td width="175" valign="top">
Battleground
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="139">
  Colorado
</td>
<td width="139">
  Public
</td>
<td width="139">
    1
</td>
<td width="175">
Battleground
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="139">
   Michigan
</td>
<td width="139">
   Public
</td>
<td width="139">
    1
</td>
<td width="175">
Battleground
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

As discussed in <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/list/category/presidential-tracker#.Tya7tsWXuE4">previous tracker updates</a>, visits to these so-called "battleground" states (and safe states for fundraising) meet a strategic need in a candidates bid to get elected to the office of the president. Typically, the President takes a public tour or delivers remarks in battleground states. Yet, it is also common to travel frequently to certain safe states that can lend a helping hand in the fundraising department. President Obama regularly held events in New York and California over the past year - both of which top the list for most events held in 2011 and are famous for many big campaign donors.
This focus on swing states is a direct result of the winner-take-all system of our Electoral College. Once the nomination is decided - which it effectively is for Obama, as he avoided a primary challenger - presidential candidates have every incentive to focus all of their campaign-related attention on a dwindling number of swing states. This leads to many being excluded from the national conversation. Indeed, there is no real need for the President to be concerned with "safe states" under such a system (other than for fundraising purposes). It is the incentives created by the system.
When Obama had different incentives, he campaigned differently, of course. In his hard-fought race for the Democratic nomination in 2008, he visited nearly every state. But in his three years as president, he still has yet to travel to nine states - a direct result of our indefensible way of electing presidents.
To wrap up the past year, in 2011, 61% of the country received 100% of the attention and event visits from the president, but more than half of those states are considered "battleground". Although fundraising in safely democratic states was high on the agenda during the past year - a combined 52 events - public events in battleground states totaled a hefty 49. 
As you can see from the map below, 20 states in total never had one event in all of 2011-including the nine that have never received a visit since he took office in 2009. 15 other states across the nation still had three or fewer visits. Iowa, New Hampshire and Minnesota are the only "battleground" states to have less than four events in 2011. In fact, of the 12 battlegrounds for this election, 11 of them each had three or more events in the past year.
Data on President Barack Obama's travels is obtained from the Washington Post's <a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/potus-tracker/trips/domestic/">POTUS Tracker</a>
<h3>2011 Year-end Summary</h3>
<img src="assets/Staff Photos/_resampled/ResizedImage600432-US-Map-POTUS-2011.GIF" alt="" width="600" height="432" />

The Supply Side: Alternative Reform Approaches to Campaign Finance

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:19:30 -0800

Last Saturday marked the two-year anniversary of the controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling in <a href="comparing-choice-voting-and-winner-take-all-elections/#http://www.fairvote.org/comparing-choice-voting-and-winner-take-all-elections">Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</a>. Citizens United overturned decades of campaign finance law by extending First Amendment protection to political expenditures by corporations and unions. In tandem with other court rulings and with decisions by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Citizens United allows independent expenditure committees (Super PACs) to collect unlimited sums from individuals, labor unions, and corporations. Super PACs can spend unrestricted amounts of money on ads in support of or opposition to candidates, provided they do not donate directly to or coordinate with them.
The ruling became an instant fault line in American politics, leading to heated debate and one of the most incendiary issues of 2010. The decision itself was highly contested, with Justice John Paul Stevens authoring a strongly worded <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html">dissent</a>. In the weeks after the decision was released, an ABC-Washington Post <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/02/in-supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-finance-the-public-dissents/">poll</a> showed that 80% of those surveyed opposed the ruling, sentiments that President Barack Obama echoed in his 2010 State of the Union Address. Justice Samuel Alito’s mouthed <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/alito-not-true_n_439672.html">retort</a> left commentators across the political spectrum arguing about potential breaches of decorum on both sides. 
“Occupy the Courts,” a movement part of the “Occupy Wall Street” protests, has lambasted the decision for enabling wealthy donors to bombard swing state voters with negative advertisements. Even comedian Stephen Colbert has made a mockery of the lack of regulations regarding what Super PACS can and cannot do by creating <a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/391146/june-30-2011/colbert-super-pac---i-can-haz-super-pac-">his own Super PAC</a>. Currently, opponents of the decision are considering unlikely range of tactics in response, including constitutional amendments.
The 2012 election is the first election for president to take place with the influence of Super PACs. Notre Dame Law professor Lloyd Mayer, in an <a href="http://thepolitic.org/?p=445">interview </a>with The Politic, predicts that, “Super PACS will likely target presidential swing states and close federal and state elections, ignoring other sates and elections.” This conclusion is reinforced by data derived from the CRS Super PAC <a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42042.pdf">report</a>. Of the $40,841,528 Super PACs spent on 2010 senate races, $28,422,989 (70%) was spent on just seven races ranked by RealClearPolitics as “<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_elections_senate_map.html">toss-ups</a>,” which accounted for only 19% of contested seats. As Mayer predicts, Super PAC money was strongly concentrated in the small number of truly competitive races. Furthermore, this money appears to primarily fund negative campaigns, adding to what many Americans feel is a growing problem of divisiveness and negativity in politics. For instance, approximately 80% of ads in the Republican primary funded by Super PACs were attack ads.
Money has been an integral part of political campaigns long before the Supreme Court made its 2010 ruling in Citizens United. The 2008 presidential campaign saw <a href="comparing-choice-voting-and-winner-take-all-elections/#http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/20090608PresStat.shtml">record-breaking fundraising </a>efforts with Barack Obama raising a total of $745.7 million in private funds after declining to receive public funds. Money will continue to be important in politics, unless we look at the issue from an alternative perspective. 
 
<div class="image left" style="width: 335;"><img title="Comedian Stephen Colbert taking donations for his Super PAC (photo Sadonis)" src="assets/NewFolder/Colbert.JPG" alt="Comedian Stephen Colbert taking donations for his Super PAC (photo Sadonis)" width="335" height="250" /></div>
Most reformers focus on how to affect the supply of money in politics. When it comes to money in politics, FairVote’s focus is on electoral reforms that will reduce the demand for money in politics by reducing the impact of money. We examine the way the electoral system creates incentives for politicians to target expensive campaigns at the handful of “swing” voters that decide election outcomes and to rely on excessive negative advertising. Changing the electoral system, and thereby changing the incentives, is a promising means to “keep money in its place.” 
 
The underlying problem behind the lack of meaningful elections in America is the <a href="comparing-choice-voting-and-winner-take-all-elections/#http://www.fairvote.org/comparing-choice-voting-and-winner-take-all-elections">winner-take-all rule</a>. Winner-take-all is an electoral rule wherein the candidate with more votes than any other candidate wins the election, without taking into account the preferences of voters who did not vote for the winning candidate. This system traps most voters in elections they have no hope of affecting, accentuates the effects of gerrymandering, and encourages presidential candidates and big money interests to focus on the small set of swing states and swing districts where persuading 4%-5% of voters will change who’s in the White House, runs Congress and runs our state legislatures. 
With winner-take-all rules, political activity only makes sense when candidates are not comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind Long before the Citizens United decision, the majority of senate and congressional races, as well as the presidential race in most states, were and are considered “safe” for the Democratic or Republican Party - which is just another way of saying that the elections in those states and districts have been reduced to meaningless formalities. 
But what if every election was meaningful? What if presidential elections depended on more than a handful of swing states, Senate races provided more choices than the party-appointed candidates, and voters were not locked into congressional districts designed to re-elect incumbents? FairVote’s proposals to change winner-take-all voting rules would reduce the impact of money by increasing the impact of voters. When it comes to a general election choice between candidates representing different parties, most voters know what they want – freed from winner-take-all, their power to earn representation is not affected by money.
Each of FairVote’s core reform proposals in their own way would reduce the power of money in politics. Let’s review them briefly:

<ul>
<li>A constitutional right to vote and reforms to enhance voting rights and participation: A great deal of money is spent trying to get people to vote – or to get people not to vote. If we developed rules and cultural norms promoting high participation, such spending would be less affective. </li>
 
<li>A national popular vote for president: Today, 99% of campaign spending in the final months of the general election for president is focused on “battleground” states” representing about a third of Americans. In those states, it is focused heavily on swing voters. If every vote counted in every election, that money would need to be dispersed more widely- -and create new incentives for grassroots organizing to build and sustain voter turnout in every election.</li>
 
<li>Instant runoff voting: This ranked choice voting systems makes it easier for more than two candidates to seek a winner-take-all office by essentially eliminating the “spoiler” problem associated with our plurality voting system. It would make negative campaigns a losing proposition because winning candidates would have to appeal to voters rather than drive away their opponents’ voter in order to receive second- or third-choice support. Negative attacks designed to hurt a candidate are less certain to help the perpetrator of such attacks when there are more than two candidates. That helps explain why in a number of major instant runoff voting elections for mayor in recent years, candidates better at grassroots organizing and coalition-building defeated candidates who spent much more money.</li>
 
<li>Proportional voting: Most fundamental of all, proportional voting provides an alternative to winner-take-all elections for legislatures. It allows most voters to help elect a candidate of choice by joining with like-minded voters: 10% of the vote earns 10% of seats, 33% of votes wins a third of seats, 51% of votes wins a majority of seats and so on. The many voters not affected by money in their voting decisions would be liberated to elect candidates they like.</li>
</ul>

FairVote understands why the campaign finance debate generally focuses on the regulations under which campaign funders operate. But we offer an alternate perspective: by changing the incentives that motivate campaign funders, we can change the way campaigns are run.
________
Colbert Photo Credit:  Tyler Sadonis

South Carolina voters better enjoy it while it lasts

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:13:52 -0800

With the South Carolina primary just around the corner on Saturday, the preferences of South Carolina voters are of intense interest to the nation -and of course to the candidates swarming the states. Events, polls, debates and the media are all focused on South Carolina voters.
Today alone, GOP candidates are holding a combined <a href="http://www.scgop.com/">16 events throughout the state</a> . Even comedian <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/stephen-colbert-herman-cain-rally_n_1219136.html">Stephen Colbert is holding a rally</a> with Herman Cain, and the online world is full of chatter about <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/19/politics/gop-debate/index.html">Newt Gingrich's showdown</a> with the media in last night's debate and who took home the prize for <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/analysis-winners-and-losers-in-south-carolina-debate/">best debater of the night.</a> There have been five total debates in South Carolina since politicians first started announcing their candidacy - three in the past week alone.
But after Saturday? Forget it. South Carolina will be lucky to see a presidential candidate in the next four years - -indeed, they may hardly see whoever is elected president until 2016. The state and its voters effectively won't matter once they cast their vote on Saturday.
It's all a product of our November election rules. Because South Carolina has a law to allocate all its electoral votes to the winner of the state, and since the outcome in November is not in question (a Republican is sure to carry the state in a nationally competitive year), there will be no incentive for the Republican nominee to return once the primary is over.
President Barack Obama will almost certainly skip the state as well. In fact, according to <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/presidential-tracker">our Presidential Tracker</a>, the president has visited South Carolina zero times since taking office in January of 2009. That's right. Zero.  In contrast, he has held 14 separate events in neighboring North Carolina, which is also more likely to be a November battleground.
Just take a look at the two charts below that show a general news trend of interest in South Carolina voters and politics. The 2008 spike in interest in South Carolina and its voters is quite noticeable, but so too is the four-year drought in between presidential elections. Now, the cycle is just repeating itself again this month as interest in South Carolina climbs back up during this year's primary season -- its inevitable decline on the horizon.
<div class="image center" style="width: 600;"><img style="border: 2px solid black;" src="assets/NewFolder-3/_resampled/ResizedImage600382-Graphs-TrendsSC.PNG" alt="" width="600" height="382" /></div>
 So South Carolina soon will find themselves back in the undesirable position of "safe state" and be excluded from the national conversation come November.  It's one alone. Truly, most states don't matter in presidential elections in November. Thanks to current state rules governing <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/npv-crs-electoral-college">the Electoral College</a>-- specifically, the winner-take-all system that 48 of our 50 states use -- about 40 states will be effective spectators in the general elections. All the hail storm of promotional ads, fancy suits, political rhetoric, and rallying cries will be in the familiar states of Ohio, Florida and the like. For South Carolina? Just a memory.
The best way to make every voter matter in every election is the <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/national-popular-vote">National Popular Vote plan</a>. South Carolina in fact had a debate about the idea, with <a href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/ConferenceDay2">CSPAN coverage</a> . Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson, a 2008 Republican presidential candidate, was among those championing the NPV proposal. The proposal keeps <a href="http://nationalpopularvote.com/">making steady progress </a>and has a real chance to be in place in 2016.
There are less than 48 hours of relevancy left for South Carolina voters. We hope they enjoy it while it lasts. Presidential candidates probably won't be back for another four years.  
<a href="http://www.fairvote.org/what-is-the-national-popular-vote-plan">Learn more about the national popular vote plan for electing the president </a>

RCV for the GOP: Mitt Romney, Fractured Conservatives, and the Importance of Rules in Determining Election Outcomes

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:09:32 -0800

<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"><img src="assets/NewFolder/SuaveMittRomney.JPG" alt="" width="594" height="418" /></div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px; text-align: right;">Photo Credit:  <a href="http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Mitt+Romney/Romney+Focuses+Campaign+South+Carolina/7yNYG7BdS89">Justin Sullivan, Getty</a> </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;">After low-plurality “wins” in the Iowa caucuses* and the New Hampshire primary, Mitt Romney became the clear frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination. Viewed in historical context, Romney’s impending nomination appears rather unremarkable; the GOP has long had a reputation for hierarchy, regularly opting for the “heir apparent” over a challenger, and 2012 was Romney’s turn after having waited patiently in line for four years. Yet when viewed through the prism of current events—with the recent ascent of energized conservatives&dagger; in the Republican coalition—the GOP’s nomination of a man <a href="http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2011/12/divide-and-conquer.php">widely considered</a> the least conservative remaining candidate in the 2012 Republican presidential field is remarkable.</div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;">As disillusioned conservatives wonder how a “Massachusetts moderate”—as Romney’s opponents call him derisively—found a path to the nomination in a party moving rightward, they would do well to remember that, as always, the devil is in the details. Romney’s steady march to the nomination is very much a product of the current election framework in place, which allows a candidate to win a state with a plurality, rather than a majority, of the vote. True, in this election cycle, more GOP contests will allocate delegates proportionally than ever before, but in actuality, the media, commentators, and voters still treat each state contest as “winner-take-all.” In Iowa and New Hampshire, for instance, a plurality of the vote no longer earns a candidate 100% of delegates, but it still gives her a surge of momentum, the true life-giving force in a presidential campaign. </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;">Majorities, though technically unnecessary, are desirable in that they “legitimatize” candidates and give the appearance of widespread consensus. But plurality election rules only guarantee majorities in races featuring two candidates. In a multi-candidate contest sporting three or more viable candidates, plurality voting does a woeful job—the larger the field, the more difficult it becomes to win a majority, the “triumphant” candidate often denied the legitimatizing effects of a convincing victory.  Plurality elections are also susceptible to “spoiler effects,” which occur when a voting bloc fractures between two (or more) like-minded candidates, a schism that allows a third, least-preferred candidate to win. Spoiler effects, as the inherent bitterness of the term implies, can lead to animosity between campaigns and disillusionment among voters, lingering negativity that could prove detrimental to a party in subsequent elections.</div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> 
<div class="captionImage left" style="width: 529px;"><img title="Romney's 2012 Opponents: Gingrich and Paul" src="assets/NewFolder/GingrichPaul.JPG" alt="Romney's 2012 Opponents: Gingrich and Paul" width="529" height="208" />
<div class="caption" style="width: 529px;">Romney's 2012 Opponents: Gingrich and Paul</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;">Although too late for the 2012 Republican nomination battle, there are alternatives to plurality elections, voting systems designed to respect the nuances of opinion in a multi-candidate field, while at the same time guaranteeing a majority of voters support the winning candidate. <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/instant-runoff-voting/#.Tw9KPoGHPs0">Ranked choice voting</a> (RCV, also called instant runoff voting) —recently used for local elections in Democratic-leaning Portland, Maine, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and San Francisco, California, but also for key party contests  held by Republicans in <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/utah-republicans-use-irv#.Tw9lNqVAZmg">Utah</a>—allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference: one, two, three, four, etc. If no candidate receives a majority of the initial vote, the last place finisher is eliminated, his votes redistributed to surviving candidates based on expressed second choices; this process of elimination/redistribution continues, round by round, until a candidate has received a majority of the vote.</div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> Whereas plurality elections highlight the division within a party and often weaken candidates, RCV seeks consensus and concurrence, strengthening the position of the party and its nominee as it pivots to the general election. In ensuring winners can earn a majority when matched against their toughest opponents, RCV not only precludes plurality winners, but forces a candidate to build carefully a diverse, layered coalition, combining her own first choices with voters of subsequently eliminated opponents (unless, of course she commands a majority in the first round).</div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> As a result, RCV usually sees a decline in negative campaigning and attack advertisements, the rules encouraging candidates not to slander an adversary—and risk the ire of his voters—but to build bridges and form partnerships. RCV also removes the spoiler effect from the electoral equation: like-minded candidates who divide a voting bloc in the first round are pared eventually down to one representative, voters liberated to cast expressive rather than strategic ballots.</div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px; text-align: center;">________ </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> Plurality rules have affected greatly the 2012 battle for the GOP nomination, and although RCV might achieve the same ends, plurality’s means of selecting a nominee arguably have been negative for all parties involved—whether Romney or his conservative challengers. Whom RCV would have benefited in 2012, had it been implemented, depends on the narrative to which one subscribes—does a latent majority reside in the possession of a unified conservative bloc or that of a diligent Romney campaign that has successfully courted select conservatives? Polls have contradicted each other on this point—some showing a latent majority for conservatives, others for Romney—and, as such, both should be treated as equally plausible. </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;">Scenario 1: Assuming an Anti-Romney Conservative Majority</div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;">According to this narrative, plurality rules have penalized conservative voters for failing to coalesce around a single ideological standard-bearer, dividing their majority within the party between a multitude of candidates—each garnering enough support to survive, but never enough to flourish—and allowing Romney to take advantage of the disarray and lack of coordination. Despite <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/06/gingrich_conservative_romney_rival_will_emerge_112678.html">Newt Gingrich’s declaration</a>  that Romney must “get a majority somewhere,” in fact under plurality rules, he need not get a majority anywhere, steamrolling to the nomination like McCain four years ago without ever having had to prove his standing among conservative voters.</div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> 
<div class="captionImage left" style="width: 531px;"><img title="Romney's 2012 Opponents: Santorum and Perry" src="assets/NewFolder/SantorumPerry.JPG" alt="Romney's 2012 Opponents: Santorum and Perry" width="531" height="208" />
<div class="caption" style="width: 531px;">Romney's 2012 Opponents: Santorum and Perry</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;">This version of events portrays Romney as usurper, an opportunistic “conservative of convenience” rather than an authentic ideological warrior of the Right, in the process of snatching the GOP nomination away from the party’s fractured conservative majority, the beneficiary of a “spoiler effect.” If true, such an occurrence is deeply troubling for the Republican Party, as it would contribute to the perception that, yet again, the voice of conservatives has been muffled and its wishes disregarded. <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-nomination-rules-are-rigged-against-conservatives_616072.html?page=1">The Weekly Standard </a><a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-nomination-rules-are-rigged-against-conservatives_616072.html?page=1">recently</a> gave voice to such resentment, questioning  why “the party of Ronald Reagan” repeatedly nominates individuals who “opposed Reagan” in the 1980s.</div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> In order to unite a divided movement under plurality voting rules, one or more conservative contenders would need to withdraw from the race—thereby denying voters in other states the right to evaluate all candidates; already, such considerations have forced Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann out of the field. Such was the reasoning behind <a href="http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/01/17/gingrich-vote-santorum-or-perry-voter-romney">Gingrich’s recent statement</a>  that “any vote for Santorum or Perry is in effect a vote to allow Romney to become the nominee,” the former House speaker imploring the South Carolinian, anti-Romney vote to solidify around him, as well as a recent Texas meeting among influential evangelical Christian and conservative leaders seeking to encourage a united front for Santorum.</div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> RCV, by contrast, would eliminate such concerns, allowing conservative voters to rank Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, and Perry (that is, before he dropped out) on a ballot—permitting, rather than penalizing, nuance—and to unite behind one anti-Romney in subsequent rounds. At the very least, RCV would have forced Romney to reach out to conservatives, moving rightward to repair a strained relationship. Regardless, the spoiler effect would be eliminated and the voice of conservatives heeded.</div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> Scenario 2: Assuming a Pro-Romney Majority</div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;">According to this narrative, while many conservative voters might prefer other candidates first, Mitt Romney has made significant and numerous rightward strides this election cycle in an attempt to pursue Tea Party supporters and evangelical Christians. The quarrels over ideological purity and questions over Romney’s standing among conservatives, which have dominated the media’s coverage of the race, have merely obscured the existence of an increasingly strong Romney majority, concerned most with defeating President Obama in November and which views Romney as the most “electable” of the Republican crop. Plurality voting then, has allowed Romney to win by clearing the lowest necessary bar, but has prevented him from displaying his wider appeal as the second choice of many voters.</div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> This version of events portrays Romney as consensus candidate, the one man capable of uniting the GOP’s diverse coalition of voting blocs and preventing a second Obama term. Romney’s pluralities have failed to convince, the rules masking his majority, portraying him as vulnerable, and denying him the legitimacy that only a majority can confer. Sensing weakness, Romney’s conservative opponents have continued to believe in the existence of a “stop-Romney” majority, which—if this narrative is true—simply does not exist.</div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> Under RCV, however, Romney, buoyed by an electoral framework that respects nuanced, multilayered opinion, would have the opportunity to demonstrate his appeal, a “consensus candidate” preferred most by all elements of the party and in command of a majority. The damaging and unflattering story that he cannot win among conservatives would be rendered untenable, and Romney’s efforts to attract conservatives would finally pay electoral dividends. And if, in actuality, a majority proved outside Romney’s grasp after the reallocation of second/third/fourth choices, then RCV would at least legitimatize another candidate. </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px; text-align: center;">________ </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;">The rules matter, discussion over electoral law being more than an esoteric, philosophical abstraction best left to academics teaching Political Science on a college campus. Rather, it affects citizens and political actors in very real, personal ways. Too often wrongly dismissed as a ploy by progressives, RCV and other reforms transcend the traditional divide between conservatives at one end of the ideological spectrum, progressives at the other, and centrists in between, and could have very real benefits for a divided Republican Party craving consensus and searching for unity in the age of Obama.</div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> </div>
 
 
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px; text-align: center;">________ </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;">* Although finalized vote totals show Rick Santorum winning the Iowa caucuses by 34 votes over Mitt Romney, we purposefully refer to the contest as a win for Romney, who—since the media jumped the gun on election night and declared Romney the victorious candidate—received the lion's share of post-Iowa momentum. </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;">&dagger; As a term, "conservative"—like most labels—is nebulous and difficult to define. In this article, we have used conservative as an umbrella term for a heterogeneous coalition of evangelical Christians and Tea Party supporters, which is consistent with journalistic opinion.</div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> </div>
<div class="image left" style="width: 594px;"> </div>

South Carolina Primary: One Candidate May Easily Win All Delegates

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:28:37 -0800

The political world is focused on South Carolina’s primary tomorrow, which has been a volatile race that seems to be coming down to Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html">Polls</a> this week show both men hovering around a third of the vote. But the statewide outcome is not the only story tomorrow. At this point, more attention should be paid to what nomination contests mean for allocation of delegates to the Republican National Convention this August in Florida. The bottom line is that whoever wins South Carolina will not only gain momentum, but also will likely take the lead in delegates earned from nomination contests. The Iowa caucuses triggered great media hype over the Iowa caucuses and attention to whether Romney or Rick Santorum “won” them with a quarter of the vote, but in fact no delegates were bound by what amounted to a straw poll. The New Hampshire primary allocated only 12 delegates, with the top three vote-getters dividing them on a roughly <a href="gop-primaries-proportional-representation-nh#.TxnRtJgujww">proportional basis</a>. With the nomination winner ultimately needing 1,144 delegates, we obviously should have a long way to go – that is, if the media will let the contest keep unfolding without prematurely crowning the current leader as the sure winner. Delegate allocation isn’t nearly as straightforward as it might seem. FairVote has posted an <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/delegate-allocation-rules-in-2012-gop#.TxnikoEpr4c">updated review of delegate allocation rules</a> in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and five territories. In 2010, the Republican National Committee, to much fanfare, established a new rule (<a href="http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf">Republican Party’s Rule 15(b)(2)</a>) requiring any state or territory holding a contest before April 1 must allocate delegates by proportional representation. But that’s not quite how it worked out. First, South Carolina was one of four states exempted from the requirement to use proportional representation, but it’s the only one taking advantage of that exemption. It has established a rule that may well lead to one candidate winning all of the state’s delegates with less than 40% of the state’s popular vote. Second, two additional states, Florida and Arizona, are allocating all delegates to the statewide winner in upcoming contests held before April 1st. They’ve lost half of their delegates already due to breaking RNC rules on when to hold the contest (as have South Carolina and New Hampshire), but are not being sanctioned for using the winner-take-all rule instead of proportional representation. Finally, Puerto Rico is breaking the rule as well, holding a winner-take-all contest in March without any apparent penalty whatsoever. South Carolina’s delegates may end up being allocated to more than one candidate, but it won’t be according to proportional representation. According to <a href="http://www.scgop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/SCGOP-Rules.pdf">South Carolina’s Republican Party rules</a>, the state party will award its 11 at-large delegates to the winner of the statewide primary vote and will award two delegates on a winner-take-all basis to the winner of each of the seven congressional districts. In winning statewide, a candidate likely will, although not necessarily, carry most of the state’s congressional districts. That means that the winner will likely earn at least 19 of the state’s 25 delegates (11 state-wide, plus eight for carrying four districts). The winning candidate could end up with a plurality of the vote in each congressional district and earn all 25 delegates, even with far less than 50% of the vote. South Carolina effectively would become a winner-take-all state if one candidate were to sweep the statewide primary and the congressional districts, as well. Romney still has a real chance to win the state, which would strengthen his frontrunner status, but most <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_SC_1191.pdf">polls</a> show Gingrich with a growing lead. He has the best changes to secure all of South Carolina’s 25 delegates, which would put him into the national lead. A Gingrich win also could propel him toward a win in Florida, where his large December lead had recently evaporated as Romney surged ahead. With Florida using winner-take-all as well, whoever wins the state may well keep the lead in delegates no matter what happens in all the February contests, as those contests will be allocated largely by proportional representation. This raises questions about why the Republican National Committee seems more concerned about trying to enforce the scheduling of primaries than its 2010 requirement of proportional representation in early contests. The party adopted strict limits on use of winner-take-all rules to ensure more states had a chance to hold meaningful contests and to force their eventual nominee to demonstrate strength in more parts of the country.  With uneven enforcement of its rule, that goal is less likely to be met – and outcomes more likely to be distorted.

FairVote Tracks GOP Primaries: Understanding Proportional Representation in NH

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 06:43:01 -0800

Mitt Romney won 39% of the vote in New Hampshire in the nation's first 2012 primary and received seven of the state's twelve delegates, or a 58% share. An in-depth look into New Hampshire's voting method allows us to see how a disproportionate delegate distribution arises from the proportional system utilized by the New Hampshire Republican Party.
The Rules of the Republican Party Rule 15(b)(2) dictates that contests prior to April 1 must be conducted according to proportional allocation but does not specify by what means. <a href="http://global.nationalreview.com/dest/2011/12/23/2012_RNC_Delegate_Summary_32b0d429d50bfaf71e86b156401b5f04.pdf ">This allows states to differ wildly</a> in their interpretation of "proportional." As written about <a href=" http://www.fairvote.org/new-blogentry-21#.Tw2pZpgujww">in FairVote's blog on January 10</a>, New Hampshire's Republican Party chose to allocate its delegates proportionally based on a 10% threshold.
In New Hampshire, presidential primaries must be conducted according to <a href="http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxiii/659/659-93.htm">Elections Procedure Section 659:93</a>, requiring a minimum of a 10% threshold. Of the remaining candidates who meet this threshold, the secretary of state proportionally allocates delegates according to a version of the "highest remainder" method, one of several proportional representation formulae.  
Under this method, delegates are divided according to the remaining candidates' redistributed vote percentages, with each proportion rounded down to the nearest whole number. Often there are extra delegates remaining due to this rounding procedure. While the classic version of this method allows for unassigned delegates to go to the candidates with the highest remainders, New Hampshire's version awards all remaining delegates to the candidate with the highest number of votes.
Using the classic highest remainder method for this election, Romney would come out of the first distribution with the highest remainder of 0.96, so the first remaining delegate would be awarded to him. Since a second delegate remains, it would be distributed to the candidate with the next highest remainder. Jon Huntsman, whose remainder of 0.56 just tops Ron Paul's remainder of 0.47, would be the recipient of this second delegate. In contrast, New Hampshire's variation - in "winner-take-all" fashion - awards both remaining delegates to Romney.
Here's how New Hampshire's delegate allocation compares with the classic version of highest remainder:

<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="113">
Candidate
</td>
<td width="109">
Actual Percent Vote
</td>
<td width="115">
Percent of Vote of Qualifying Candidates over 10%
</td>
<td width="105">
Delegates Totals Under Strict Proportionality
</td>
<td width="101">
NH Highest Remainder  Method Using 10% Threshold
</td>
<td width="101">
Classic Highest Remainder Using 10% Threshold
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="113">
Romney
</td>
<td width="109">
39.25%
</td>
<td width="115">
49.68%
</td>
<td width="105">
5.96
</td>
<td width="101">
7
</td>
<td width="101">
6
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="113">
Paul
</td>
<td width="109">
22.88%
</td>
<td width="115">
28.96%
</td>
<td width="105">
3.47
</td>
<td width="101">
3
</td>
<td width="101">
3
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="113">
Huntsman
</td>
<td width="109">
16.88%
</td>
<td width="115">
21.37%
</td>
<td width="105">
2.56
</td>
<td width="101">
2
</td>
<td width="101">
3
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="113">
Gingrich
</td>
<td width="109">
9.42%
</td>
<td width="115">
-
</td>
<td width="105">
0
</td>
<td width="101">
0
</td>
<td width="101">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="113">
Santorum
</td>
<td width="109">
9.40%
</td>
<td width="115">
-
</td>
<td width="105">
0
</td>
<td width="101">
0
</td>
<td width="101">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="113">
Totals
</td>
<td width="109">
97.83%
</td>
<td width="115">
100%
</td>
<td width="105">
12
</td>
<td width="101">
12
</td>
<td width="101">
12
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

 
<div class="image center" style="width: 600;">
<div class="image center" style="width: 600;"><img src="assets/NewFolder-3/_resampled/ResizedImage600408-DIfferentHR.png" alt="" width="600" height="408" /></div>
 </div>
Another unique feature of New Hampshire's allocation is its employment of a 10% threshold - a threshold that both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum barely missed achieving, even though their voters consisted of nearly 20% of the total vote. Most nations that use proportional allocation systems for their legislatures use lower thresholds (commonly a 5% threshold). With many competitive candidates in the New Hampshire primary, it should be noted that a slight change in this threshold significantly impacts the distribution of delegates. A 5% threshold, for instance, brings Gingrich and Santorum into the distribution of delegates.
Here's how the primary would have played out using a 5% threshold, compared with New Hampshire's 10% threshold - using the New Hampshire method of awarding all remaining delegates to the candidate with the highest remainder.
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="114">
Candidate
</td>
<td width="110">
Actual Percent Vote
</td>
<td width="115">
Percent of Vote of Qualifying Candidates over 10%
</td>
<td width="101">
NH Method Allocated Delegates Using 10% Threshold
</td>
<td width="97">
Percent of Vote of Qualifying Candidates over 5%
</td>
<td width="101">
NH Method Allocated Delegates Using 5% Threshold
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="114">
Romney
</td>
<td width="110">
39.25%
</td>
<td width="115">
49.68%
</td>
<td width="101">
7
</td>
<td width="97">
40.12%
</td>
<td width="101">
6
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="114">
Paul
</td>
<td width="110">
22.88%
</td>
<td width="115">
28.96%
</td>
<td width="101">
3
</td>
<td width="97">
23.38%
</td>
<td width="101">
2
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="114">
Huntsman
</td>
<td width="110">
16.88%
</td>
<td width="115">
21.37%
</td>
<td width="101">
2
</td>
<td width="97">
17.25%
</td>
<td width="101">
2
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="114">
Gingrich
</td>
<td width="110">
9.42%
</td>
<td width="115">
-
</td>
<td width="101">
0
</td>
<td width="97">
9.63%
</td>
<td width="101">
1
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="114">
Santorum
</td>
<td width="110">
9.40%
</td>
<td width="115">
-
</td>
<td width="101">
0
</td>
<td width="97">
9.61%
</td>
<td width="101">
1
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="114">
Totals
</td>
<td width="110">
97.83%
</td>
<td width="115">
100%
</td>
<td width="101">
12
</td>
<td width="97">
100%
</td>
<td width="101">
12
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
 
<div class="image center" style="width: 600;">
<div class="image center" style="width: 600;"><img src="assets/NewFolder-3/_resampled/ResizedImage600408-DifferentThreshold.png" alt="" width="600" height="408" /></div>
 </div>
 
Other notable news from New Hampshire:
<ul class="unIndentedList">
<li> President Obama on the Ballot: <a href="http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NH-D#0110">Barack Obama also was on the ballot </a>in New Hampshire yesterday in the Democratic primary. He earned 48,970 votes, for a total of 82%, and all 35 of New Hampshire's delegates awarded by the Democratic primary. That vote total was comparable to GOP candidate Jon Huntsman, who placed third. Note that all Democratic primaries and caucuses allocate delegates on the basis of proportional representation, but no other candidate surpassed the Democrats' typical 15% threshold.</li>
</ul>
<ul class="unIndentedList">
<li> Ron Paul Wins Landslide among Young Voters: <a href="http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/new-hampshire/exit-polls">Exit polls showed</a> that Mitt Romney did well in a broad range of categories, e.g., income, education, religious and philosophical viewpoints. Among voters under 30, however, Ron Paul won 47% of that demographic, compared to Romney's 25%. Congressman Paul also won nearly half the youth vote in the Iowa caucuses.</li>
</ul>
<ul class="unIndentedList">
<li> Romney 2008 vs. Romney 2012: Comparing Mitt Romney's performance in New Hampshire from election to election, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=NH">in 2008</a>, Romney earned 75,675votes and 32%in the New Hampshire primary, compared to 97,532 votes and 39.3% <a href="http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/results/live/2012-01-10">this year</a>. In the Iowa caucuses, his share of the vote was slightly lower in 2012 than it was in 2008.</li>
</ul>

The Role of Proportional Representation in the New Hampshire Primary

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:51:00 -0800

In the wake of the nonbinding Iowa caucuses, the first primary of the 2012 presidential election is being held today in New Hampshire. Those eagerly anticipating the results of this Republican primary will note that the delegates elected will be allocated according to proportional representation, and not by a winner-take-all allocation. New Hampshire’s primaries are conducted according to state national party rules, although within rules established by the state relating to who can vote. The Democratic Party requires the allocation of delegates according to proportional representation based on a <a href="http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NH-D">15% threshold</a>.  Without a major challenger, Barack Obama is expected to earn all of the state’s delegates, Meanwhile, Republican parties are holding a hotly contested primary with six major candidates. As in the past, the New Hampshire Republican Party allocates delegates on the basis of proportional representation. To earn a share of the state’s 12 delegates up for grabs today, a candidate must earn at least 10% of the vote, which as many as five candidates (Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich) may surpass. Thus, even if Mitt Romney wins, as expected, it’s quite possible that nearly two-thirds of delegates will be awarded to other candidates. <a href="http://global.nationalreview.com/dest/2011/12/23/2012_RNC_Delegate_Summary_32b0d429d50bfaf71e86b156401b5f04.pdf ">State rules</a> vary widely. After March 31st, a number of states will award all their delegates on a “winner-take-all” basis to the winner of the statewide vote. Some states have a mix of delegates being allocated based on the statewide vote (using either winner-take-all or proportional representation) and based on results in districts. South Carolina, for example, allocates 11 delegates based on the statewide vote and 2 each according to who carries each congressional district. That’s not  “proportional representation,” although it may lead to more than one candidate earning at least some delegates. Although the New Hampshire delegation has been penalized half of its original 24 delegates under Republican Party Rules 15(b)(1) and 16(a) for moving its primary date before February 1, the state has fully complied with Rule 15(b)(2), which states that all primaries held before April 1 shall be conducted using proportional representation. Thus, New Hampshire may have lost half of its delegates, but its delegates will represent the voters of New Hampshire more fully than states that use a winner-take-all system. As FairVote’s Rob Richie has <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/gop-rolls-the-dice-in-2012-with-plurality-winner-take-all-rules#.TwyTJiNSSdA">written</a>, the Republican Party in 2008 was not helped by so many winner-take-all contests, which effectively ended the nomination battle before many states had voted. This allowed Democrats more chance to dominate the media and develop get-out-the-vote operations in more states ultimately carried by Barack Obama, such as late-voting states like Indiana and North Carolina. As a result, Republicans in 2010 modified their rules to require great use of proportional representation. States like Florida have flaunted that rule, as they will award all their delegates based on the statewide vote.

Democracy Lost: the Iowa Caucus, the New Hampshire Primary, and the Shortchanging of American Presidential Politics

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:45:38 -0800

<div class="image center" style="width: 600px;"><img src="assets/NewFolder/_resampled/ResizedImage600433-IowaFarm.JPG" alt="" width="600" height="433" /></div>
Photo Credit: <a href="http://lividity101.deviantart.com/art/Iowa-Farm-Buildings-7-138416768">lividity101</a>
Though the process by which the major parties select their nominees for president has democratized considerably since the bygone days of the ignominious “smoke-filled room”—within which powerful, deal-cutting party barons, rather than voters, determined the national ticket—it remains a system that inequitably prioritizes certain citizens over others.
Today’s barons in the primaries are not party elites puffing on cigars, but everyday voters in Iowa and New Hampshire—farmers, schoolteachers, laborers, and small business owners transformed into political kingpins—who have the good fortune to live in states that host the first two electoral contests in the nomination battles of both major political parties.
Alarmingly, Iowa and New Hampshire comprise just 1.4% of the national population, and neither is demographically representative of the nation, being 91.3% and 93.9% white, respectively. Yet despite being neither populous nor diverse, every four years Iowans and New Hampshirites wield tremendous power, determining for the nation which presidential candidates are allowed to continue on and which are instructed to close shop and go home.
The reason is obvious:  the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary confer enormous benefits on candidates who either meet or exceed expectations, giving them forward momentum while the remaining candidates see the money dry up, the television cameras disappear, and the crowds thin as the media instructs voters to look elsewhere. While Iowa and New Hampshire may not necessarily pick a party’s eventual nominee (or agree with each other, for that matter), they always shrink the field.
Another consequence of Iowa/New Hampshire momentum is that it often gives a candidate the ability to steamroll to the nomination.  Indeed, in the majority of nomination contests over the past half century, a party’s eventual nominee has often gotten a firm grip on the nomination early in the process, leaving voters in the remaining states the primarily ceremonial task of ratifying the decision the early states already have taken.
The ability of Iowa and New Hampshire to winnow presidential fields and coronate frontrunners is often thought to be desirable, both allowing surviving candidates more oxygen and eliminating allegedly nonviable candidates who heretofore have cluttered the stage. Party establishments, moreover, find such winnowing/coronating power beneficial, as a swift nomination battle between prospective candidates allows for an earlier pivot to the general election campaign.
An alternative perspective, however, is that investment of such power in two states is not only inequitable, but highly undemocratic. Why should a handful of Iowans and New Hampshirites have the right to speak on behalf of an entire nation? Can we be certain they have eliminated candidates who would not have performed better in states with different demographic compositions or political traditions? And why, just because Iowa and New Hampshire find a particular candidate a compelling nominee, should the rest of America simply trust their judgment—especially when eliminated candidates express dissenting viewpoints that would not otherwise have been aired within a constrained two-party system.
<div class="captionImage leftAlone" style="width: 361px;"><img title="Democrats in 2004 (Left to Right): Dean, Clark, and Gephardt" src="assets/NewFolder/Dems2004.JPG" alt="Democrats in 2004 (Left to Right): Dean, Clark, and Gephardt" width="361" height="198" />
<div class="caption" style="width: 361px;">Democrats in 2004: Dean, Clark, and Gephardt</div>
</div>
 
To get proverbial for a moment, if one person’s trash could be another’s treasure, could not one state’s also-ran be another state’s breakout star, and vice versa? When a lackluster performance in Iowa or New Hampshire forces a candidate out of a nomination battle prematurely, voters in other states never have the opportunity to evaluate formally this individual—which under a truly democratic system, they should possess. Similarly, when a candidate leaves Iowa and New Hampshire as the prohibitive nominee—the media already salivating over a projected general election matchup—other states are denied any ability to influence the race.
Looking at primary campaigns from the preceding decade, we see races characterized not by protraction, but by brevity—in which Iowa and New Hampshire have played decisive rolls.
In 2004, Howard Dean’s bid for the Democratic nomination fell victim to the one-two Iowa/New Hampshire punch of a resurgent John Kerry—though Dean lingered on for another couple contests. Richard Gephardt ended his campaign following a fourth place finish in Iowa, while Joseph Lieberman exited the race just a week after New Hampshire. Though both John Edwards and Wesley Clark continued deeper into the schedule, neither had a realistic chance of catching Kerry, the post Iowa/New Hampshire momentum of whom was too great to overcome.
 
<div class="captionImage leftAlone" style="width: 361px;"><img title="Republicans in 2008: Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani" src="assets/NewFolder/GOP2008.JPG" alt="Republicans in 2008: Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani" width="361" height="198" />
<div class="caption" style="width: 361px;">Republicans in 2008: Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani</div>
</div>
In 2008, losses in Iowa and New Hampshire irreparably wounded Mitt Romney’s campaign, the latter of which returned John McCain to the top of the proverbial pack and gave him the momentum to earn low-plurality wins subsequently in South Carolina and Florida. A lackluster result in Iowa sent Fred Thompson’s campaign reeling, while Rudy Giuliani, abandoning his initial New Hampshire-centric strategy in the face of mediocre polling, retreated to Florida, where he was later defeated. In many respects, Giuliani was 2008’s poster child for how the lack of Iowa/New Hampshire momentum can sink a once promising national candidacy.
 
True, the 2008 Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama evolved into a frenetic delegate-driven battle of attrition that went down to the final states on the schedule, but this was a deviation from the norm; and even so, Iowa and New Hampshire maintained their winnowing power, with Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd withdrawing following poor Iowa showings and Bill Richardson pulling out after New Hampshire. John Edwards, meanwhile, was unable to attract much attention as a result of Obama’s post-Iowa hype and Clinton’s post-New Hampshire publicity; they had momentum, and he didn’t. 
<div class="captionImage leftAlone" style="width: 361px;"><img title="Democrats in 2004: Dean, Clark, and Gephardt" src="assets/NewFolder/Dems2008.JPG" alt="Democrats in 2004: Dean, Clark, and Gephardt" width="361" height="196" />
<div class="caption" style="width: 361px;">Democrats in 2008: Biden , Dodd, and Richardson</div>
</div>
The 2012 battle for the Republican nomination appears to be following the same trend:  Iowa and New Hampshire tell the nation who’s hot and who’s not, leading to an abbreviated primary schedule in which the majority of states are irrelevant. With Mitt Romney having bested Rick Santorum and Ron Paul in Iowa and leading in New Hampshire, many observers believe Romney—despite tepid support nationally among Republican voters—could be the de facto nominee by February.
 
<a href="http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/10/10094600-the-road-ahead-looks-favorable-for-romney">NBC news analysts</a> after their Sunday debate argued that wins for Romney in New Hampshire and South Carolina would end the contest, despite <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57355532-503544/poll-58-of-republicans-want-more-presidential-choices/">a dissatisfied Republican electorate</a> as reflected in the remarkable swings we have seen in polls and illustrated by the seemingly endless parade of anti-Romneys over the last few months. “So it has come to this,” POLITICO’s <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71259.html">Roger Simon opined</a> in an article titled Hello, Goodbye, “Seven days since [voting for the GOP nomination] began, [and] it is essentially over.”
 
<div class="captionImage leftAlone" style="width: 362px;"><img title="Republicans in 2012: Bachmann, Huntsman, and Pawlenty" src="assets/NewFolder/GOP2012.JPG" alt="Republicans in 2012: Bachmann, Huntsman, and Pawlenty" width="362" height="198" />
<div class="caption" style="width: 362px;">Republicans in 2012: Bachmann, Huntsman, and Pawlenty</div>
</div>
Already, Michele Bachmann has dropped out after her poor finish in the January 3 caucus, while Rick Perry’s campaign—though it marches on, for now—is apparently on life support. Meanwhile, Jon Huntsman, who has staked everything on New Hampshire, will likely withdraw absent a top two result. Tim Pawlenty, once considered a leading alternative to Romney, exited the stage in August after a third-place result in the Iowa straw poll.
 
Whatever one may think of these aforementioned candidacies, in a democratic system, so few individuals should not have the authority to foreclose choices before an entire nation. After all, candidates handed a certificate of defeat by the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire were not running for each state’s respective governorship; they were striving to become president of the United States. When dealing with national offices, should not all Americans have the right to weigh in?
A far better way to structure nominations would be <a href="http://fixtheprimaries.com/solutions/americanplan/">the American Plan</a>, a significant reform to our nation’s primary process that preserves the tradition of having a staggered primary calendar—thereby maintaining the benefits of not having every state contest on a super “primary day,” which unfairly advantages candidates with money and name recognition—but employs a graduated system, with clear breaks that increase the likelihood that other voters will cast meaningful votes. Iowa and New Hampshire have had decades in the spotlight; it is time for other states to have their moment too.

Texas Redistricting in the Hands of the Supreme Court Yet Again

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:00:29 -0800

Texas redistricting has been one of the most contentious in the nation in recent decades. Plans drawn in the 1990s and 2000s went to the Supreme Court, including a 2006 challenge that required redrawing of some districts. In 2003, a battle over district lines led Democratic lawmakers to flee the state in an attempt to avoid a mid-decennial redrawing of districts by newly empowered Republican legislators, who began constructing a map with then-House Majority Leader Tom Delay and Gov. Rick Perry. With congressional redistricting required after the 2010 Census, Texas has redrawn district lines -- and yet again is before the Supreme Court.
Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for three cases pertaining to Texas redistricting: Perry v. Perez, on the Texas House of Representatives; Perry v. Davis, on the Texas Senate; and Perry v. Perez, on the U.S. House seats.
At issue, the Supreme Court will decide whether a federal court has the power to impose redistricting maps on a state whose plans have not yet obtained preclearance required by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Under Section 5 of the Act, Texas' redistricting plan must be cleared by the Department of Justice or by a three-judge district court in Washington, DC. Texas pursued the latter option, but the San Antonio District Court, apparently anticipating that the Texas plan might not be precleared, drew new maps for the 2012 elections that gave racial minorities more opportunities to elect candidates of choice.
Due to congressional reapportionment and the state's rapid population growth over the past decade, mostly driven by a booming growth in Latinos, Texas gained four U.S. House seats. Republicans, who control both the state legislature and the governorship in Texas, have been accused of aggressively drawing up a gerrymandered plan that increases representation for their party at the expense of representation for racial minority groups - indeed, the new congressional plan created just one new opportunity for Latino voters to elect candidates of choice.
As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in, we must evaluate alternatives to this clearly inadequate process. Redistricting in winner-take-all, single-member districts inherently leads mapmakers to put partisan considerations ahead of voting rights. Fair voting plans, in contrast, utilize American forms of proportional representation in larger "super-districts" and achieve accurate representation of a state's partisan divide while empowering communities of racial minorities to elect preferred candidates.
We're drawing an alternative Texas plan right now that will underscore our point: you can balance competing goals best by simply putting voters first. For the moment, you can see an example of fair voting by viewing our recent <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/no-more-gerrymanders-california">California plan</a> as part of our <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/list/author/Fair Voting_Plans">fair voting series</a> that will present alternative plans for the entire country.

Was the Iowa Caucuses’ Real Winner Not in the Race?

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:36:55 -0700

Last night, as the numbers rolled in from Iowa, cable news shows pundits analyzed the numbers in almost every way humanly possible – with particular obsession with who was going to “win.” But the media just may have missed the biggest winner: a candidate who wasn’t seeking Iowa votes last night. They also missed the biggest loser: a plurality, “top of the heap” voting system that can easily misfire in clarifying who is the strongest candidate. First, the media hyped "winning" Iowa as if it really mattered in any meaningful way involving delegates. But Iowa won’t elect its national convention delegates for months, and the ultimate breakdown of delegates likely will have little correlation to last night’s results – and won’t be winner-take-all based on the statewide vote. Looking at the hard vote total numbers, Mitt Romney “won” the caucuses by 8 votes over Rick Santorum But it’s all relative. In 2008, Romney had won 29,949 votes, or 25.2%. That result was seen as a crushing disappointment because that year he trailed Mike Huckabee's 34.4% of the vote. With arguably a weaker field, somewhat higher turnout and more sweeping GOP establishment backing this year, Romney’s vote total only grew to 30,015 votes -- e.g., just 66 more votes. But because of the slight uptick in overall turnout, his percentage of the vote actually declined from 2008, down to 24.6%. The opposition vote was more fractured than in 2008, however, giving Romney his “win” – a “win” that means nothing for delegates in a non-winner-take-all contest. That misunderstood outcomes makes plurality voting a loser yet again. It wouldn’t be hard for Iowa Republicans to determine a more definitive winner. By adopting <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/instant-runoff-voting">instant runoff voting</a> (easy to do and count on paper ballot in what essentially is a straw poll contest), we would know how Romney would have fared if matched one-on-one against Santorum, Based on second choice polling and favorability ratings, Santorum would have been favored – but we’ll never know for sure. Turning to the night’s real winner, it wasn’t Ron Paul, whose longshot bid for the nomination grew longer despite his remarkably good night. Paul and Romney were the only candidates who contested the caucuses in both 2008 and 2012, but, unlike Romney, Paul more than doubled his vote from 11,817 to 26,219. According to New York Times entrance polls, Paul won 48% of the vote among attendees under 30, with Santorum taking 23% and Romney just 13%. Paul also beat Romney by more than two-to-one among independents, first time caucus attendees and voters with an income under $50,000.
 Despite those gains, Paul’s third-place finish and downturn in support in the final week underscores his difficulties in a party where his libertarian stances on some issues like foreign policy are out of step with the party’s majority. But it’s those very stances that draw the passionate backing of younger, more independent backers – thus making it questionable that these voters will ultimate shift to back the eventual Republican nominee.
 Enter Gary Johnson, who just may end up being the night’s big winner after the rise and likely fall of Rick Santorum. The former two-term governor of New Mexico sought the Republican nomination in the past year, but was kept out of most debates – and had trouble gaining traction because of similarities in his views to those of Paul. Now Johnson has announced that he’s seeking the Libertarian Party nomination, and he may well being on the November ballot in every state. With states relying on the ever-inefficient plurality voting rule to allocate electors and given other potential third party and independent candidates – from the Americans Elect nominee to the Greens and the new Justice Party formed by former Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson – Johnson could have a far bigger impact in the race than many are predicting right now if he ends up attracting disgruntled Ron Paul backers. Stay tuned. 2012 promises a wild ride, one made more unpredictable by our antiquated voting rules and practices that are ill-equipped to handle voter choice. (A note on turnout in Iowa: Although some pundits are touting the slight rise in GOP turnout from 2008, it in fact should give Republicans reason to be concerned. A PPP poll last weekend found that about one in six Iowans planning to vote in the GOP caucuses had voted in the Democratic caucuses in 2008. Without a competitive caucus on the Democratic side, their choice was easier for them to make than it was in 2008, when the Democratic caucuses were nearly double the Republican turnout last night. In other words, the overall turnout in Iowa caucuses last night plunged to less than half of overall caucus participation in 2008.)

Understanding how the Iowa caucuses work – and don’t work

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:49:55 -0800

The national media is in a frenzy about the Republican contest in tonight’s Iowa caucuses. Unfortunately, most journalists seem to be getting the story wrong – and a key reason is not understanding or even thinking about the rules and their implications.
 First, we shouldn’t obsess over who gets the most votes in the caucuses -- seriously. Several candidates are polling in double digits, but none are getting more than 25%. If that holds up, then the “winner” will have been rejected as a first choice by as many as four out of every five caucus participants.
 Depending on the candidate finishing at the top of the heap, that winning total in fact might be closer to a ceiling of support rather than a floor. In other words, that winner might have been landslide loser if facing off against just his or her strongest opponent in a runoff.
 Furthermore, Republicans aren’t allocating delegates on a winner-take-all basis. Indeed, they aren’t awarding national convention delegates at all tonight – the final Iowa delegates won’t be chosen for months at the state convention. Tonight is really more of a straw poll.
 Given that it’s a straw poll and the media obsession with “winning,” it’s a shame that Iowa isn’t using <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/instant-runoff-voting">instant runoff voting</a> rather than plurality voting. Plurality voting simply isn’t designed for elections with more than two choices. In 2008, for example, <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/gop-rolls-the-dice-in-2012-with-plurality-winner-take-all-rules-2#.TwNkM1sppGY">John McCain’s nomination</a> became inevitable due to low-plurality wins like his 37% in New Hampshire, 33% in South Carolina and 36% in Florida.
 Ironically, the GOP field has several candidates who may have benefited from plurality rules. In 2006, for example, Rick Perry’s re-election bid in Texas drew just 39% when opposed by a Democrat and two strong independent candidates. In 2008, Michele Bachmann earned only 46% in her re-election to the U.S. House. 
 Given that Iowa Republicans are stuck with plurality voting, though, journalists should calm down about “winning.” It’s the same with most other primaries and caucuses before April 1st due to the fact that most states use variations of proportional representation for allocating delegates Proportional voting means that the statewide winner is only likely to earn more delegates, not all delegates. With only South Carolina and Florida using a statewide winner-take-all rule that shuts out opponents, candidates can come back from defeats.
 Just like Tim Pawlenty must be regretting his decision to drop out after finishing “only” third in the August straw poll in Iowa, candidates should consider staying in the race, making their point and giving more of the nation’s Republicans a chance to weigh on in on their nominee.
 So, political junkies, sit back, and eat your popcorn as you watch the pundits go crazy tonight. But let’s keep things in perspective –and be open to sensible changes to improve the process.

No More Gerrymanders: Congressional Representation in the Seven At-Large States

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:26:05 -0800

All across the nation, lawmakers are engaged in a grand political game - decennial congressional redistricting - designed to benefit party elites rather than the people. Already, a number of states have passed controversial, opportunistic maps in which elected officials have chosen their voters before voters have chosen them. Redistricting, when combined with a winner-take-all rule in which 50% + 1 of the district vote guarantees 100% of representation, not only leaves substantial voting blocs unrepresented, but it reduces the vast majority of U.S. House elections to ceremonial, uncompetitive contests, in which voters are asked not to elect but to ratify the decisions party elites have already taken.
To address these problems, FairVote, as part of an <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/list/author/Fair%20Voting_Plans#.TwNx3YGwVNo">ongoing series</a>, has proposed state-specific "super-district" plans designed for elections with a proportional representation system, which we call "fair voting." Rather than use a winner-take-all rule, which accentuates the unfair effects of redistricting and encourages partisan games, FairVote has combined winner-take-all, gerrymandered districts to form multi-member super-districts. When using a fair voting system in these larger districts, every voter in every election will have a meaningful choice in a competitive contest and will be more likely to earn fair representation - a representative balance likely to include a winner from both major parties and occasionally a third party or independent candidate.
Winner-Take-All Plagues Seven At-Large States: However, in a handful of states, the partisan jockeying that is congressional redistricting does not occur. In each of these seven states - Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Delaware, and Vermont - just one member of Congress runs at-large across the entire state, meaning that controversies over redistricting occur only on the state legislative level. Rather than redrawing districts every ten years as the 43 other states must in order to maintain equal populations in each district, an at-large district's borders are fixed.
Though spared the controversies of congressional redistricting, winner-take-all rules still plague at-large states. By design, winner-take-all elections reduce millions of voters to irrelevancy, either because they live in a district that widely favors one party or because they vote for a candidate in a competitive constituency who falls short. Nowhere are the shortcomings of our voting system more acute than in at-large, winner-take-all races, where one individual is - rather astonishingly - responsible for representing the political and demographic diversity of an entire state. That this occurs in the U.S. House, the chamber of the national legislature that is by definition intended to reflect the complexities and vicissitudes of public opinion, is even more alarming. Americans forms of proportional representation, by contrast, would alleviate these problems.
When taken as a whole, FairVote's state-specific fair voting plans will achieve a U.S. House much more reflective of the nation's partisan and racial composition than what is possible under gerrymandered, winner-take-all contests - and, even more importantly, make every voter's participation meaningful in every election. Since these at-large states are locked in at one seat apiece, however, our construction of multi-seat super-districts is impossible under the U.S. House's current structure. For fair voting plans to be feasible in at-large states, one of two changes would need to occur: either a statutory change to federal law in order to expand the U.S. House beyond 435 seats (as was done regularly until 1910), which would give each of the at-large states at least two representatives, or a constitutional amendment allowing states to join with others to form interstate congressional districts.
Recent Winner-Take-All Elections in At-Large States: That said, it is informative to look at these states' recent congressional election results, in order to understand the degree to which winner-take-all has polluted the political waters. Racially, the at-large states are predominantly white (81.0%), with blacks (4.6%), Latinos (4.5%), and Native Americans (5.4%) all comprising roughly the same share of the combined population. Delaware is the only state with a significant black population (20.8%), while Alaska (14.4%) and South Dakota (8.5%) both contain an appreciable number of Native Americans.
With just one seat in each at-large state, racial minorities have had no chance to elect a preferred candidate who can't also draw significant support from white voters; unsurprisingly, none of the seven states have ever sent a racial minority candidate to Congress. The problem, of course, is not simply that these states lack multiple congressional districts in each of these states; rather, winner-take-all systems naturally struggle to reflect accurately the demographic composition of districts. Conversely, proportional systems lower the threshold of support necessary for like-minded voters in a minority group to help elect candidates of choice. 
In terms of partisanship, all of the at-large states have partisanship index ratings that give a clear tilt toward one major party over the other. In other words, seven of seven seats are uphill battles for the other political party in House races – to the point that at least in presidential races, the contests essentially are over before they start.
Vermont and Delaware, with respective Democratic Party partisanship indexes of 64.9% and 58.9%, have backed the  Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1992. Of the other five states - Wyoming (30.3% Democratic partisanship), Alaska (35.6%), North Dakota (42.1%), South Dakota (42.2%), and Montana (45.2%) - all except Montana have voted Republican in every presidential election since 1968, and even then, the Big Sky Country gave only 37.6% to Bill Clinton in 1992, with independent Ross Perot earning 26.1% of the vote. Although the minority party has had some successes in these states' House races, all of them today are in line with their partisan leanings. 
Partisanship Breakdown in the At-Large States
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="600">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
At-Large State
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
Population 
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
Partisanship (D)
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
Safe Seats (D)
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
Leaning Seats (D)
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
   Toss-Up 
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
Leaning Seats (R)
</td>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
Safe Seats (R)
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
AK
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
710,231
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
35.60%
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
MT
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
989,415
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
45.23%
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
WY
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
563,626
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
30.25%
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
SD
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
814,180
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
42.16%
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
ND
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
672,591
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
42.05%
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
DE
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
897,934
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
58.86%
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
VT
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
625,741
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
64.87%
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
Totals
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
5,273,718
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
-
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
2
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
3
</td>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
2
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

*Partisanship percentages are based on an interpretation of vote totals in the 2008 presidential election. The seats are defined according to the following ranges: toss-up districts have a partisanship rating between 46% and 54%, leaning seats have a partisanship between 54% and 58%, and safe seats have a partisanship greater than 58%. Our projections do not take into account incumbent advantages but reflect the underlying partisanship leanings of each district.

At the congressional level, some at-large states have shown more competitiveness than their partisanship rating would suggest - likely a holdover of the more fluid political realities of the last century. For instance, Republican Mike Castle represented Delaware for nine terms until leaving the House in 2010 to run - unsuccessfully - for Vice President Joseph Biden's former U.S. Senate seat. Similarly, North Dakota and South Dakota sent Democrats to Congress before both were defeated in 2010 by Republican challengers; in the former, nine-term Democratic incumbent Earl Pomeroy fell to Rick Berg, while in the latter, four-term Democrat Stephanie Herseth Sandlin lost to Kristi Arnold Noem.
While these results show that both Democratic and Republican voters in these states have experienced electoral success, winner-take-all rules in one-seat states still mean that, in any given congressional district, only one major party's voters receive representation - and we likely will see fewer such surprises in the years ahead unless the partisan differences between the parties again become less clear. Such unfair results are to be expected in a voting system that makes nuanced representation virtually impossible.
Most at-large states have been dominated by one political party. Wyoming, for example, has not sent a Democrat to the U.S. House since Teno Roncalio resigned in 1978, while Alaska's last Democratic U.S. House representative, Nick Begich (father of current U.S. Senator Mark Begich), died while in office in 1972. In other words, it has been over 30 years since Democrats in either of these states have sent a candidate who shares their views to the U.S. House. Meanwhile, Vermont Republicans have not elected a U.S. House Member since 1990.
The U.S. House elections of 2008 and 2010 are illustrative of the lack of representation inherent in winner-take-all. In 2008, a combined 787,916 voters (counting Democrats in AK, MT, WY, and DE and Republicans in SD and ND) were left unrepresented - a number that would have been even larger had Vermont's Peter Welch received a Republican challenger. The same story occurred two years later in 2010, when - despite partisan turnover in three of the seven seats - a combined 700,304 voters (counting Democrats in AK, MT, WY, SD, and ND and Republicans in DE and VT) were unable to send a favored candidate to the U.S. House. In spite of our basic American principles grounded in representative democracy, winner-take-all ensures that the voices of many thousands of voters are left unheard and unrecognized in the halls of Congress. 
Neglected Major Party Voters in the 2008 and 2010 U.S. House Elections
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="600">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
At-Large State
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
2008 Winning Party
</td>
<td width="92" valign="bottom">
Number of Losing Party 2008 Voters
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
Losing    Party %   2008 Vote
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
2010 Winning Party
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
Number of Losing Party 2010 Voters
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
      Losing       Party % 2010 Vote
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
AK
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
R
</td>
<td width="92" valign="bottom">
141,754
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
45.1%
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
R
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
77,606
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
30.7%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
MT
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
R
</td>
<td width="92" valign="bottom">
154,713
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
32.4%
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
R
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
121,954
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
33.8%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
WY
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
R
</td>
<td width="92" valign="bottom">
103,677
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
42.8%
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
R
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
45,768
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
24.5%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
SD
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
D
</td>
<td width="92" valign="bottom">
122,943
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
32.4%
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
R
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
146,589
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
45.9%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
ND
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
D
</td>
<td width="92" valign="bottom">
118,430
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
37.9%
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
R
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
106,542
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
45.1%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
DE
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
R
</td>
<td width="92" valign="bottom">
146,399
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
38.0%
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
D
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
125,442
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
41.0%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
VT
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
D
</td>
<td width="92" valign="bottom">
Unopposed
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
N/A
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
D
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
76,403
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
32.1%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="80" valign="bottom">
Totals
</td>
<td width="84" valign="bottom">
-
</td>
<td width="92" valign="bottom">
787,916
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
-
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
-
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
700,304
</td>
<td width="93" valign="bottom">
-
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

*Source for <a href="http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/house/map.html ">2008 data</a> and <a href="http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/house">2010 data</a> is the New York Times.
Conclusion
Although at-large states avoid the partisan jockeying that goes along with congressional redistricting, they still struggle under the weight of oppressive winner-take-all rules. If the winner-take-all games continue, voters are likely to become even more disenchanted with our political system. In all of the at-large states, scores of voters are left unrepresented, sometimes for decades. They are forced to participate in congressional elections that lack competition and give them a representative in the "people's house" with views they strongly oppose. It is clear that one candidate cannot possibly reflect the makeup of everyone in a district, as winner-take-all assumes. Therefore, we need a new approach that will more accurately reflect the residents of each state. This will be harder to achieve for states with one House member, but by adopting fair voting plans with multi-seat super-districts, we can begin the march toward a more representative democracy.

Innovative Analysis in 2011: Seven Top Election Insights from the FairVote Blog

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:36:54 -0700

Today I reviewed all <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/blog">121 entries </a>posted on the FairVote.org blog this year. It's a good reminder about how busy we've been and how insightful FairVote staff, colleagues and interns so often are. It's also exciting to realize that what's been published represents only the tip of the iceberg of recent research and analysis that will go public in 2012. We have a lot to say -- and, given the troubled condition of American democracy, many reasons to say it.
Although late December is a time of top ten lists, I zeroed in on seven insights you may have missed. There's much more, of course, but here are edited excerpts from seven important FairVote blogposts in 2011.
1. Winner-Take-All Gerrymandering vs. Fair Voting for All
From <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/mitigating-the-pernicious-effects-of-gerrymandering-in-north-carolina-the-super-district-alternative/#.Tvz8qFYpr4c">Mitigating the Pernicious Effects of Gerrymandering in North Carolina: The Super District Alternative</a>, by Jais Mehaji and Rob Richie, as part of FairVote's <a href="list/author/Fair%20Voting_Plans#.Tvz_TFYpr4c">50-state series</a> (in progress) contrasting U.S. House district gerrymandering and fair voting methods of proportional voting
North Carolina's proposed new plan might not look too different from the old plan, but it reflects key changes. Democrats today have a 7-6 U.S. House seat advantage, but the proposed plan puts four Democratic incumbents at serious risk and is designed to lock in a 10-3 Republican advantage for the decade. Winner-take-all elections subject voters in North Carolina to a representation deficit. They only reward a single candidate that wins in each area while pushing aside the influence of other voters. Democrats benefited from their 2001 gerrymandering, and now Republicans have turned the tables. Fair voting plans in super-districts would create ongoing balance and fairness, with changes reflecting national shifts and the qualities of individual candidates able to draw support from voters who might often vote for candidates from another party.
Every one of our fair voting districts would present opportunities for voters to elect candidates of each major party, and have a real chance to swing the overall number of seats won by each party. New voices also could be heard. Minor parties and independents would have a greater chance to win a seat. Women candidates would likely increase their success. All voters would experience a competitive election every two years.
2. The Greater Value of Ranked Choice Voting  
From <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/portlands-biggest-winner/#.TvztKVYpr4d">Portland’s Biggest Winner: Democracy with Ranked Choice Voting,</a> by Dorothy Scheeline and Rob Richie, on the civic engagement values of <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/ranked-choice-voting-in-portland#.Tv0GwFYpr4d">Maine's largest city</a> using ranked choice voting (RCV,  or "instant runoff") in its mayoral election.
In a year where we have seen so much partisan vitriol on the national level, the fact that this year's election was more about community than personality is definitely historic. As the Press Herald observed, the high quality candidates who ran have contributed a range of good ideas for the city that should help focus policy for years. Ranked choice voting is far more than a math exercise. Although it’s certainly an effective means to handle more than two choices, it can be much more. Repeatedly, we are seeing RCV winners being the candidates who are particularly effective in reaching out to voters, often with direct contact involving community debates, local events, and door-knocking. One Portland candidate, David Marshall, said he knocked on 20,000 doors. He didn’t win, but it was ballots from his supporters that provided a particularly strong boost to the new mayor’s win total. Our one-day survey of 122 early voters underscores some of these values. They reported that they were more engaged in this election than usual, felt the candidates were more civil than the norm and were far more likely to vote for the candidates they most supported without worrying about whether they could win.
3. Without National Popular Vote Plan, Presidential Election inequality Grows
<a href="http://www.fairvote.org/lower-presidential-election-turnout-in-safe-republican-states/#.Tv0AF1Ypr4c">Lower Presidential Election Turnout in Safe Republican States</a>, by Neal Suidan, as part of a series of <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/national-popular-vote#.Tv0A1lYpr4d">presidential election analyses</a> that includes a chart showing how Ohio earned more general election attention from the major party presidential campaigns in 2008 than the 25 smallest states combined.
Thirteen states have voted for Republicans in every presidential election since 1980, making hem the most consistently safe Republican strongholds in modern presidential politics. To study the effects of living in a safe state on voter turnout, we compared the combined turnout in these 13 states with the turnout in the remaining states over the last six elections, starting with the Bush-Dukakis election of 1988 and ending with the Obama-McCain election of 2008. In 1988, these states' turnout barely trailed that of the rest of the country, by 2.6%. But in every election since, these 13 states have fallen further behind. In 2008, their turnout was 6.2% behind the rest of the nation. Meanwhile, the safest Democrat states have experienced a similar trend.
4. What Presidential Nomination Rule Debate says About Party System 
From<a href="http://www.fairvote.org/response-to-a-rogue-convention-how-gop-party-rules-may-surprise-in-201/#.Tvzv41Ypr4c"> Response to “A rogue convention? How GOP party rules may surprise in 2012"</a> , by Elise Helgesen and Rob Richie about our analysis of the impact of Republican National Committee rules on its presidential nomination process
On November 25, we co-authored a <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69048.html">Politico commentary</a> on how Republican party rules may surprise in  the presidential contest that struck a chord with many readers. Those highlighting or responding to our piece include the Washington Post’s The Fix (calling it a “must read”), Andrew Sullivan’s The Dish in The Daily Beast, the conservative website Hot Air and political analyst Michael Barone. The contrast between the actual Republican Party rules governing its convention and most people’s understanding of the role of the primaries underscores the way that the party system has changed rapidly in today’s modern era. Many of the RNC rules come from a time when conventions chose nominees and the party was a meaningful institution, representing an association of individuals coming together, articulating platform positions, and choosing candidates to stand for those positions. With that understanding, the rules governing a party are those of a private group, not a government entity. Even though it certainly matters today whether a presidential candidate is a Republican or Democrat, parties are less meaningful as associations and much more important as “brands” in an electoral politics driven by consultants and big money. To many in the major parties, party conventions now are essentially showcases for candidates determined before the convention. In this atmosphere, selection of candidates can take place in a winner-take-all manner because candidates and their backers do not care if elected delegates accurately reflect the differences of opinion among Republican voters. 
We believe that this difference between the letter of the party rules and the way they have come to be interpreted could lead to some surprises in 2012. Regardless of whether it happens, we think the broader conversation about the role of parties as institutions is important, as we value people coming together in organized associations.
5. Simulating Real Reform in California
From <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/pr-proposal-for-california/#.TvzyCVYpr4c">PR Proposal For California: Interview with Michael Latner</a>, by Krist Novoselic, in interview with California political scientist Michael Latner about his scholarly paper simulating proportional voting in California Assembly elections
Latner: This speaks to the question of genuine reform versus more superficial reforms. If we had moderate Republicans elected from the most populous areas of the state and more moderate Democrats coming from central valley and the mountain regions, then you would see a genuine change in partisan dynamics in the legislature; because these new legislators would be representing people who right now aren’t being represented in the legislature.  It would be more genuine reform in my opinion. Novoselic: I see that also. The paper also states that out of these five seat assembly districts, there could be space for minor party or independent candidates. Latner: Absolutely, this is what scares both the major parties.  They might not agree on anything but the one thing they do agree on is they don’t want competition. Right, now that’s the more speculative part of the paper, certainly.  Because trying to predict what sort of parties will emerge is certainly an interesting prediction but it is also more speculative than scientific. Nevertheless, California provides this wonderful opportunity. We have all this initiative data that tells us about peoples’ ideological orientations. We can study that geographically and see what sort of parties would most likely survive within those five district regions.
6. Plunging Voter Turnout in Major Elections
From <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/low-voter-turnout-strikes-again-louisiana-gubernatorial-race/#.Tvz2qFYpr4c">Low Voter Turnout Strikes Again: Louisiana Gubernatorial Race</a>, by Christina Grier, as part of a series on voter turnout in the United States -- turnout this year hit record lows in a number of major statewide and mayoral elections
On Saturday, October 22, the country witnessed yet another major election decided by far less than half of eligible voters. Even with weekend voting and its unique “open primary” system that puts every candidate in the general election, barely 30% of eligible voters made it to the polls to elect Louisiana's governor and nearly every other office in the state.
It was even worse in the state legislature, which Democrats controlled just a few years ago. In the state senate, there were 39 seats up for grabs. Democrats ran candidates in only 16 races, which meant that Republicans automatically won the 23 remaining seats. Democrats won 15 of the 16 senate races in which they competed. Republicans also swept seven statewide races, with Democrats only running in three contests, earning less than a third of the vote in each one. When parties run candidates only for the seats they believe they can win, voter choices are inherently limited; races are decided before the voters have a chance to cast their ballots. Whether it’s a lack of competition due to uncontested seats or a lack of faith in the government, this recurrent problem of low turnout in elections across the country means that our democracy is far from being representative. When you think of a country where government is supposed to be “by the people and for the people,” do you think of a government that functions without hearing from 60% or more of its people?
7. Affirming a Citizenship Right to Vote in the U.S. Constitution
From Dean Searcy's <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/voting-a-right-a-privilege-or-a-responsibility/#.Tv0CPVYpr4c">Voting: A Right, A Privilege, or A Responsibility?</a>, part of our <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/list/author/Right%20to_Vote%20Blog#.Tv0DOlYpr4c">Right to Vote blog</a> series.
When Americans talk about their democracy, they typically emphasize the importance of the right to vote. But the fact is that, unlike other democratic rights protected in the First Amendment, voting rights do not have clear constitutional protections. State legislatures have the right to appoint electors in presidential races without holding elections, for example, and states can enact a variety of policies that directly or indirectly infringe on suffrage rights. While strengthening voting rights in the Constitution would seem like a logical step, there's a potential political barrier: confusion about the meaning of a "right" as compared to voting also being a privilege and a responsibility.
FairVote sees voting as a fundamental right of citizenship equal to our First Amendment freedoms in its importance for sustaining representative democracy. Even though the Constitution has several amendments which stop voter discrimination, it lacks a sufficient base to guarantee voting as a right. To overcome the states' view of voting as a privilege, we support the right to vote explicitly enshrined in a Constitutional amendment (H.J.RES.28). Only with its passage can voting truly be considered a right rather than a privilege.

Down the Rabbit Hole of Party Primary Rules

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:28:33 -0800

In less than two weeks, the presidential nomination contest will begin with the Iowa caucuses, and a week later, the New Hampshire primary. One of the key questions about such contests is which voters have the opportunity to participate in these contests – i.e., whether the primary or caucus is “closed,” “open,” or somewhere in between. You might think that answering this question is straightforward. Think again. When I was tasked with updating one of our website’s most popular resources - the <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/congressional-primaries-open-closed-semi-closed-and-top-two#.TvH1WCNSSdA">primaries chart</a> – I had no idea that the assignment would lead to a journey akin to Alice’s trip down the rabbit hole. Yet, I quickly found myself mired in state law, party rules, and what seemed to me to be nonsensical distinctions. These would make it difficult for any unaffiliated voter to discern whether or not he or she were able to vote in the upcoming primary. I initially began researching congressional primary rules, and then added presidential primary rules as well. Upon first beginning this journey of reading through each state’s statutes and making calls to each state office, I said to myself, “I am capable. I am somewhat intelligent. I just passed the Virginia bar. How hard can this be?” I quickly found out that the answer to that question was “very.“ FairVote’s classification system divides primaries into three types: open, closed, and semi-closed. Open primaries mean that any voter can choose the ballot of any party, no matter the voter’s affiliation. Closed primaries mean that only voters who are registered for a particular party can vote in that party’s primary. Semi-closed primaries encompass a range of possibilities in between. For example the state laws in New Hampshire require voters registered for a particular party to vote only in that primary, but independent or unaffiliated voters may vote in any party’s primary if that party allows for it. However, these three these categories failed to encompass every type of party rule and state law. In some states, such as Kansas, one major party might have a rule allowing independents to participate, while the other major party does not. Several states do not register voters by party, changing what it means to be able to vote in different primaries. North Dakota does not have party registration at all.  Some states such as California and Washington have a <a href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/june-primary/pdf/new-open-primary-info.pdf ">“Top Two” system</a> that essentially gets rid of the idea of nominations --- two candidates of the same party can advance to the general election and be the only choices available to voters. Thus, the idea of the “commentary” box in the chart was born. It was a way for all states that did not succinctly fit into a category to explain themselves in that box. Yet, still, this was not enough. In reviewing my work, I made calls to every state’s Secretary of State or Department of Elections office. When I inquired what type of primary that state held, many times I encountered a person who would state: “You may classify it this way, but we would actually classify it another way.” For example, the representative from the Indiana Secretary of State’s Office told me that the state’s primaries could actually be classified as either closed or open, depending on one’s definition, but in Indiana, the primary was classified as “modified open.” Suddenly I realized that these universal categories were not so universal, after all. In fact, there is no uniformity among the states. These categories were merely a means of trying to order the disorder that is the primary system as we know it. And to this point, I have still not even discussed how parties play into the mix. In most states, it is really the parties’ contest anyway, even if taxpayers are paying for it. Many states such as Alaska, Connecticut, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia, do not set the laws that govern the primary; instead, the parties control who may vote in each primary. In these cases, voters’ eligibility may change from year to year, depending on the party rules. Where voters are not registered according to party affiliation, primaries are completely open. Still, laws as in Illinois require voters to publicly state their preference “in a loud and clear voice.” Finally, in other states, such as Texas, voters remain unaffiliated before entering each primary election, but become affiliated with a party the moment they enter the ballot box and choose that party’s ballot. Furthermore, as I discussed in <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69048.html">Politico</a> last month, the states do not have the final say when it comes to nominating delegates to the party conventions in the presidential contest. The party rules are supreme over state law. At the end of this journey, I am left with one overall impression: this form of direct primary that was meant to bring democracy to the <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~sh145/papers/primaries_party_loyalty.pdf">people</a>, has actually served to complicate matters so much that voters are actually further isolated from the process than ever before. The system in place is a tangled mass of state and party rules. This jumble could and should be simplified and standardized, or voters will find themselves too exasperated to care.

No More Gerrymanders: Missouri's Partisan Plan versus the Fair Voting Alternative

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:31:25 -0800

<div style="border-width: medium medium 1pt; border-style: none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">
<h4 style="border: medium none; padding: 0in;">Snapshot</h4>
 
<div class="image center" style="width: 600px;">
<ul>
<li>Lawmakers in Missouri have recently passed a congressional redistricting plan as required by the U.S. Constitution.</li>
<li>The root of the worst problems associated with redistricting lies with winner-take-all elections, in which 50% + 1 of the vote guarantees 100% of the representation. </li>
<li>As part of an ongoing series, FairVote has produced a "super-district" plan designed for elections with a fair voting system. Fair voting systems are a constitutionally permissible form of proportional representation and, by allowing all voters to participate in a meaningful election, are a far better way to achieve public interest objectives than winner-take-all elections.</li>
<li>FairVote's fair voting plan for Missouri would result in more balanced representation and competitive elections.</li>
</ul>
 
<div class="image center" style="width: 502px;"><img src="assets/Super%20Districts/MOComparisonCharts.jpg" alt="" width="502" height="512" /></div>
 
</div>
</div>
<h4> </h4>
<h4>The Political Context in Missouri</h4>
Missouri and the 2010 Census: From 2000 to 2010, Missouri's population grew slightly, from 5.60 million to 5.99 million, for an increase of 7.0%, as compared to a rate of 9.3% from 1990 to 2000. This rate was slightly below the national average of 9.7%. As a result, Missouri lost one U.S. House seat in congressional reapportionment, going from nine seats to eight, the first time the state has lost seats since the 1980 Census. Missouri was just <a href="http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/mar/13/census-turns-state-into-wonderland/">16,000 people shy</a> of holding on to its nine seats.
Internally, population shifts <a href="http://kwmu.drupal.publicbroadcasting.net/post/mo-congressional-redistricting-may-decrease-political-clout-metro-region">appear to be a blow to congressional Democrats</a>, with St. Louis city having seen its population decline sharply by 8.3%. Such a dip continues the Democratic stronghold's decades-long slide, as the ‘Gateway to the West' has now lost just shy of 500,000 residents since 1960, with its population of 320,000 being roughly equivalent to the city's size in 1870. As a result, St. Louis, which currently sends three members to Congress, will likely lose a seat and<a href="http://www.stlbeacon.org/voices/in-the-news/108548-jones-on-2010-redistricting"> clout in Congress</a>.
Missouri's other major cities appear to be going in the opposite direction, with Kansas City and Columbia growing between four and five percent and Republican-leaning Springfield soaring by over 25%. As a result, Columbia residents believe the area is entitled to a "<a href="http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/mar/09/senate-redistricting-panel-seeks-feedback/">central Missouri district</a>," as opposed to being lopped into the northeastern 9th District that encompasses both rural towns on the Iowa boarder and affluent St. Louis suburbs. Racially, Missouri remains predominantly white (81.0%), with appreciable percentage increases for the black (11.5%) and Latino communities (3.5%), the latter of which grew by nearly 80%.
<a href="http://archive.fairvote.org/redistricting/reports/remanual/monews2.htm">Redistricting in 2001 was relatively sedate</a>, as split control (Democrats controlled the State House and the governorship, while Republicans had a slim majority in the State Senate) required the two parties to work together. Collaboration yielded a congressional map that locked in the 5-4 Republican advantage until 2010. In the <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/missouri-profile-2/">five congressional elections</a> since 2001, only one incumbent out of 41 (2.4%) lost, while 38 of the 40 (95%) victorious incumbents prevailed in blowouts (20%+ margin of victory) or uncontested races.
Electorally, a Closely Divided State: Democrats have had recent statewide success in Missouri, with former State Auditor Claire McCaskill - who narrowly lost her bid for the governor's office in 2004 - winning a contentious 2006 U.S. Senate race over incumbent Jim Talent, 49.6-47.3%. In the presidential race, Barack Obama lost by only 3,600 votes, but given the magnitude of his victory across the nation, Democrats in fact lost ground in the state. Indeed, this election marked the first time since 1956 in which the "bellwether" Missouri did not award its electoral votes to the national winner (in 1956, Missouri went for Democrat Adlai Stevenson).
After Democrats' statewide gains in 2006 and 2008, however, Republicans rebounded with a very strong 2010. Most dispiriting for Democrats was Secretary of State Robin Carnahan's (daughter of the late former Governor Mel Carnahan and former U.S. Senator Jean Carnahan) 13-point defeat to U.S. Representative Roy Blunt, the No. 2 ranking Republican in the 111th Congress, for Kit Bond's vacated U.S. Senate seat.
At the U.S. House level, the GOP made significant inroads, as Tea Party favorite Vicky Hartzler knocked off Democrat Ike Skelton in the 4th District by casting the 17-term incumbent as a "<a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/article_01a775de-c1c9-11df-8a70-0017a4a78c22.html">loyal lapdog Democrat</a>" and a "<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575591352782983466.html">foot soldier for Nancy Pelosi</a>." Hartzler's victory increased the GOP control of the state's U.S. House delegation from 5-4 to 6-3. Elsewhere, Democrats Emanuel Cleaver II of the 5th District and Russ Carnahan (son of the late governor) of the 3rd District barely fended off formidable GOP challengers - Cleaver, having shed 11% since his comfortable victory in 2008, won with 53% of the vote, while Carnahan's support actually dipped below 50%, for a 17-point decrease. Perhaps most importantly for redistricting, Republicans expanded their majorities in the General Assembly, grabbing a veto-proof majority in the State Senate and coming within three votes of a two-thirds majority in the State House.
Quarreling Republicans Struggle to Reach Agreement: With control of the redistricting process split between the two parties, state Republicans faced a difficult balancing act: any lines drafted to protect GOP incumbents in Congress would be likely to draw the veto from Governor Nixon, the veto of whom State House Republicans would be <a href="http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/12/06/republicans-take-charge-process-if-missouri-loses-house-seat/ ">unable to override absent the support of at least three Democratic representatives</a>. Early speculation hinted that Republicans would seek to exploit tensions between the Democratic establishment and urban African Americans; by giving the 1st District's William Lacy Clay, Jr. "<a href="http://www.stlbeacon.org/voices/blogs/political-blogs/beacon-backroom/108812-missouri-legislative-redistricting-panels-hire-washington-lawyer ">what he wants</a>," the GOP hoped to persuade St. Louis black state legislators to jump ship (<a href="http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-politics/112-region/108700-redistricting-wish-list">Clay represents Missouri's only majority-minority district</a>).
As the General Assembly began to turn to redistricting in late March, it quickly became clear that House and Senate Republicans were of different minds and that intra-party rather than inter-party squabbles might lead to dreaded political impasse. Under the leadership of State Representative John Diehl, House Republicans made the first move, passing their proposed map on April 6 after having <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/state-and-regional/missouri/article_29f408ef-4c8c-593e-aee5-00c3d5ad8038.html ">controversially suspended procedural rules</a> that would have delayed the vote. Importantly, the 106-53 vote was three votes short of a veto-proof majority (three Republicans voted against the bill, while four African American Democrats supported the measure). Spurning the House proposal, Senate Republicans on April 13 passed their own plan, 22-11.
Both the Senate and the House plans eliminated Russ Carnahan's seat, forcing the four-term Democrat into either a primary against colleague William Lacy Clay, Jr. of the 1st District or a general election campaign against Republican incumbent Todd Akin in a GOP-leaning 2nd District. Alternatively, some pundits speculate that Carnahan is considering a <a href="https://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/redistricting/redistricting-targets-could-se.html ">statewide bid for lieutenant governor</a>. The <a href="http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/mo-lawmakers-send-grand-compromise-redistricting-map-gov-nixon">two maps differed</a>, however, in how to divide the Democratic-leaning St. Louis collar counties of St. Charles and Jefferson in order to optimize Republican chances - the House version provided Akin with a more Republican district, and Akin <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/article_c49a985a-6b97-11e0-b757-0019bb30f31a.html">agreed to support Diehl's map</a>.
With Split Control Comes a Redistricting Nightmare: The <a href="http://www.carthagepress.com/news/x1146471794/Mo-lawmakers-cant-agree-on-redistricting-plan">deadlock</a> continued with Senate and House Republicans steadfast in their loyalty to their respective proposals. Party leaders, recognizing that further delay would have caused them to miss the party's strategic April 22 deadline, agreed to conference on April 20. Republicans, <a href="http://www.komu.com/news/missouri-senate-house-to-negotiate-on-redistricting/">anticipating Governor Nixon's opposition</a>, wanted to ensure that they would have enough time to override the veto before the conclusion of the regular legislative session on May 13; failure to meet this timeline would have forced the General Assembly to call a special session or to wait until the fall regular session. Conference committee, coupled with the pressures of time constraints, paid dividends for the GOP, which <a href="http://missouri.watchdog.org/15422/missouri-lawmakers-pass-redistricting-map/">ironed out a compromise</a> between the two competing maps. The House passed the modified map on April 21, 96-55, with the Senate concurring in a subsequent 27-7 vote.
Governor Nixon, who <a href="http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-politics/176-Missouri_Issues/109399-missouri-house-oks-new-congressional-map">reportedly objected to the map's partition of Jefferson County</a> and its commensurate weakening of the area's influence in Washington, D.C., <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/30/us-missouri-idUSTRE73T21Q20110430">mollified congressional Democrats</a> when he refused on April 30 to sign the bill into law. Undeterred, House Republicans pieced together a "rare legislative rebuke," overriding the Nixon veto 28-6 in the Senate and 109-44 in the House, making the redistricting map official. The veto override, the first since 2003, required four House Democrats to join with 105 Republicans (one GOP legislator had to <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/article_6fe40340-766f-11e0-9f67-0019bb30f31a.html#ixzz1fgZs1cTd">leave the hospital bed</a> to which doctors had consigned him) to break with the party line.
That all four "defectors" were African American legislators with ties to the state's two African American congressmen - Clay of St. Louis and Cleaver of Kansas City, both of whom received safer districts under the Republican map - was not lost on the media. Adding fuel to the fire, one of the four Democratic legislators, Jamilah Nasheed, <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_6995ad6c-813a-5d55-b094-eed9ef306c8e.html#ixzz1fgbD1W3o">defended her vote</a> to protect Clay saying, "I'm black before I'm a Democrat." Yet another, Leonard Hughes, who had cast the deciding vote to override and who had opposed the House's April 6 map as a "gerrymander," told the Kansas City Star that Cleaver had <a href="http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-politics/176-Missouri_Issues/110073-missouri-house-overrides-governors-veto-of-redistricting-map">pressured him to cross the aisle</a>, further highlighting that high-stakes redistricting can lead to odd bedfellows. Michael Brown, a Cleaver ally also of Kansas City, cited similar reasons as Hughes, adding that he hoped the vote would encourage Republicans to work with members of the Black Caucus in the future.
Partisan Implications of the Missouri Map: If anything, the partisan implications of the map are rather predictable, the process having been more enthralling than the product. All six of the state's current GOP members of Congress find themselves in highly safe districts (although Akin has since announced a bid for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by McCaskill). Jefferson and St. Charles counties remain divided between districts, while fast-growing Columbia now finds itself not in a hoped-for "central district" but the rural southwestern 4th District.
Although the map shores up Clay and Cleaver by packing urban Democrats into two districts - all of St. Louis, for instance, is now in the 1st District - state Democrats are irate, as Carnahan's district has been axed and his home placed inside Clay's urban district. "If anybody believes that this state is a 6-2 state [when] Barack Obama narrowly lost the presidential vote," <a href="http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-politics/176-Missouri_Issues/110073-missouri-house-overrides-governors-veto-of-redistricting-map">State House Minority Leader Mike Talboy intoned</a>, "then we really need an education bill because nobody can count." Democrats' only chance for three seats is if Carnahan pulls off an upset in an Akin-less 2nd District instead of taking on Clay. Indeed, <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53415.html#ixzz1fgeV1dX8">POLITICO reports</a> that national Democratic leaders, specifically House No. 2 Steny Hoyer, are quietly encouraging Carnahan to avoid "a kamikaze mission against Clay" by helping him pursue other electoral options.
<h4>The Fair Voting Alternative</h4>
Time for an Honest and Fair System: These controversies demonstrate the way in which the current system is inadequate: it fails not only to represent accurately the people of Missouri, but it reduces voters to mere pawns in a grand political game designed to benefit party elites rather than the people. Especially in states affected by reapportionment, there is the impulse to engage in gerrymandering and other highly undemocratic maneuvering.
In contrast to the Missouri state legislature's politically motivated plan, fair voting puts voters first. Rather than use a winner-take-all system, which accentuates the effects of redistricting and encourages partisan games, FairVote has combined these winner-take-all, gerrymandered districts to form multi-member districts called "super-districts" in which a fair voting system will allow like-minded voters to elect candidates in proportion to their voting strength and, as a result, allow far more voters to elect a favored candidate. As our analysis will demonstrate, FairVote's super-district plan with a fair voting system generates competitive elections in every corner of the state; it also allows for fuller representation of the political and demographic dynamics of geographical areas: what we call "shared representation."
Several candidate-based forms of fair voting, notably choice voting and cumulative voting, have been upheld by the courts and fit well with our traditions. <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/what-is-choice-voting">Choice voting</a>, in which voters rank candidates in order of choice in at-large elections, helped break the power of urban political machines in New York and Cincinnati. It is used currently by Minneapolis in citywide elections. From 1870 to 1980, members of the Illinois House of Representatives were elected using cumulative voting, where voters can cast as many votes as there are seats, and nearly all of the districts elected both Democrats and Republicans in every election. Fair voting plans in super-districts are legal for congressional elections under the U.S. Constitution and have been upheld by the Supreme Court, but Congress would need to repeal a 1967 law mandating single-member districts.
Under the current winner-take-all system, candidates must receive over 50% of the vote to be sure of winning a seat. Consequently, substantial voting blocs are often left unrepresented. For instance, one party's candidate could get just one vote shy of the 50% threshold, and all of her voters would lose out on representation. Similarly, if a voter lives in a district that widely favors one party, that voter might feel like his vote does not matter, especially if that voter favors the less popular party.
With fair voting in super-districts, on the other hand, nominees from more than one party are nearly certain to represent a district, which enables a more accurate representation of the broad spectrum of political opinion. These multi-seat districts also lower the threshold for racial minorities to select a preferred candidate of their own. Winning with Fair Voting in a Super-District: If FairVote were working from scratch, we could draw the super-district lines with more geographical compactness. Because we created the super-districts from the recently approved congressional districts, however, our super-districts also appear to look somewhat gerrymandered. Even so, the super-district approach demonstrates that full representation can be attained even within these highly gerrymandered confines.
Missouri 2011 Redistricting Plan                                     Missouri Fair Voting Plan with Super-Districts
<div class="image center" style="width: 600px;">
<div class="image center" style="width: 600px;"><img src="assets/Super%20Districts/MOCombined2.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="261" /></div>
 </div>
 
From the eight congressional districts in Missouri, the FairVote proposal creates two super-districts: one three-seat district and one five-seat district. Each congressional seat still represents approximately 748,616 people, but with a fair voting system, representation is far more likely to reflect the political opinion and demographic makeup of the state. In a three-seat district, like-minded voters are assured of a representative if they consist of at least 25% of the electorate, while in a five-seat district, like-minded voters are assured of a representative if they consist of at least 16.67% of the electorate.
Super-District Breakdown 
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="496">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
Super-District
</td>
<td width="103" valign="bottom">
Number of House Seats
</td>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
Population Per Seat
</td>
<td width="101" valign="bottom">
Threshold of Exclusion
</td>
<td width="109" valign="bottom">
Districts Used to Make SD
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
<td width="103" valign="bottom">
3
</td>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
748616
</td>
<td width="101" valign="bottom">
25% + 1
</td>
<td width="109" valign="bottom">
4, 5, 6
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
2
</td>
<td width="103" valign="bottom">
5
</td>
<td width="97" valign="bottom">
748616
</td>
<td width="101" valign="bottom">
16.67% + 1
</td>
<td width="109" valign="bottom">
1, 2, 3, 7, 8
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

 
Partisanship Analysis: Based on the 2008 presidential election, Missouri has a partisanship index of 46.33% Democratic, a narrow margin reflecting its status as a competitive state in presidential elections. However, the recent plan passed by the state legislature does not reflect the close partisan split of the entire state. Based on district partisanship, the Missouri plan would result in six Republican seats (five safe and one leaning), two safe Democratic seats, and zero toss-ups. To put this in perspective, the statewide Democratic partisanship index of 46.33% should result in the Democratic Party winning at least three seats and the Republican Party coming away with four seats at a minimum, while an additional seat would swing to the party or individual candidate performing well that election cycle. Yet, the Missouri plan guarantees the Republicans more than their expected share. To win four seats, Democratic candidates would need to succeed in flipping two solidly Republican districts. This gerrymandered setup presents a daunting challenge for the Democrats every election year, regardless of the party's national momentum.
Missouri Plan's Partisanship Breakdown 
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="600">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
District
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
Population Per Seat
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
Partisanship (D)
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
Safe Seats (D)
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
Leaning Seats (D)
</td>
<td width="67" valign="bottom">
Toss-Up
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
Leaning Seats (R)
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
Safe Seats (R)
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
748,616
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
77.24%
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="67" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
2
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
748,616
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
43.28%
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="67" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
3
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
748,616
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
39.89%
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="67" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
4
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
748,616
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
39.10%
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="67" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
5
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
748,615
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
59.02%
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="67" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
6
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
748,616
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
40.30%
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="67" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
7
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
748,616
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
32.52%
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="67" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
8
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
748,616
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
35.58%
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="67" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
Statewide
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
5,988,927
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
46.33%
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
2
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="67" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
5
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

*Partisanship percentages are based on an interpretation of the 2008 presidential election. Our source for the data is <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/05/991365/-Finding-NE-MO-(redistricting-wise)?via=tag">Daily Kos</a>. The seats were allocated according to the following ranges: toss-up districts have a partisanship between 46% and 54%, leaning seats have a partisanship between 54% and 58%, and safe seats have a partisanship greater than 58%. This does not reflect incumbent advantages.
In stark contrast, a fair voting plan would accurately represent the state's partisan divide and provide representation to voters from all parts of the state. FairVote's super-district plan shows that both major parties would be well positioned to win at least three seats: one seat to each party in Super-District 1 and two seats apiece in Super-District 2. With an additional toss-up seat in each super-district, each party would have the opportunity to gain one or both of the swing seats, depending on the quality of their candidates and the national partisan swing.
FairVote's plan clearly offers a far more reflective representation of the state's political division than the 75% of representation Republicans would earn even when losing the statewide vote. It also increases voter interest since almost all Republican and Democratic voters can elect a candidate in their super-district, who represents their political views - and have a real choice within their party's candidates as well.
Once in Congress, representatives from opposing parties would share constituents of super-districts and, therefore, have new incentives to cooperate on at least some legislative initiatives. There also would be more representatives bridging the gap that currently exists between the major parties, as fair voting means a more balanced representation of the left, right, and center. As far as competition, the current Missouri plan offers zero swing districts; in the super-district plan, every voter would experience a competitive election.
While these partisan breakdowns are based on the current two-party duopoly, the FairVote proposal would open the door for third-party and independent candidates, unlike the single-member district, winner-take-all plan. Because challengers to the major parties are rarely able to acquire over 50% of the vote, their backers are left typically unrepresented. Fair voting methods lower the threshold and provide third parties a better chance to win seats. Fair voting is not just fair for Democrats and Republicans; it is fair for voters of all political opinions.
FairVote's Super-District Partisan Breakdown
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="600">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
Super-District
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
Number of Seats
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
Threshold of Exclusion
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
Partisanship (D)
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
Safe Seats (D)
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
Leaning Seats (D)
</td>
<td width="67" valign="bottom">
Toss-Up
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
Leaning Seats (R)
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
Safe Seats (R)
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
3
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
25% + 1
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
46.33%
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="67" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
2
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
5
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
16.67% + 1
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
46.34%
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
2
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="67" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
2
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
Statewide
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
8
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
-
</td>
<td width="90" valign="bottom">
46.33%
</td>
<td width="81" valign="bottom">
3
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="67" valign="bottom">
2
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
3
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
*The seats were allocated according to the following ranges: toss-up districts have a partisanship ±4% of the threshold, leaning seats have a partisanship 4-8% greater than the threshold, and safe seats have a partisanship greater than 8% of the threshold. This does not reflect incumbent advantages.
Race and Voting Power: When a racial minority group votes as a bloc and meets the threshold, it has the power to elect a strongly preferred candidate, although it may not choose necessarily a racial minority. To evaluate the racial impact of a state's redistricting plan, we tabulate the number of districts in which the voting age population (VAP) of a racial minority group exceeds the threshold to win a seat (50% + 1 vote). For districts where a racial minority group is within three percent of the threshold, we designate the seat as a strong "opportunity" to win.
In Missouri, the black VAP consists of nearly 11% of the statewide VAP, and despite the state's relatively small black population, two of Missouri's eight seats (25%) belong to African American Congress members, William Lacy Clay, Jr. (D-1) and Emanuel Cleaver II (D-5). Under Missouri's new plan, no district has a black VAP greater than the 50% threshold; however, as noted earlier, pundits generally regard the newly drawn 1st Congressional District as the state's only majority-minority district.  Latinos, for their part, currently make up less than three percent of the state's total population but have negligible influence in any single-member district.
Using our methodology to evaluate the racial dynamics of Missouri's plan, we would expect the white population in each district to have the voting power to elect a preferred candidate. Although the white VAP in Congressional District 1 maintains a plurality, blacks of voting age constitute nearly half (45.66%) of the district's total VAP, enabling that group to have significant weight in any election. Given this considerable influence, the district was the first in the state to elect an African American to the U.S. House (William Lacy Clay, Sr.) in 1968 and has continued to send an African American representative to Congress in every election since. In the 5th Congressional District, currently represented by Emanuel Cleaver, there is another sizable black community (20.40%). In spite of the voting power that whites possess in each congressional district, the state is consistently friendly to electing representatives of color when running in strongly Democratic-leaning districts.
Missouri Plan Race Breakdown 
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="600">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
District
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
Total Population
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
White VAP%
</td>
<td width="65" valign="bottom">
Black VAP%
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
Latino VAP%
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
Black Voters
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
Latino Voters
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
748,616
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
48.60%
</td>
<td width="65" valign="bottom">
45.66%
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
2.69%
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
2
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
748,616
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
92.21%
</td>
<td width="65" valign="bottom">
2.79%
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
1.88%
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
3
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
748,616
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
92.72%
</td>
<td width="65" valign="bottom">
3.63%
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
1.78%
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
4
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
748,616
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
91.90%
</td>
<td width="65" valign="bottom">
4.32%
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
2.66%
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
5
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
748,615
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
71.95%
</td>
<td width="65" valign="bottom">
20.40%
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
6.82%
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
6
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
748,616
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
93.04%
</td>
<td width="65" valign="bottom">
3.62%
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
2.68%
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
7
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
748,616
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
92.93%
</td>
<td width="65" valign="bottom">
1.52%
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
3.31%
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
8
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
748,616
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
93.39%
</td>
<td width="65" valign="bottom">
4.13%
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
1.28%
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="74" valign="bottom">
Statewide
</td>
<td width="87" valign="bottom">
5,988,927
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
84.54%
</td>
<td width="65" valign="bottom">
10.81%
</td>
<td width="71" valign="bottom">
2.89%
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="96" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

*Source for race voting age population data is the <a href="http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/comm/scrd%20maps/SS%20Full%20Map.pdf">Missouri State Senate</a>.
While the fair voting plan drastically shakes up the political landscape of Missouri's redistricting plan, it sustains the influence that black communities hold in the new map, even after combining the highly concentrated minority population in District 1 with other predominantly white districts. Similar to the black constituency's prospects for voting power in District 1, this group in Super-District 2 (11.61%) falls merely two percentage points below our threshold for an "opportunity" to win representation (13.67%). Just as District 5 consistently elects an African American representative to Congress, we would anticipate black voters in Super-District 2 to have the comparable influence in electing a candidate who best represents their interests. Super-District 1, which encompasses District 5, offers black voters significant influence (9.46% VAP in a super-district with a threshold of 25%), as candidates in congressional elections would presumably cater to the black community, given the competitive nature of super-district elections and the need to solidify relationships with large voting blocs.
FairVote's Super-District Race Breakdown
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="600">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="79" valign="bottom">
Super-District
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
Number of Seats
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
Threshold of Exclusion
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
White VAP%
</td>
<td width="65" valign="bottom">
Black VAP%
</td>
<td width="63" valign="bottom">
Latino VAP%
</td>
<td width="60" valign="bottom">
Black Voters
</td>
<td width="60" valign="bottom">
Latino    Voters
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="79" valign="bottom">
1
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
3
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
25% + 1
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
85.61%
</td>
<td width="65" valign="bottom">
9.46%
</td>
<td width="63" valign="bottom">
4.06%
</td>
<td width="60" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="60" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="79" valign="bottom">
2
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
5
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
16.67% + 1
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
83.90%
</td>
<td width="65" valign="bottom">
11.61%
</td>
<td width="63" valign="bottom">
2.19%
</td>
<td width="60" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="60" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="79" valign="bottom">
Statewide
</td>
<td width="64" valign="bottom">
8
</td>
<td width="85" valign="bottom">
-
</td>
<td width="69" valign="bottom">
84.54%
</td>
<td width="65" valign="bottom">
10.81%
</td>
<td width="63" valign="bottom">
2.89%
</td>
<td width="60" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
<td width="60" valign="bottom">
0
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

 
Conclusion
Although Missouri Republicans clearly engineered a partisan gerrymander, electoral problems do not rest solely with Democrats and Republicans. Rather, the problem lies with the winner-take-all nature of single-member district elections, which allow district lines to determine most outcomes no matter how they are drawn. In this analysis, we have not touched the blatantly partisan lines that were our building blocks; we merely changed the rules and showed that fair voting provides immediate dividends to all voters.
If the redistricting games of winner-take-all continue, voters are likely to become even more disenchanted with our political system. Under Missouri's redistricting plan and many others like it across the country, a vast amount of voters are left with diminshed representation and no real choices. Many of these congressional elections lack competition or offer just two candidates to the diverse array of voters. It is also clear that one candidate cannot possibly reflect the makeup of everyone in a district, as winner-take-all assumes. Therefore, we need a new approach that will more accurately reflect the makeup of each state. By adopting fair voting methods in super-districts, we can attain a more representative democracy.
 
<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/05/991365/-Finding-NE-MO-%28redistricting-wise%29?via=tag"></a>

Egypt: The Military Struggles to Maintain its Legitimacy

Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:52:45 -0800

Egypt: The Military Struggles to Maintain its Legitimacy
 When embattled Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak fell after a wave of mass demonstrations in February  2011, the army, led by Marshal Tantawi, stepped in to fill the political vacuum.  Seeking to appeal to popular sentiments, the army promised to hold a presidential election before the end of June 2012. 
Although the army was initially credited with having provided the stability the country needed following the collapse of Mubarak’s regime, many Egyptians quickly tired of its perceived delay tactics and began <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8916150/Egypts-army-is-hijacking-the-revolution.html">to wonder if the military planned to honor its promise to hold elections</a>. As the army’s credibility and public standing continued to erode, protestors began calling for the military to relinquish power and “return to the barracks.” 
In time, these frustrated Egyptians took to the streets of Tahrir Square in a second wave of demonstrations, shouting, “Get out,” the same slogan they exclaimed at Mubarak last year. Since November 19, police have killed several dozen people, marking the first time security forces have fired bullets at the demonstrators. 
Seeking to quell the crisis, the interim government headed by Prime Minister Essam Sharaf, tendered its resignation, while Tantawi, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8913633/Egyptian-military-apologises-for-protest-deaths.html ">expressing “deep regret” for the deaths</a>, has opened a talks with civilian political leaders. A diverse coalition of ideological groups – leftists, liberals – came out in support of the protestors. Unlike the anti-Mubarek protests, where the Muslim Brotherhood ultimately played a central role, Islamist groups largely did not join the recent demonstrations. <a href="http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/11/18/177807.html">This apprehension about protesting</a> apparently is due to the Muslim Brotherhood’s anticipated electoral success. If the protests erupted into a general crisis, then the elections might be canceled. 
The violence since November 19th in Tahrir Square seemed to give credence to theories that <a href="http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2011/11/21/la-tentation-autoritaire">the army would attempt to kill democracy</a> before it had had time to mature.  According to Al Tahrir Newspaper, those who gave the order to step in on Saturday morning cannot have had the good of the country in mind. If anything, police violence has failed to stem the tide, managing to transform a gathering of two hundred people into a protest of tens of thousands of people determined to defend the revolution against the army’s perceived authoritarian temptation. Indeed, some Egyptians began to compare Tantawi to Gamal Abdel Nasser, who in 1954 took advantage of similar unrest to seize power.
Completely misreading the demands of protestors, the military offered a referendum that – if approved by the people – would have established civil society control of the interim government. The catch was that the army would appoint the new leadership rather than permit accelerated democratic elections. With such a proposal, the army has underestimated clearly the will of the revolutionaries.
<h4>Old Habits Die Hard as Military Continues Human Rights Abuses: </h4>
This conflict shows that a legacy of brutality and authoritarianism over more than sixty years does not die overnight. In a report entitled <a href="http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE12/053/2011/en/47be269e-b67a-42f4-835b-787f91044e04/mde120532011en.pdf">Broken Promises: Egypt's Military Rulers Erode Human Rights</a>, Amnesty International illustrates how the Supreme Council of the armed forces’ record on human rights has been deporable. In this report, Amnesty International highlighted that the Supreme Council of the armed forces had not only failed to fulfill its public pledge to improve human rights, but had actually performed even worse than Mubarak in some areas. 
In August, the Council acknowledged that about 12,000 civilians in the country had appeared before military courts in grossly unfair trials. At least 13 were sentenced to death. Philip Luther, Deputy Director of North Africa and Middle East at Amnesty International, claims that, by repressing peaceful demonstrations and expanding the scope of the emergency legislation, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has continued repressive traditions. 
The Army’s role when it took the reins of the government was to carry out a peaceful transition to a democratic society and to protect and respect the demonstrators, regardless of its opinions. Clearly, with Egyptians dying in Tahrir Square and locked in the military’s prisons, the army has failed on both accounts.
But at the same time, there November elections indicated that there is a third key force in Egypt – beyond the military and the street protestors, there is a large number of Egyptians who want a better economy, a government that works and, potentially, more acceptance of Islamic traditions. Even as many protestors called for a boycott of the November 23 elections, turnout ended up being more than half of eligible voters. In my next piece, I’ll discuss these elections and what they may mean for Egypt in the coming year.

Learning a Lesson from Egypt’s Universal Voter Registration

Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:28:06 -0800

Egypt’s first parliamentary <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/egypt-election-results_n_1120115.html">election </a>since the ousting of Hosni Mubarak began in certain parts of the country on November 28 and will continue into early next year. The vote is to ultimately fill the 498 seats of the People’s Assembly, the lower house of the legislature, through a combination of proportional representation and winner-take-all runoff elections. Egypt is experiencing <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/28/egypt-voters-record-numbers ">high turnout</a> for a nation that is undergoing such turmoil. One reason is the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-egypt-elections-20111129,0,2813603.story">sentiment</a> that under Mubarak’s rule, voters were denied a political voice. Thus, voters now feel that they have the freedom to express themselves at the polls. Turnout rates were also bolstered by proportional representation, which encourages voters everywhere to vote and helps voters to elect candidates of choice. There’s another reason for this high turnout, a reason with direct relevance to elections in the United States. Unlike the United States, where as many as three in ten eligible voters are not registered to vote, Egypt this year established a system of <a href="http://modernegypt.info/userfiles/Overview%20of%20the%20People's%20Assembly%20Election%20System.pdf">universal voter registration</a>. Each citizen has a national identification card. Every individual age 16 years old or older is entered into a national database based on the address on his or her national identification card. That database is used as the national register for voters. Voters who are at least 18 years or older need only show their national identification card at the polls in order to vote. The effect of this <a href="http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/3137/in-historic-ruling-egyptian-court-confirms-voting-">change</a>, approved by Egypt’s Higher Election Committee prior to this year’s election, was not only to grant easier access to those voters in Egypt, but also to those Egyptian voters living abroad. In this current election, all eligible Egyptian expatriates are allowed to vote if there is a polling place established in their respective embassy or consulate. All those Egyptian expatriates who had a national identification card or a passport issued prior to September 27, 2011 are able to vote in this current election. With the ease of registering using only a national identification or passport, <a href="http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/513498">hundreds of thousands of Egyptian expatriates</a> registered to vote online prior to the November election. True, American citizens are not voting next year in the wake of a revolution; yet, there are lessons to be gleaned from the Egyptian experience that are instructive for U.S. elections. Our elections would benefit from a type of “democracy passport” that all Americans would automatically obtain upon becoming citizens. That “passport” need not be a physical piece of paper, but rather a unique identifier that every American citizen would receive for the specific purpose of participating in our democracy. That kind of <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/why-universal-registration ">universal voter registration system</a> would make it much more likely for us to uphold the goal that votes are only cast by those who are eligible to vote and that voting is not denied to people who are eligible to vote. Our current flawed system neither upholds election integrity nor voter access. Indicative of this flawed system is the fact that millions of Americans have active registrations in more than one jurisdiction, while tens of millions of eligible voters are not even registered to vote. In contrast, the type of universal registration system created through the use of a “democracy passport” places the burden of registering voters on the government, not on voters themselves. It also modernizes the registration process by eliminating errors inherent in paper registration and creates a standardized system of registration in every state. Though the details of administering this type of system still need to be developed, it is well within reach, given the realities of modern database technology and systems already in place to give out social security numbers. Seeing brand-new democracies like Egypt soar past the United States in terms of both the access and integrity of its voter registration system is a sobering reminder that the status quo is unacceptable.

America's Young Voters: Who They Are and Why They Matter

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:33:41 -0800

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; mso-yfti-tbllook:1184;mso-table-lspace:9.0pt;margin-left:6.75pt;mso-table-rspace: 9.0pt;margin-right:6.75pt;mso-table-anchor-vertical:page;mso-table-anchor-horizontal: page;mso-table-left:328.35pt;mso-table-top:93.05pt;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left">
<tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes; height: 91.05pt;">
<td style="width: 245.0pt; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; height: 91.05pt;" width="327" valign="top">
Key Facts on Young Voters and Voter Turnout:
-In 2010, 24% of eligible young voters ages 18-29 voted in midterm elections
-85% of young adults who voted in 2010 also voted in 2008
-Voter turnout among youth ages 18-29 was 51% in 2008
-In 2008, 62% of youth voters with a college education voted, compared to 36% of those youth without a college education
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Younger voters are an important and necessary portion of the electorate. They hold the key to the future of the country. Collectively, young voters represent a special voice overflowing with new ideas, solutions, and ways of looking at situations differently. They have recently come into the fold of the electoral process, and are getting their bearings in an electoral world that may be very foreign to them. Young voters should have a system of support where they are given guidance on what it means to be a voter, feel meaningful in the political process, and believing they are no less adequate in offering their opinions just because they are younger and may have less experience as a voter. 
 
 Today’s youth, or the Millennial Generation, are the current 18-29 year-olds. They are a group that is very service oriented, and while sometimes being labeled the “instant gratification” generation, this generation takes pride in seeing the immediate appreciation from others as a result of their community service. Some Millennials, like many other Americans, are angry with political officials and as a result, less are choosing to take government office positions. They have been increasingly shown to take jobs in the service sector, such as the Peace Corps and Teach for America. Despite their frustration, the country has seen an increase in voter turnout from young voters.
 
 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1964-2004, 18-24 year-olds had an average voting rate of 41.8%, while voters age 45-64 voted at 69.3% and those 65 and older voted at 66.6%. Youth voters have been quite underrepresented in elections.
 
 From 2000-2004, turnout rates among the youth increased by 4.3 million votes, and during the 2006 off-year election, there were 1.9 million more young voters than there had been in 2002. <a href="http://www.civicyouth.org/quick-facts/youth-voting/">In 2008, 36% of young voters with no college experience voted in the presidential election</a>, compared to 62% of young voters with college experience.  <a href="http://www.civicyouth.org/quick-facts/youth-voting/">A 10% increase was seen </a>among young voters that lived in areas where information was mailed about sample ballots, polling places and extended hours. 
 
 Yet in the 2010 midterm elections, the youth vote dropped 28 points (24%) below the unprecedented 2008 presidential election turnout rate.<a href="http://www.civicyouth.org/official-youth-turnout-rate-in-2010-was-24/"> Voter turnout in the 2010 midterms was 24% for voters age 18-29</a>, and 51% for all voters over the age of 30. 
 
 When young voter turnout is low, it decreases accountability of elected government officials, decreases the quality of discourse in the community and through the media, and decreases opportunities to have full representation or elected leaders working for the interests of the youth in government.
 
 These negative effects can be reversed, at least in part, by increasing civic learning. A national study has shown that <a href="http://www.civicyouth.org/guardian-of-democracy-successor-report-to-the-civic-mission-of-schools/">two-thirds of all American students received a score below “proficient” on their national assessment of civics</a>. Those students who receive an in depth education of civics are much more likely to understand public issues, and the importance of participating in the electoral process as a way of addressing those issues within a community. Civic understanding is not an inherent understanding that youth should automatically know. Like math, science, or many other social values, it must be taught. Whether in the home or at school, the way to preserve the practice of democracy starts by teaching it to future generations.
 
 The strength of our democracy depends on all voters participating. The government directly or indirectly influences almost every aspect of our lives. From the water we drink in our schools, to the food that is on the shelves in our grocery stores, it affects us. The youth cannot be forgotten about, but rather should be built up to be successful voters.
 
 Politicians will never know how you voted, but they will know you voted. Even if your vote does not decide the election, adding one more vote to the overall youth vote will add up and it does matter. If groups of youth voters show up, politicians will know that the youth are not to be ignored. Currently, politicians can afford to overlook the wants and needs of youth voters because they do not show up to the polls, and they know the youth vote will not vote them out of office if they fail to address issues that matter to young voters. That, matters. Your vote counts.