FairVote Feed: Cumulative Voting

South Carolina: The Super District Alternative

Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:06:08 -0700

Redistricting ensures that political district lines reflect population changes in the U.S. Census every ten years so that each district has the same number of voters per seat in a district. South Carolina is in the midst of redistricting and, as with most states, it’s become complicated and increasingly controversial and partisan. As explained in our recent post on Michigan, FairVote proposes an alternative to the winner-take-all system that has plagued the redistricting process, and opened it up to gerrymandering, partisan bickering, and opportunism. Moving to multi-member “super districts” with proportional voting would make the process of fair representation much smoother and insulated from the gerrymandering that is such an affront to democracy.

Here are the latest developments in South Carolina. As a result of a population increase in the last decade in the state of South Carolina, the state gained a new seat. The House decided to redraw the legislative lines to add the seventh congressional district to the state in the Low country, running along the North Carolina border. The plan has been rife with controversy, however.

According to Dick Harpootlian, chairman of the S.C. Democratic Party, the party will dispute the proposed new maps in court, on the grounds that incumbent congressman’s majority-minority district was packed with an excessive number of African American voters. The lawsuit seeks to move some African-American voters out of Clyburn's majority-black district to avoid what critics argue is a form of resegregation. On the flip side, other supporters of minority voting rights have argued that South Carolina can and should create a second black-majority district.

But despite racial dynamics being salient in this debate, one of the main controversies has been exactly where this seventh district would be created. With Republicans in control of both chambers of the state legislature, it is expected that the newly created district will be drawn to favor Republicans, but the House and Senate each have drawn their own plan. Senate Republicans want the new district in the state’s south, in Beaufort County, while the House wants the new congressional district in the northeast part of the state.

While public hearings have been scheduled for both chambers of the General Assembly to agree on a congressional redistricting compromise plan, which would then go to Governor Haley for approval or veto, the state House has passed H 3992 on June 29, amended and passed in the state Senate, and now it is back before the House, with both maps still being debated on the table. The redistricting battle is set to be resolved when lawmakers will gather in Columbia, S.C. on July 26 to vote one last time on one of the maps.

Democrats, however, seem to be hoping for a deadlock in the state legislature, since that would mean the line-drawing would be under the responsibility of a three-judge panel (two of them appointed by President Obama) – which Republicans are finding increasingly risky, “a nightmare scenario”, according to the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake.

A Way to Put Voters First

The internal conflict within the Republican Party, Democratic Party complaints, and the adverse impacts proposed plans might have on African American voters leads us to put forward alternatives to the single-member, winner-take-all way of designing redistricting – and put the voters in charge.

So what should South Carolina do to resolve these contentions? We need to replace winner-take-all elections that disadvantage those in the minority with geographically compact “super districts.” In each super district, several representatives would be elected with a proportional voting system like choice voting.

Under our proposed plan, South Carolina would be divided into two super-districts, with four seats and three seats, respectively, in which a proportional system such as choice voting or cumulative voting (as backed over the years by Congressman Clyburn) would be endorsed.

With a proportional voting plan in a four-seat super district, winning a seat would take just over 20% of the vote. Winning two seats would take just over 40%, winning three seats would take just over 60% and winning all four would take more than 80%. In the three-seat super district, winning one seat would take about 25% of the vote, winning two would take about 50% and winning a majority of three seats would take over 75%.

To create and evaluate these super districts, we entered data from the seven congressional districts as proposed by Matthew Kuhn, a student of Professor Nathaniel Persily’s Redistricting and Gerrymandering course at Columbia (part of the DrawCongress project). We did not have data on the projected partisanship, but the racial data is revealing for the increased power that proportional voting gives to all voters.

Here’s our proposed plan, based on Matthew Kuhn’s proposed map:

Data Analysis

Super district	Number of seats	Population per seat	Threshold to win 1 seat	White VAP	Black VAP	What districts were used to create super districts
1	4	660,766	20.01%	72.32%	20.91%	1,2,3,5
2	3	660,766	25.01%	59.27%	33.93%	4,6,7
Statewide		4,625,364		66.73%	26.50%

This is the data from Matthew Kuh's DrawCongress project, which was used as a building block to create our super districts:

Partisan Analysis: Backers of both major parties would be certain to have the power to elect at least one candidate of choice and every election would be competitive. We don’t have partisan information to be able to evaluate the chances of each party to win more than one seat in each of the districts, but given the state’s overall partisan lean, Republicans would likely be favored to win two seats in the three-seat district and at least two seats in the four-seat district

Voting Rights Analysis: With FairVote’s proposed plan, African Americans voters would have the power to elect two candidates, assuming they have shared preferences for representation. In contrast, Kuhn’s Draw Congress plan only allows for one black-majority district – the next-highest district for African American population is only 31% black. The plans under consideration in the South Carolina legislature also would put African Americans near or above a majority threshold in only one district. Women also would have more chances to break through in a state with an all-male congressional delegation. (Note: South Carolina currently has two African American U.S. House Members, James Clyburn (D) and Tim Scott (R). But voting rights power is not about outcome – it’s about the power of like-minded voters to elect a candidate of their choice, no matter what raced or gender.)

Using a proportional voting system would clearly give voters more choices in every election. Every Republican voter and every Democratic voter would likely be pleased with at least one of the winning candidates in their district, and nearly every white voter and nearly every African American voter would similarly be pleased. When compared to a single-member district system, a proportional voting system relieves us of our democratic deficit. It's a matter of voter equality.

Utah Redistricting: Avoid controversy with a statewide plan for House seats

Wed, 25 May 2011 11:38:17 -0700

Utah's state legislature has been engaged in redistricting. In its deliberation over plans for state legislative seats, a proposal to use proportional voting in Utah drew major news coverage and support from state legislators. Here's a discussion of how proportional voting makes sense for U.S. House elections.

Following the most recent census, Utah will gain another Congressional seat. This addition brings Utah's U.S. House representatives to a total of four. The addition of a fourth seat has thrown the state legislature into partisan conflicts because the strong Republican state legislature is seeking to dismantle the more liberal concentration in the second district by cutting it up into three pieces. Senate President Michael Waddoups wants to draw lines north to south instead of focusing on compactness, leaving Democrats concerned the new plan will divide their county into three parts and weaken their meager Democratic base and reduce the chances. of Democrat Jim Matheson holding his seat in 2012. Clearly, partisanship is an issue.

Utah's map drawn after the 2000 census is below.

As products of a process conducted only every 10 years, these lines haven't changed in a decade despite massive population shifts within Utah itself (especially into the first and second House districts). In some areas, population grew by 25%, while in other areas it grew by less than 5%. The inability for representation to update in real-time is an inherent flaw in the single-member-district system. Combined with the obvious gerrymandering, population shifts distort representation and discourage turnout within a solid Republican state. Simply put, being a Democrat in Utah can mean your vote doesn't count, although Jim Matheson has bucked national trends to keep his seat.

Is there a way to circumnavigate partisan gerrymandering and ensure our democracy works by counting every vote equal, despite the location of voters? Yes. Many problems created by the current system (such as gerrymandering, discouraged voters, and an iron-clad two-party system) can be solved by turning all of Utah into a four-seat super district, utilizing a proportional voting system such as choice voting or cumulative voting. The map of the super-district would look as follows.

If Utah was to be transformed into a single super district, the effects of gerrymandering would be eliminated because scattered support can elect a representative if votes are concentrated into a single candidate. The state as a whole would simply elect four representatives. Also, population shifts wouldn't distort representation because all votes would be equal no matter where the voter lives within the state. For example, a voter who lives in the southeast portion of the state could vote for a candidate in the northwest portion of the state, a feat that would be impossible in a winner-take-all system.

Every vote should matter, however, and with choice voting votes for minor parties (in Utah, this includes the Democrats) aren't automatically thrown out. This is because a four-seat super district system would enable any group with just over 20% support (passing the threshold of exclusion) to elect a like-minded representative (as compared to 50%+1 in a single-member system) -- and have their ballot count for ther second choice if their candidate trails too ar behind to reach that winning threshold. Under such a system, Democrats would be guaranteed one representative, Republicans would be guaranteed two representatives, and the fourth seat would lean Republican. This would encourage every voter to turnout and exercise their right to suffrage. As Utah's population continues to evolve, groups of voters wouldn't lose power relative to other parts of Utah, unlike with the current one-seat district system.

If Utah were to be become a four-seat super district, election outcomes would be more representative of real grassroots opinion and every vote would matter. It's democracy at its finest.

New Mexico Redistricting: Super Districts for U.S. House

Tue, 24 May 2011 07:34:02 -0700

When it comes to the complexities of redistricting, New Mexico is no exception. On May 14^th, It’s legislative leaders named an 18-member committee to work on the monumental task. In the past, several Congressional redistricting maps have ended up in the courts due to fights over partisanship and incumbent protection - leaving the judicial system to redraw the lines. But as recently as the 1960s, New Mexico elected its U.S. House seats at-large - -and should do so again with a single "super district" and a proportional voting system.

Below is the map New Mexico has been using:

As can plainly be seen, gerrymandering is a factor in this map. When it comes to partisanship, Districts 1 and 3 are about 56% Democratic, and District 2 is 56% Republican. Although having a history of being relatively competitive, each district now is represented by the expected party, leaving the smaller of the major parties in each district unrepresented. Backers of small parties like the Greens and Libertarians (of which New Mexico has plenty, with Green candidates earning more than one in seven votes in two of the state's three districts in elections in 1997-1998) is forced to strategically vote from one of the two larger parties or risk "spoiling" the election. A winner-take-all system (with a threshold of exclusion of 50%+1) such as the one used in New Mexico obviously skews representation, discourages turnout, and shuts out independents and minor parties..

Can this democracy deficit be solved? Yes, by going back to New Mexico's history of having the entire state be a single super district with three seats elected under a proportional voting system such as choice voting or cumulative voting. New Mexico is one of two states with more than one House seat that was forced by a 1967 law mandating one-seat House districts to give up at-large elections and use one-seat district.

We recommend implementing a proportional voting system over a return to at-large elections because at-large elections remain winner-take all, giving a state-wide partisan majority the ability to unfairly elect all of the state's representatives (as was the case for the Democratic Party for over a decade, 1948-1958). Alternatively, a super district system utilizing choice voting or cumulative voting under a proportional system would allow non-majority groups to elect a candidate if they pass the diminished threshold of exclusion (25% in a 3-seat super district).

The new map is below:

With a single super district electing three representatives under a proportional voting system, scattered like-minded voters can elect a representative if votes are concentrated into a single candidate. Every vote matters and votes for third parties aren't automatically thrown out when choice voting is used. This is because a three-seat super district system would enable any group with 25% support (passing the threshold of exclusion) to elect a like-minded representative. Under such a system, Democrats would be guaranteed one representative, Republicans would be guaranteed one representative, and the third seat would by a toss-up leaning Republican -- but just barely. This would encourage every voter to turnout and exercise their right to vote in every election.

When considering ethnicity, the 46.3% of New Mexico that is Latino (according to census data) would hold significant weight in Congressional elections and likely help elect a Latino House Member; all U.S. House Members from New Mexico were white for more than a decade until 2009, when Ben Lujan was elected when Tom Udall vacated his seat to run for the U.S. Senate.

Finally, the super district system would avoid New Mexico's gerrymandering issues since no lines would need to drawn after the 2010 Census. Elections would be more representative of real grassroots opinion and every vote would count. It's democracy at its finest.

Debunking the Myths about Port Chester

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:06:31 -0700

Port Chester's historic Board of Trustees election this month, which utilized cumulative voting for the first time in New York State history, has drawn a great deal of national attention to the issue of alternative voting systems in the Westchester County community, including two articles in the New York Times and two national stories distributed by the Associated Press. Turnout rose by nearly 25% from last year's competitive race for mayor, the Village's political diversity was well-represented, and the election included the first-ever election of African American (a Republican) and Latino (a Democrat) candidates to the Board.

The key change for Port Chester was its adoption of cumulative voting. Cumulative voting is a well-tested variation of traditional at-large elections in the United States, one that is used in dozens of American elections, and was used for more than a century to elect the Illinois House of Representatives. (This year's Republican nominee for governor in Illinois, Bill Brady, supports bringing cumulative voting back to the state, as do such luminaries in Illinois as former White House counsel Abner Mikva and former governor Jim Edgar).

But as with any media coverage, there has been no dearth of misinformation about the case that brought about a change in the voting system, the reasons behind the switch to cumulative voting, and cumulative voting itself. Media Matters has written two pieces about the misrepresentation of the election by Fox News, but Fox is not the only source whose coverage hasn't been entirely accurate. This post aims to set the record straight and correct some of the more prevalent fallacies that have been disseminated by the mainstream media.

Myth: Judge Stephen Robinson forced Port Chester to implement cumulative voting.
Reality: In 2006, the Department of Justice filed suit against Port Chester alleging that the Voting Rights Act had been violated. Judge Robinson ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and as is standard in Voting Rights Act cases, required that a remedy be instituted. The Department of Justice recommended dividing the village into 6 districts, at least one of which would have a Hispanic majority, and Judge Robinson was willing to approve this plan if Port Chester could not formulate an alternative plan. However, Port Chester preferred cumulative voting. Judge Robinson found the proposal to be "legally acceptable" and allowed Port Chester to proceed with cumulative voting as a remedy.

Myth: Having 6 votes is un-American, because Hispanic voters get 6 votes in this voting system, and others don't.
Reality: This is completely incorrect. First, Port Chester voters already had 6 votes - one for every member of its Village Board of Trustees. Indeed, most local elections in the United States are held using voting methods where voters have more than one vote, because there is more than one winner. Second, Hispanic voters - as well as white, African-American, Asian, and all other voters - get 6 votes under cumulative voting in Port Chester. All voters have 6 votes, and can distribute them as they wish - and it is expected that a majority of voters of every racial and ethnic group took advantage of their option to give more than one vote to their favorite candidates.

Myth: Cumulative voting is complicated.
Reality: Cumulative voting is quite simple. An exit poll survey is expected to show that most voters did not find it complicated and that a large majority of voters took advantage of their new power to give more than one vote to a candidate. The instructions provided in the educational materials and on the Port Chester Votes website read as follows: "You can use your six votes in any manner you wish: you might cast one vote for six different candidates, or you may decide to give three votes each to two candidates. You can give four votes to one candidate and one vote each to two other candidates, or you might cast all six of your votes for your favorite candidate. Any combination of votes totaling up to six votes is acceptable."

Myth: Cumulative voting is not a legitimate method of voting / cumulative voting was crafted specifically for this case.
Reality: Cumulative voting is a legitimate voting system that is used by a number of other institutions, including school boards and councils in Amarillo (TX), Chilton County (AL) and Peoria (IL). In addition, many corporations use cumulative voting to elect members of their boards. Cumulative voting is sometimes used to remedy Voting Rights Act challenges like Port Chester's, but it was not created specifically for this case.

Myth: Cumulative voting violates the principle of "one man, one vote."
Reality: "One man, one vote" describes the ideas that every voter's vote must count equally towards representation. Infringements of the principle generally involve unbalanced districts or instances where certain people fail to follow the rules. Port Chester involves neither, and in fact attempts to preserve the principle by avoiding the inherently political redistricting process. Under cumulative voting, each voter has six votes - the number of seats on the Board of Trustees - but this was also true under Port Chester's old system. Each of the six votes was required to be allocated to a different candidate (collectively - elections were staggered so that two seats were elected at a time; the general concept holds true, though). Under the new system, the six votes can be distributed any way the voter desires. Just because each voter doesn't literally have one vote - a feature that results from the multiple winners of the election - doesn't mean the one man, one vote principle is violated. In sum: every voter has an equal number of votes that corresponds with the number of seats, and therefore an equal chance to choose the members to fill those seats; one man, one vote is thus preserved.

Myth: Cumulative voting violates majority rule.
Reality: Majority rule ensures that the majority coalition of voters is represented by a majority coalition in a legislative body. Cumulative voting does not violate the principle of majority rule, because the majority voter coalition still holds a majority on the Board of Trustees. Under the previous system, the non-Hispanic majority bloc held all of the seats, which is not what majority rule implies in multiple-winner elections; it does not ensure that the majority coalition of voters control all of the legislators. Certainly, cumulative voting increases minority - political minority - representation. But that increase is only intended to restore the Board of Trustees to proportional representation, where the minority is still a minority on the Board but has a voice. In the case of Port Chester, this hotly contested election led to the election of two Republicans, two Democrats and two candidates running outside the major parties - a fair reflection of the Village's diversity of political opinion.

Myth: Port Chester switched to cumulative voting to remedy the fact that a Hispanic candidate had never been elected.
Reality: This claim is probably the most prevalent, and subtly fallacious, of all the misinformation about Port Chester. In 2006, the Department of Justice filed suit because the Hispanic community's candidate of choice was continually denied election. The Voting Rights Act, as first passed in 1965 and then amended in 1982 when signed by then-president Ronald Reagan, is designed to uphold the protections of the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, and as part of those protections, ensure that racial minorities are not consistently denied an opportunity to elect a candidate of choice. Judge Stephen Robinson, who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush, presided over the case. After hearing expert testimony, Judge Robinson concluded that both "the Hispanic community in Port Chester is politically cohesive and tends to vote as a bloc for the same candidates" and "the non-Hispanic majority in Port Chester votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to defeat Hispanic candidates of choice." Hispanic candidates of choice need not be Hispanic, just preferred by the Hispanic constituency. Judge Robinson's decision cited evidence that "Hispanics also voted cohesively in endogenous elections where there was no Hispanic candidate." The issue is not whether Hispanic candidates were discriminated against, but that Hispanic candidates of choice were, and by extension, so were Hispanic voters. Thus, the case appeared to involve discrimination against a racial minority, but upon closer examination, it is truly about discrimination against a political minority, which happens to also be a racial minority.

Myth: Cumulative voting assumes that voters can only be represented by candidates of their own race / because a Hispanic candidate was elected, the system was a success.
Reality: As previously stated, Hispanic candidates of choice need not actually be Hispanic, and they often were not. If the election produced a winner that was a Hispanic candidate of choice but happened to be white (or any other race), that would have been satisfactory as well.

Myth: Cumulative voting only benefits Hispanics.
Reality: Cumulative voting benefits all minorities, including Hispanics, independents, third parties, Tea Party supporters, enthusiastic backers of major party candidates, and so on, because it gives them a voice on the Board proportional to their level of support. Two Democrats, two Republicans, a Conservative, and an independent with conservative leanings will comprise the Board of Trustees for the next term. The top vote getter was independent candidate Bart Didden, followed by white Democrat Daniel Brakewood. Conservative John Branca finished 3rd. Hispanic Democrat Luis Marino finished 4th, African-American Republican Joseph Kenner finished 5th, Republican Sam Terenzi finished 6th and African American Democrat Gregory Adams finished 7th, just outside of a winning position. Port Chester's results reflect the common reality that when voters are able to define their preferences more precisely, all voters can benefit from cumulative voting.

These are some of the myths that have been spread about the Port Chester cumulative voting election. Cumulative voting does not violate the Constitution, the "one man, one vote" principle, or majority rule, and is in fact a reasonable voting system for any election with multiple winners.

Port Chester Elections Draw National Attention

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:46:12 -0700

On June 15th, the Village of Port Chester (NY) held New York's first-ever election with cumulative voting. Turning out in sharply higher numbers than recent Village elections, voters elected all six trustees on Port Chester's governing body. Winners reflected the Village's diversity by such measures as party (two Republicans, two Democrats and two non major-party candidates) and race/ethnicity (first African American and Latino candidates ever to win in trustee elections).

FairVote supervised the Village's ambitious bi-lingual voter education campaign and had eight staff and interns on hand for the vote. Just as in previous elections, voters had one vote per trustee being elected. Cumulative voting gave voters the freedom to distribute their votes as they pleased, with those giving more than one vote to a favorite candidate increased that candidate's chances to win. Other jurisdictions using cumulative voting include Amarillo (TX), Chilton County (AL) and Peoria (IL).

PR Win in South Dakota

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:00:00 -0800

In an unprecedented decision, the US Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s remedial plan for cumulative voting in South Dakota. The case, Cottier v. City of Martin (SD), resulted in the requirement of implementing cumulative voting for electing city council members- the first ever judicial imposition of a proportional voting system. The lower court had found the City’s redistricting plan to dilute the Native American vote and therefore violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act. The initial suit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of two Native Americans against the City of Martin. According to the 2000 census, Native Americans were 44.7% of the total population constituting 36% of the voting age population. Since 1981, the city has elected only four Native Americans winning a total of seven city council elections of 80 elections for city council (8.75%). To read the Court of Appeal’s decision please visit: Cottier v. City of Martin

Read more on Cumulative Voting in South Dakota

Federal Court of Appeals Upholds Cumulative Voting

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:00:00 -0700

With a long track record of providing fair representation to communities of color, proportional voting systems have been used to settle dozens of Voting Rights Act lawsuits. Chilton County, Alabama has long been hailed as a textbook example of cumulative voting's success -- where the African American community, long shut out of power, finally won consistent victories on the County Commission.

A recent legal challenge put in doubt the future of Chilton County's cumulative voting system, but a federal appellate court recently upheld the system. This groundbreaking decision solidifies the future of proportional voting systems in Voting Rights Act settlements.

[Article on Recent Cumulative Voting Decision]
[Read about cumulative voting in Chilton County]
[Time Magazine article on Cumulative Voting]
[Alabama Cumulative Voting Info 2004]

Peoria Holds Successful Cumulative Voting Elections

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:00:00 -0700

Peoria (IL) used proportional voting to elect its City Council on April 17. Of ten seats, five are elected at large under cumulative voting, and the other five are elected from single-member, winner-take-all districts.

City residents have had cumulative voting rights since 1991, when plaintiffs and defendants settled a 1987 Voting Rights Act lawsuit against winner-take-all elections. Cumulative voting's record has been successful since then. A steady stream of African-Americans and political newcomers have been able to win representation. In 2007, Ryan Spain, 24, won his first political office with a largely grassroots campaign.

[ News and information on cumulative voting in Peoria ]
[ More on cumulative voting ]
[ More on the Voting Rights Act and proportional systems ]

Federal Court Orders Proportional Voting

Sun, 11 Feb 2007 00:00:00 -0800

A U.S. District Court on February 9 ordered the city of Martin (SD) to implement cumulative voting for city council elections. The six-member, at-large council will be elected three at a time. Each voter will have three votes, which they can allocate any way they wish.

The order is to ensure the city's sizable Native American population, protected under the federal Voting Rights Act, has the opportunity to elect candidates of choice. Despite comprising over a third of Martin residents and a third of voters at the last election, geographically dispersed Native Americans have consistently failed to win representation in the city's district system.

Cumulative voting has been a successful remedy in similar cases from Amarillo (TX) to Peoria (IL). Illinois used cumulative voting to elect its House of Representatives from 1870 to 1980.

[ More on cumulative voting ]
[ South Dakota uses of cumulative voting ]

Amarillo Adopts Cumulative Voting for College Regents Elections

Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:00:00 -0700

Amarillo College Board of Regents members on April 27 unanimously voted to switch its winner-take-all, at-large election system to cumulative voting. The decision comes as a settlement to a lawsuit brought under the Voting Rights Act calling for change to a method that prevented racial minorities from electing candidates of choice.

Used in many cities across America, cumulative voting was adopted for elections to the Amarillo, TX Independent School District Board in 2000 under similar circumstances. It was a compromise between advocates of single-member winner-take-all districts and defenders of an impossible status quo. From 1980 to 1996, racial minorities repeatedly lost elections. Since implementation six years ago, African-American and/or Latino candidates have won representation in every cycle.

City commission elections now face a similar challenge.

[ FairVote's guest column in Amarillo Globe-News ]
[ Resources on cumulative voting and where it's used ]
[ Amarillo Globe-News article on the switch]
[ Amarillo College website ]