1 - 10 of 111 results
- Posted: February 21, 2014
- Author(s): Devin McCarthy, Christopher Zieja
- Categories: Congressional Elections, Fair Voting/Proportional Representation, Redistricting, Home
Through the use of sample maps, this report examines the impact that different redistricting criteria would have on partisan and racial representation in the South.
- Posted: February 20, 2014
- Author(s): Andrew Douglas
- Categories: Fair Voting/Proportional Representation, Home, All Reports
Cambridge, Massachusetts is the only municipality in the United States to elect its city council through the at-large form of ranked choice voting, a form of fair representation voting. This report examines the effects of this system on the city’s 2013 city council and school committee elections, with a particular focus on comparing the outcome of the city council contest with the results of a simulated election using an alternative system: winner-take-all block voting.
- Posted: November 7, 2013
- Categories: Fair Voting/Proportional Representation, Congressional Elections, Home
FairVote's Monopoly Politics 2014 and the Fair Voting Solution report includes projections for every district in the country in the 2014 midterm House elections, in-depth analysis of the problems with American congressional elections as they are, and our 50-state plan for electing Congress under a fair representation voting system that could be enacted by Congress.
- Posted: July 24, 2013
- Author(s): Andrea Levien, Devin McCarthy, Rob Richie
- Categories: Presidential Elections, National Popular Vote
FairVote's analysis shows that Pennsylvania state Sen. Dominic Pileggi's proportional electoral vote allocation plan would do little to make presidential elections fairer if implemented nationally.
- Posted: July 18, 2013
- Author(s): Drew Spencer
- Categories: Instant Runoff Voting/Ranked Choice Voting, Home, All Reports
Update: This report has now been updated to include additional analysis from the results of the 2012 general election, more details on FairVote's proposed solution: Top Four with ranked choice voting, and analysis based on comparison to California's use of Top Two in 2012.
The Top Two primary system has drawn increasing attention as a way to reform our elections. Rather than have parties nominate candidates who then face off in a general election, it establishes two rounds of voting: the first a "preliminary" to reduce the field to two candidates and the second a final runoff between the top two finishers. Candidates pick their own party label, and that label has no impact on which candidates advance.
Louisiana for years was the only state using a form of the system for both state and federal elections. Washington State started using the system in 2008. California implemented it in 2012, and Arizona voters may adopt it in a November 2012 ballot measure. This report looks at the impact of the Top Two primary in Washington State in the two and a half election cycles in which it has been used. The report focuses on state legislative elections, but also summarizes results to date in congressional and statewide elections.
- Posted: July 18, 2013
- Author(s): Rob Richie, Robert Fekete
- Categories: Instant Runoff Voting/Ranked Choice Voting, All Reports
Many states currently use runoff election systems during primaries for statewide federal posts. However, the two-election runoff system leads to high turnout declines and a less representative second election, particularly if there is along time delay between the two elections.
- Posted: June 24, 2013
- Author(s): Mollie Hailey
- Categories: Research & Analysis, Voting Rights, All Reports
It is a widely held belief that the right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected. Many are surprised to learn, then, that the right to vote is not explicitly protected in the U.S. Constitution. Amending the Constitution to include an explicit right to vote would make it clear that this right is in fact fundamental. It would ensure voter challenges to election rules would force governments to justify practices that curtail access to the ballot or undercut election integrity.
- Posted: June 18, 2013
- Categories: Instant Runoff Voting/Ranked Choice Voting, Research & Analysis, Home, All Reports
In 2010, California adopted the "Top Two" primary system. In this Policy Perspective, we outline some of the issues with how Top Two operated in California in 2012. We then describe how the system would operate under a simple modification: a "Top Four" system in which four candidates advance to the general election instead of two, and in which the general election is conducted by ranked choice voting.
As we’ve shown at FairVote in study after study, the great majority of people and states are ignored during the election for our country’s highest office. But in the 2012 election, every state was invested at least in one way – they all had residents who donated to and financed the two major party candidates’ campaigns. However, when it came down to the stretch run, the candidates did not reciprocate this national effort. Instead, candidates concentrated their efforts in a small number of states and left the others as net exporters campaign contributions relative to campaign spending. This report takes a state-by-state look at the data.