FairVote Feed: Research & Analysis

Fuzzy Math: Wrong Way Reforms for Allocating Electoral College Votes

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:20:29 -0700

Legality of the Use of Ranked Choice Absentee Ballots for Military and Overseas Voters

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 12:15:17 -0700

This report analyzes the potential legal issues with the use of ranked choice absentee ballots for military and overseas voters. Ranked choice absentee ballots enable U.S. citizens covered by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA) to cast votes in runoff elections in states where the ballot turnaround time between first and second elections is short. Three states and one municipality have adopted ranked choice absentee ballots for military and overseas voters, including for federal and state primary and general runoff elections in Arkansas and federal and state primaries in South Carolina and Louisiana. The use of ranked choice absentee ballots is unlikely to violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Constitution, or to disenfranchise absentee voters. In addition, these ballots may help states avoid litigation under UOCAVA.

Debate Exclusion Harms Voters

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:58:03 -0700

Since the 1948 radio debate between Thomas E. Dewey and Harold Stassen, Republican primary voters have been able to evaluate the merits of their party's presidential candidates by hearing them discuss the issues face to face. However, former two-term New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson was denied that opportunity last week when CNN barred him from participating in a debate at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire, the state where the first 2012 Republican presidential primary election will be held. CNN did not provide him a podium at the debate despite his 1994 and 1998 gubernatorial victories in a Democratic-leaning state, third-place finish in the Conservative Political Action Conference's 2011 straw poll and strong libertarian credentials, which include having a $1.4 billion budget surplus when finishing his second term. A politician scorned, Johnson criticized the decision and insisted he will continue his campaign despite the snubbing - he even posted a YouTube video that includes his responses to each question asked at the debate.

Governor Johnson's exclusion comes at a crucial time in the primary season when many Republican candidates are being evaluated for the first time on a national scale as they debate important issues including health care, the economy, and foreign policy. As the first debate that included frontrunner Mitt Romney, the New Hampshire debate provided a prime opportunity for lesser-known candidates to differentiate themselves, just as Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann did by surprising pundits and the media with her strong performance at the debate. Primary campaigns usually begin with a wide field of candidates who span the ideological spectrum that is slowly whittled down as successful candidates draw more support and less popular contenders withdraw. In contrast with general elections, which usually feature two strong, party-backed candidates, the primary season provides a unique opportunity for multifarious voices to be heard by a wider audience - indeed perhaps the most adventurous time in our politics for hearing dissenting voices like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Al Sharpton on the Democratic side and Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer and Ron Paul on the Republican side. Johnson's credibility is not in doubt, but his libertarian views have aroused doubt regarding his ability to energize the party base.

One of the most puzzling aspects of the situation is the ground on which CNN stood to exclude Johnson. The network justified its decision by imposing an objective criterion: participants must have garnered an average of 2% support in three nationwide surveys conducted by accredited polling organization. However, according the to Johnson campaign, the governor met the polling requirement. As Conor Friedersdorf from The Atlantic observed, "in most polls, the margin of error is such that everyone who actually understands statistics knows folks polling at 1 percent and 3 percent are tied." Moreover, in a video response to the ruling, Johnson's campaign claimed that several successful primary candidates also polled at 1% at this point in their candidacy, including one candidate, Michael Dukakis, and two presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

At the core of every modern, free democracy rests the idea that important policy matters should be made after careful deliberation and consideration of the facts. This principle is grounded in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and of the press. Whether in Congress or the courtroom, our decision-makers rely upon exhaustive debate to determine which resolution best serves the needs of citizens and upholds the integrity of government. The election of capable candidates is arguably the most direct impact that the citizenry can have in this process. Voters rely on the media to create accurate portrayals of each candidate and present a fair opportunity for credible candidates to make their case to their constituents. CNN failed to provide voters the opportunity to evaluate Governor Johnson, instead relying on opinion polls of dubious importance.

More broadly, we need to challenge conventional approaches to general election debates, which regularly exclude candidates who are not from the major parties. For example, in 2008, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain held a debate immediately after revelations of the crisis on Wall Street that led to commitments of more than half a billion dollars for a temporary bailout. Many Americans were confused by the bailout, but Obama and McCain agreed on the issue and barely discussed it - and so we missed a great opportunity for a national conversation about its merits from a knowledgeable, diverse field of candidates. Multi-candidate debates in presidential primaries and many state races show that we can have meaningful debates with more than two candidates. Before making exclusionary decisions like CNN did, general election debate sponsors should establish sensible standards that lean toward inclusion, like those recommendations made by the Appleseed Citizens' Task Force. More information on this topic has been made available from Open Debates and Free & Equal. Additionally, Ballot Access News provides regular updates on issues related to democratic inclusivity, lest America drift toward the sort of "democracy" found today in countries like Russia. Then again, accommodating voter choice may not be so much of a chore if we implemented an electoral system like instant runoff voting.

Egypt Inching its way down to Democracy

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:26:52 -0700

Although the Arab Spring movement started in Tunisia, as I discussed earlier this week, the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt was the year’s most stunning development. As the most influential and populous nation in the Arab world, Egypt, both in times of war and peace, has often played a leadership role in the region. The political changes happening in Egypt will certainly reverberate strongly in the region. Now it is turning to the even-harder task of establishing an enduring democracy, which if successful, will set a standard for its neighbors.

Similarly to their secular Tunisian counterparts, some Egyptians fear that rushing through elections might give the Muslim Brotherhood a decisive advantage, due to its more organized and consolidated nature as a political party; an advantage that some feel might will obstruct the liberal democratic course. According to the New York Times in a June 8 article, the military council now in power after the ouster of Hosni Mubarak has been “aloof”, firmly entrenching a status quo about which many Egyptians have become cynical – as evidenced by the persistence of protesters months after the departure of Mubarak.

As the current regime seeks to approve a referendum to schedule parliamentary elections in September, exact voting rules have yet to be determined. Furthermore, district lines as well as the possibility of revising the constitution still stirs up debate. Nonetheless, inching its way down to democracy, the military junta now in place has recently proposed a package of amendments which lay the foundations of the Egyptian electoral system and provide a sense of what this means for the democratic experiment.

The Supreme Military council on March 17 introduced a mixed member system of individual candidacy and party-list proportional representation, which if approved, would be chosen in the coming People’s Assembly (lower house of parliament) elections in September. Simply put, one third of the seats will be determined through a closed-list PR while the remaining two thirds will be allocated through the Mubarak-era individual candidacy system. In this system, each voter gets two votes: one for their local district representative and a second for their party of choice. In the event that no candidate receives an absolute majority in the first round, a second round is held. Also, half of parliament must be represented by workers and farmers. Some have written in more detail about this convoluted form of parallel voting (MMM).

Critics encompassing a spectrum of parties of all political stripes, including the 25 January Revolution’s youth movements, have expressed reservations about the proposed amendments. They cite that the system is biased in favor of the individual candidacy system which in the past was manipulated by the Mubarak regime to consolidate his ruling party and curtail any form of political pluralism. Critics also fear the parliamentary domination of the well-organized Muslim Brotherhood. Although the Brotherhood’s recent alliance announcement with Egypt’s liberal party might ease some concerns, some of its members have clearly stated their goal of imposing Sharia law. This might even raise fears for Egypt’s sizable Coptic minority.

As discussed in several commentaries in a New York Times special collection earlier this year, maintaining the individual candidacy, winner-take-all system for so many seats is indeed problematic. Not only does it continue the bitter institutional legacy of the Mubarak era, but it will seriously weaken the role of political parties, as some have argued, due to its highly candidate-centric nature. By relying on winner-take-all – the candidate with the most votes winning 100% of power -- the individual candidacy system confers each district’s majority a disproportionate amount of power, with geographically polarized representation based on tribal lines and a boost to locally powerful business élites, which many see as relics of the old regime. Although many Egyptians will vote on tribal lines regardless, their salience will be more visible under such a system. Retaining the individual candidacy system might also lead to ballot rigging, as well as a majority of candidates running as independents – highly reminiscent of the way elections were run under Mubarak. A more ambitious proportional representation system that goes beyond the one third, on the other hand, would encourage people to account for candidates’ party platforms, since the seats gained would correspond to the parties’ popularity. Essentially, a more far-reaching PR system would make the virtually non-existent party system in Egypt more robust, and more attuned to the demands of the people.

Indicating a growing lack of trust in the transitional military government, as well as fears of a Muslim Brotherhood parliamentary takeover, an increasing number of leaders of the former Mubarak opposition now favor drafting a new constitution before elections take place. However, questions about how this constitution would be written --whether the panel would be appointed or elected and so on – are vigorously debated in Egyptian political life. Amending the 1971 constitution, which had supported the former authoritarian system of government, is an important first step in managing a safe transition to democracy, through judicial oversight and more transparency and accountability. Although the proposed amendments are insufficient to some Egyptians and even a source of contention, the current debates signal a historic shift in Egyptian discourse that has shattered the psychology of fear that had prevailed for decades. What this all means is that Egyptians are learning the game of democracy, and that we must watch this closely because of Egypt’s central historic role in the Arab world.

The End of the Election Assisstance Commission?

Tue, 31 May 2011 07:59:52 -0700

The future of the Election Assistance Commission, an independent bipartisan government agency tasked with making elections fair and accessible, is in question. Amid the intense debate in Washington over government spending, this small agency could be terminated, some of its tasks being relegated to the Federal Elections Commission, in order to save the taxpayers $14 million a year. In the United State House of Representatives, H.R. 672, a bill introduced by Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS), seeks to terminate the EAC. The bill has made it through the Committee on House Administration along party lines, and will now move to the House for a vote.

The EAC was given a three-year mandate by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), which was created in the wake of the disastrous (from a voting rights perspective) 2000 Presidential election. At the time, Congress sought to quench the thirst of voting rights advocates and restore public confidence in US elections with the passage of HAVA. The Act was an important step in the modernization of election administration. On top of creating the EAC, HAVA also replaced outdated voting technology such as punch cards and lever-pulling, established minimum national election administration standards for poll training and registration (although these minimum standards were left largely to state interpretation), and the EAC was to help the states in reaching these minimum standards set by Congress.

Unfortunately for the EAC, the Republicans on the Committee believe the agency has outlived its purpose, going well beyond its original three-year mandate. Rep. Harper referring to it as a "bloated bureaucracy," and would go on to paraphrase Ronald Reagan's quote, "[T]here is nothing closer on earth to eternal life than a temporary government agency." However, the lack of a powerful federal elections authority on standards and best practices leaves federal election outcomes in the hands of fifty different bodies each with their own goals, prerogatives, and budgets. Clearly, uniformity, an important component of successful administration, is distinctly lacking. For the sake of simplicity, we believe the Elections Assistance Commission should not only be preserved, but that it should be made more dynamic and authoritative in order to improve national voter confidence and clamp down on the piles of bureaucracy generated by a lack of federal power in the field of election administration.

The EAC has a massively important role as the primary clearinghouse for everything related to nationwide election administration, i.e. the best practices. However, even though the EAC has all this pertinent information, it's not allowed to mandate the states to follow anything close to the best practices, stripping the EAC of much of its ability to actually improve the election process. Further, the use of these best practices, which would-by definition-reduce disenfranchisement and increase election efficiency, are also voluntary. In the Committee, Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-TX) introduced amendments that would not only keep the EAC, but also improve it through legislation. The amendments called for the Government Accountability Office to review the EAC, and to provide analysis so that the agency could be improved. Again, unfortunately for the EAC, these amendments were voted down along party lines.

The Committee heard much testimony, including many Secretaries of State and state election officials. While the Secretaries of State testimony was relied on in moving the bill forward, the people on the ground, the election officials, found the EAC to be an extremely helpful agency (for example, Sacramento Registrar Ms. LaVine). Furthermore, while Rep. Harper is convinced that the FEC can take over the duties of the EAC, some others are less convinced. The president of the Leadership Conference of Civil and Human Rights, Wade Henderson, called it "overworked, partisan, and ineffective." This is perhaps evidence that a GAO study is worthy of more consideration.

Moreover, simply looking at how other countries administer elections and their associated results suggests a possible way for the US to balance its democracy deficit. When it comes to states administering their own elections, we are the exception rather than the rule in the international community. A large majority of countries have their elections planned and executed by the central government, reducing the occurrence of unplanned disenfranchisement and convoluted state-by-state differentiations. For example, several other industrialized countries such as Portugal, Spain , France, Australia, and others all rely on the central government to administer elections. In addition, these countries typically enjoy less electoral bureaucracy and greater ease of voting - including the use of voter proxies and automatic registration for all citizens 18 years of age or older.

The EAC is performing an essential duty, but doesn't have the teeth necessary to sufficiently improve the uniformity, credibility, or confidence in election results. We believe, along with Rep. Gonzalez and others, that this agency can be improved. Understanding that each state has its own unique electoral climate and needs, we aren't recommending the federal government completely control all aspects of federal elections within the states. We are simply advocating the retaining and improving of a federal authority. That authority will identify and uphold higher standards for elections throughout the nation, a move which can only help voter confidence by generating uniformity for federal elections and preventing voter restrictions, such as voter ID laws and felon disenfranchisement, which are known to bar millions of voters from participating in a fundamental aspect of our democracy, the right to vote.

Internet voting: If ever made secure, would it improve election turnout?

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:01:49 -0700

The phenomenon is not new but has become worrisome by its recurrence. Voter turnout is appallingly low. This year's city elections in the United States remind us that voters are turning out in smaller numbers each year in most local elections and most primary elections.. With the advent of new technological means of communication, however, will technology be a means to fight against the disaffection toward politics that so many Americans seem to feel?

When asked for ideas on how to boost turnout, young people frequently suggest internet voting. That’s hardly a surprise, given the role in their lives and how often it is now used for student elections and votes at online sites like Facebook and Youtube. Indeed the nation of Estonia arranged for voting on the internet in 2005. In this post I explore the stakes around this new technology, and whether the United States is even remotely close to implementing it for governmental elections.

The example of Estonia: Does Internet voting affect voter turnout?

Experts recognized that the effect of "e-voting" on the electoral turnout was not proved in the Estonian elections or in any other internet elections so far. Nevertheless, e-voting has many supporters. “With the vote on internet, you can vote wherever you are and when you want ", said the Professor Rüdiger Grimm of the University of Coblence. “Although we have no proof, it has to increase electoral turnout”.

The Estonian example does suggest a positive impact on turnout. Since 2005, the citizens can vote on internet in the general and European election. To vote, a person would first obtain an electronic ID card. Such cards come in many forms, and even a recent phone’s SIM card is acceptable. Next, a voter obtains two secret codes, the first one to be identified in the voting system, and the second one to sign electrically.

Between 2005 and 2011, percentage of internet voting has risen from 2 % to more than 24 % of the total number of votes cast. Participation in the European elections at the same time has jumped up from 27 % in 2004 to 43 % in 2009. In light of these positive statistics, why do experts hesitate to support e-voting in the United States?

Theoretical advantages, but practical problems

The ptotential advantages of e-voting are easy to identify. As the “peak of the modernization of the administrative processes”, it decreases the costs of holding an election and makes it easier for internet users, particularly young people, to carry out the duty of citizenship. Besides, a lot of people already make purchases, manage their bank accounts or communicate with the public authorities on internet, and are familiar with how the internet functions as a tool for everyday life. Why not include voting?

The reasons to hesitate are nevertheless strong, and without further evidence, convincing. The electronic vote is by definition different from the e-commerce because it touches a fundamental value,:democracy. The fear of manipulated elections is very present, transparency and safety are unverifiable, and questions about how guarantee ballot secrecy with absolute certainty are the main problem. The most important is the question of how to guarantee the reliability of the system: that the “system will in all situations function in the manner in which it is meant to function."

Underscoring the point, the District of Columbia in October 2010 conducted a pilot project to test an internet based voting system that would give overseas and military voters a way to download and submit absentee ballots online. Before using the system in a real voting process, the public was invited to evaluate its security and usability.

Alex Halderman, an assistant professor of electrical engineering and computer science at the University of Michigan, and his team of two students in 36 hours found a vulnerability of the system and exploited it. It gave them almost total control of the server software, including the ability to change votes and reveal voters’ secret ballots. In 36 hours, his team hacked the D.C Internet Voting Pilot, and it was unnoticed until they revealed themselves in a prank: the University of Michigan fight song would play after a voter hit “cast ballot”.

Based on this experience and other results from the public tests, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics has announced that they will not proceed with a live deployment of electronic ballot return at this time, though they plan to continue to develop the system. For now its voters will still be able to download and print ballots to return by mail.

This experience shows us how much this voting system can be dangerous. Even if it brings a lot of theoretical advantages, e-voting remains unreliable. Even as we follow the evolution of internet voting systems, iwe must listen to the skepticism of the experts. Halderman, for example, suggests that he can’t imagine any current system being secure from would-be hackers. That conclusion won’t stop new experiments in internet voting, however - nor young people suggesting it as a good idea. But we clearly are not ready today in the United States.

Redistricting heats up - and FairVote shows better way

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:19:58 -0700

In all 50 states, elected officials at some level of government are feverishly engaged in the remarkable exercise of choosing their voters before their voters choose them. Nearly every U.S. House map and the great majority of state legislative maps will be redrawn by partisans, usually with the goal of protecting incumbents, helping friends and hurting political enemies. Congressional maps near approval in Arkansas, Iowa (using its praiseworthy nonpartisan process) and Louisiana. You can follow the daily news at FairVote's End Gerrymander twitter feed.

FairVote also is highlighting a better way. Interns Matt Morris and Dean Searcy have drawn five "super district" maps showing how proportional voting in multi-seat districts would provide every single voter with real choices, a good chance of electing a preferred candidate and overall fairer representation. See their recent blogs on Virginia congressional districts and state legislative districts and New Jersey legislative districts.

Understanding the RCV Election Results in District 10

Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:21:52 -0800

Contact:

Steve Hill: (415) 665-5044, hill@steven-hill.com

Rob Richie: (301) 270-4616, rr@fairvote.org

Understanding the RCV election results in District 10

A FairVote Analysis

The Board of Supervisors race in District 10 was an unprecedented race in San Francisco’s seven-year history of using ranked choice voting (the first RCV elections took place in 2004). It featured 21 candidates, no incumbent and no obvious front runners. That resulted in an election in which the winning candidate, Malia Cohen, barely edged out the competition in an exceptionally close race. How close was it?

• The top vote-getter in the first round barely topped 12%.

• In the first round, the leading four candidates (Sweet, Kelly, Cohen and Tran) were all within about one third of a percent (0.34%) of each other. A fifth candidate (Moss) was within 1% of the first-round leader.

• Those five leaders remained the leaders and within 3.5% of each other (as a fraction of the first round continuing votes) for each of the following rounds until they were the last five continuing candidates.

San Francisco previously had an RCV contest in a supervisorial race that had 22 candidates (District 5 in 2004), but there were two clear front runners in that race that together had about 40% of the first round ballots and helped to order the field. That race was won decisively by the lead front runner. Similarly, other Board of Supervisors races this year requiring RCV tallies had far higher percentages for the two front runners, including 59% in District 6, 78% in District 7 and 82% in District 2.

But in District 10 the two front runners had less than 25% of the first round ballots. It was the most unusual race that San Francisco has ever seen due to the high number of candidates, the lack of any clear front runners, and ultimately in its closeness among five candidates. Given those atypical circumstances, ranked choice voting was decisive in selecting the legitimate winner preferred by the most voters.

COMPARISON TO OTHER ELECTORAL METHODS.

To understand the effectiveness of RCV, it is helpful to compare how this extraordinary race in District 10 would have unfolded using other electoral systems, specifically a plurality ("highest vote-getter wins") system or San Francisco's previous two round (November-December) runoff cycle.

Plurality elections. With a plurality system, the highest vote-getter wins regardless of how low their percentage of the vote. Plurality elections are used to elect the governor and other statewide offices, such as the attorney general in which this year’s winner will fall well short of having a majority of the vote, as have several recent California governors (as of this writing, the attorney general’s race is still undecided because of the closeness of the contest and a slow ballot count resulting from the vast number of absentee and provisional ballots). If the District 10 supervisorial race had been decided using this electoral system, the winner would have had only 12.06% of the popular vote and barely 2000 votes out of over 17,000 cast. The second-place finisher would have lost by a mere 30 votes, and the third and fourth place finishers by fewer than 60 votes. This would not have resulted in a very satisfactory or democratic outcome, as it would have meant that 88 percent of voters had selected a different candidate than the winner. San Francisco can be glad that it was not using a plurality system in the District 10 race.

Two round (November-December) runoff. If San Francisco's previous method with a separate runoff election in December among the top two finishers had been used, the candidate with the broadest support and the actual winner, Malia Cohen, would not have made it to the December runoff. Instead, the top two finishers facing off in the runoff would have been Lynette Sweet and Tony Kelly. Kelly would have made the runoff over Malia Cohen by a mere 27 votes and over Marlene Tran by only 29 votes.

So Kelly and Sweet would have squared off in December in what would undoubtedly have been a low turnout election. Typically in San Francisco's old runoff elections, voter turnout would plummet from November to December, sometimes by as much as 40% of the vote. That's because voters turn out in great numbers for the presidential or gubernatorial races in November, but lose enthusiasm over local races in December. Indeed, in the last December runoff for a District 10 race in 2000, voter turnout plummeted 46% from the November election. The winner was elected with fewer than 5900 votes, less than 30 percent of the voters that originally showed up to vote in this race in November (see Table 1 below).

Table 1. Runoff election, December 2000

District	November election (total votes)	December runoff total votes	Winner’s votes in Dec. runoff	Percent (winner’s votes compared to November votes)	Non-returning/ exhausted voters
District 10	19,764	10,668	5,887	29.8%	9096 (46.0%)

Advocates of returning San Francisco to a separate runoff election say one of its advantages is that, in a close race like this one in 2010, voters would be able to assess the benefits of the top two candidates. However if the past is any guide, not only would few voters return for that second election, but voters would have had to withstand a month and a half of more mudslinging and hack attack campaigning in which they heard the worst about their future supervisor. The tone of the campaign would have become increasingly bitter, and rather than some candidates openly endorsing competitors for second choice (as occurred under the RCV system) voters would have seen “everyone for themselves” behavior from the candidates.

In addition, a December runoff would have been expensive for candidates, undermining campaign finance reform. So-called 'independent' expenditures' focused on attack ads soared in the old runoff system, with the San Francisco Ethics Commission finding they quadrupled in December runoffs. The top two candidates in the runoff would have needed to quickly raise a lot of money, giving an advantage to whichever candidate has either more personal wealth or access to those organizations with wealth. And San Francisco taxpayers would have had to foot the bill for administering a second election, taking general fund revenue from other pressing needs at a time when the city is financially strapped.

Conclusion: A separate, second round runoff in December would have excluded the strongest candidate (Malia Cohen) from the runoff, exacerbated the ever-growing problem of money in elections, and resulted in a winner elected by a smaller, less representative electorate than a November election. Despite these shortcomings, a two round runoff would be far more preferable than the plurality method.

Ranked choice voting (also known as instant runoff voting).

The dispersed vote in the District 10 race challenged RCV more than any previous contest in San Francisco. Cohen's share of the first round ballots more than doubled during the course of the RCV tally but ultimately fell well short of 50% of the first round ballots. Still, the overall number of voters participating in the 2010 RCV race were comparable to the number of voters in the November-December 2000 runoff cycle. The number of voters participating in the December 2000 runoff and the final round of the RCV tally were in a similar range, as were the number and percentage of votes won by the winning candidate in both elections (see Table 2 below and compare to Table 1).

Table 2. RCV election, November 2010

District	November RCV election (total votes)	Final round instant runoff total votes	Winner’s votes (in final round)	Percent (winner’s votes compared to first round)	“Exhausted” ballots (non-return voters)
District 10	17,175	7934	4173	24.3%	9140

Despite the challenges of this District 10 race, RCV has several features that make it desirable compared to a separate December runoff. First, it elected the true winner with the most support, Malia Cohen, whereas a separate runoff among the top two finishers would have resulted in Cohen not making it into the runoff at all. Yet, in one indicator of Cohen’s strength as a candidate, election simulations show that she would have defeated any candidate paired against her in the final round. Cohen was the legitimate winner even though she would have lost by less than 0.4% in a plurality voting election and would have failed by 27 votes to make it into the December runoff.

In addition, Cohen, an African American candidate, was able to benefit greatly from the supporters of other African American candidates in the race (third place finisher Lynette Sweet and Dewitt Lacy in particular), resulting in the election of a black supervisor in this district historically won by black candidates (note that if no black candidate had won this race, that would have been the first time in decades that the Board of Supervisors had no black members). Cohen was more successful than any other candidate at building coalitions, which is plainly evident in following the trail of runoff rankings that accrue to her during 19 rounds of the RCV tally. About 60 percent of the voters in this race used all three of their rankings. The ranked ballots allowed coalition-building to be a decisive factor in who was elected ultimately, instead of the winner benefitting from the usual hack attack, big money campaigns.

Conclusion: This race with 21 candidates and no clear frontrunners challenged the ability of any electoral system to accommodate it. This was a very unusual, even atypical race that San Francisco had never seen before and may not see again for a long time. Given the parameters of this race, RCV functioned smoothly to produce a winner that was preferred by the most voters. It fostered a degree of coalition-building as candidates and voters used the ranked ballots effectively, and unlike other races this race was substantially free of negative, mudslinging attacks as the multi-candidate field focused on seeking the second and third rankings from the supporters of other candidates.

Given the challenges of the District 10 race, reasonable people will disagree if it would be more valuable to have either a second election that helps voters to choose among the top two finishers in what is likely to be a low turnout, mudslinging election, or to finish the election in a single November election where the winner can emerge from the large pack of candidates on the strength of coalition building. But it is important to note that the negatives of a separate runoff election between the top two finishers would be prevalent no matter how many candidates enter the initial race in November, while the challenges that stem from using RCV decline as the number of candidates decreases to the norm that we have seen in other San Francisco RCV contests. The District 10 race was atypical in its complexity.

Postscript: Addressing Three Common Myths about RCV Elections in San Francisco

1. RCV is responsible for delaying election results.

That is not correct. The fact that the statewide attorney general's race remains undecided due to a half million still-uncounted absentee ballots should put this myth to rest. Delays in RCV results are entirely due to two reasons: 1) With so many absentee and provisional ballots, San Francisco takes a long time to get all the ballots scanned in both non-RCV and RCV contests; and 2) the Department of Elections has made a policy decision to only release first rankings on election night, and to delay running the RCV tally until the first Friday after the election, when in fact it easily could run preliminary tallies on election night and each day thereafter. As the Registrar of Voters in Alameda County (which uses the exact same RCV voting equipment as San Francisco) recently stated in a PBS news broadcast, running the RCV tally literally takes seconds. It’s as quick and easy as walking to the computer that is used as the central tabulator, hitting a few keystrokes on the keyboard, and seconds later you have the results. Each time you run the RCV tally, you are doing it with the dataset of ballots that have been scanned to that point, and that provides preliminary results. It is simply untrue that you need to have all ballots scanned before the RCV tally can be run, since all results in all races, whether non-RCV or RCV, are preliminary until the election is officially certified 28 days after the election. Other jurisdictions that have used RCV elections have run the tally on election night using the exact same voting equipment that San Francisco has. Unfortunately by waiting until Friday to run the tally, the Department of Elections creates a false impression of “wild swings” in election results for some races. In Districts 2 and 10, the candidate ahead on election night in first rankings in fact was losing to another candidate, and that would have been immediately obvious if the RCV tallies had been run for both races on election night.

2. RCV was responsible for Ed Jew (who was later convicted of bribery) winning in District 4 in 2006.

Ed Jew would have won a plurality “highest vote-getter wins” election and most likely would have won in a December runoff as well. In 2002, Jew, who is Chinese-American, had a strong showing and finished third in this highly Asian American district. He was well-known in the district, and in the 2006 race he was the most popular Asian American candidate, finishing first in first rankings and then picking up significant second and third rankings from the supporters of other Asian American candidates. The second-place finisher, Ron Dudum, was not Asian American and it is unlikely that Dudum would have been able to win a majority in this highly Asian American district in a December runoff. Dudum also failed to win a majority in the 2002 runoff when he ran against another Asian-American candidate, and a FairVote analysis of the 2006 ballots shows that any of the top three Asian American candidates in 2006 would have defeated Dudum if paired against him one-on-one. So Jew’s win with RCV is not surprising given the majority voting pattern of his district. Some have speculated that the troubles that caused Ed Jew to eventually resign from office (he lived out of his district and was soliciting bribes, for which he was later convicted) would have been uncovered if there had been a December runoff, but this contention is incorrect. The solicitation of bribes by Supervisor Jew did not occur until AFTER he was elected; and he had been living out of his district for a number of years prior to his election, but it was only uncovered during the investigation regarding the bribes. Indeed, when Mr. Jew ran for the same seat in 2002, it was not discovered during the campaign that he was living out of his district.

3. With RCV, you can win by being everyone's second choice.

RCV now has been used to elect San Francisco leaders in every November election since 2004. Many of those elections required RCV tallies to determine a winner, but this is the first year in which candidates who led in the first round were defeated by candidates who came from behind to win. That happened in two races, Districts 2 and 10, and both of those races were extremely close in which the ultimate winners initially trailed their top opponents by less than 1% in the first round. With RCV, you can't ignore coalition-building but you also need to be a lot of voters' first choice as well. RCV represents an appropriate balance: you have to earn enough first choice support from some people who really want you, but you can't be so polarizing that backers of all other candidates overwhelmingly reject you. Winners, ultimately, are those that have a strong core of support as indicated by having a substantial number of first rankings but also have a broad base of support indicated by having your share of second and third rankings from the supporters of other candidates.

Background info:

* Watch a seven-minute segment on the PBS New Hour with Jim Lehrer on Jean Quan's victory in the RCV mayoral election in Oakland: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/oakland_11-19.html

* Read Steven Hill's commentary in the San Francisco Chronicle on "The New Politics of Ranked-Choice Elections":
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/14/EDUH1GBFVT.DTL

Federal Redistricting BIlls in 111th Congress

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 07:45:13 -0700

There are four redistricting bills that are currently being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives. The bills primarily deal with independent redistricting commissions, transparency requirements and standards for redistricting plans. Given that Congress will only take up limited legislation during its final lame duck deliberations, all the bills are unlikely to pass in this Congress, but may be considered again in 2011-12.

•    HR 3025 provides vague standards for the establishment of independent redistricting commissions that comply with US laws. Although it has 32 co-sponsors it has not had any movement in fifteen months, and is sponsored Congressman John Tanner (D-TN), who is retiring.
•    HR 4918, also sponsored by Congressman Tanner, has received the most support with 39 co-sponsors. It advocates for public transparency in the redistricting process. However, it also has been sitting in committee for four months.
•    H.R. 5596 may have a better chance of serious consideration,, particularly if Democrats maintain control of the US. House of Representatives and California voters approve redistricting reform for Members of Congress. Although it has been in subcommittee for four months, it is sponsored by the current chair of the subcommittee on elections, Congresswoman Zoe Lofrgren, (D-CA), and has twelve co-sponsors, all Democratic members of the California delegation who may be all the more anxious to have national reform standards if their state approves reform this fall. It provides background information for the proper composition and standards for independent redistricting commissions.
•    Sponsored by Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA), H.R. 6250 provides strict standards that redistricting commissions must abide by in their processes. Although it has only been in committee for a month, and has no co-sponsors .

As history has shown, any redistricting bill coming through Congress will be a difficult proposition. Although Article I, Section IV provides that Congress can exert authority over the states in the re-districting process, efforts to improve standards have generally met with fierce opposition because of strong Federalist concerns. When single member districts were first required in 1842, President John Tyler signed the bill with a message of protest and some states initially defined the ban. Future legislation may become all the more difficult if Republicans assume control of Congress, as in recent years national Democrats have been relatively more supportive of reform .

The following analysis provides more detail on the various bills currently in the House of Representatives:

H.R. 3025

H.R. 3025 text found here

Introduced by John Tanner with 32 co-sponsors, HR 3025 was referred to House subcommittee on 7/23/2009.

Titled the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act of 2009, HR 3025 prohibits a state that has been redistricted after an apportionment from being redistricted again until after the next apportionment of Representatives, unless the state is ordered by a court to conduct such a subsequent redistricting in order to: (1) comply with the U.S. Constitution; or (2) enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

HR 3025 requires redistricting to be conducted through a plan, developed by the independent redistricting commission established in the state, or if such plan is not enacted into law, the redistricting plan selected by the state's highest court or developed by a U.S. district court.

This bill prescribes requirements for: (1) establishment of a state independent redistricting commission (including provisions for holding each of its meetings in public and maintaining a public Internet site); (2) development of a redistricting plan (including soliciting and considering public comments) and its submission to the state legislature (with public notice of plans at least seven days prior to such submission); (3) selection of a plan, under specified conditions, by the state's highest court or the U.S. district court for the district in which the capital of the state is located; (4) special rules for redistricting conducted under a federal court order; and (5) Election Assistance Commission payments to states for carrying out redistricting.

Opponents are likely to feature critiques based on these requirements being burdensome and independent redistricting commission being inappropriate for their states.

H.R. 4918

HR 4918 text found here

HR 4918 was introduced by John Tanner with 39 co-sponsors. It was referred to subcommittee on 6/15/10 with bi-partisan support.

The Redistricting Transparency Act of 2010 requires states to carry out congressional redistricting in accordance with a process under which members of the public are informed of redistricting proposals via the internet and have the opportunity to participate in the development of such proposals prior to their adoption.

HR 4918 requires each state’s redistricting entity to establish and maintain a public internet site meeting specified requirements.

This bill requires the state redistricting entity to: (1) solicit the input of members of the public in its work to develop initial congressional redistricting plans for the state; and (2) post the proposed final plan on the Internet site 10 days before its adoption, as well as 7 days after its adoption, together with a map, the reasons for adoption, dissenting opinions, and certain other information.

This bill has been in the subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties since 6/15/10.

H.R. 5596

HR 5596 text found here

The Redistricting Reform Act of 2010, introduced by Zoe Lofgren (who chairs the subcommittee on elections), has obtained 12 co-sponsors. It was introduced to the Judiciary committee on 6/24/10. This bill would require the states to establish independent redistricting committees and eliminate mid-decade redistricting.

In the event that the Commission cannot establish a redistricting plan, the state Supreme Court will be tasked with drawing the lines. This provision does not establish the number of members on the Commission; rather, the nominees are chosen by the majority and minority leaders of the upper and lower house of the state legislature.

The commission nominees receive recommendations from the Governor who picks from a “pool”. This “pool” is chosen by submitting an application to the Governor. To be eligible, a person must not be a public office holder, must be registered to vote in the last two federal elections, must not a registered lobbyist or works for a politician, must not have family that are candidates, and they must promise not to run for election until after the next reapportionment .

The “independent” member is chosen by 2/3 of the members already on the commission. The Governor has the power to decide how many members, but only says it cannot exceed 19 members. The governor is required to put the plan online at least 10 days before enactment, and make all meetings open to the public. They may submit the plan to the state legislature for approval, but HR 5596 does not specify what majority is necessary to “accept” or “reject” the plan. The funding for the redistricting commission would actually come from the EAC.

This bill has the highest-profile sponsor of current redistricting reform legislation. However, there are federalism and Tenth Amendment concerns that may be too difficult to overcome in passage when it comes to a vote in the House – particularly without more certainty of the level of commitment of the bill’s sponsors.

H.R. 6250

HR 6250 text found here

HR 6250, known as the Congressional Redistricting Formula Act, was referred to House Committee on 9/29/10 by Devin Nunes with no-sponsors. http://nunes.house.gov/

HR 6250 would impose standards on redistricting that include: creating an equal population for each district, drawing districts so as to promote contiguity of territory, consistency with Voters Right Act, no dilution of voting rights, and avoiding division of unites of local government. The bill does not give any standards for enforcement of these provisions.

Under the bill, avoiding division of local unities of government would be enacted by: allowing no more than one Congressional district to cross the common boundary between any 2 counties, townships, towns, villages, cities, or any other units of local government; allowing no Congressional district to contain more than 2 fragments of counties, townships, towns, villages, cities, or any other units of local government; and allowing no county, township, town, village, city, or other unit of local government to contain more than 2 Congressional district fragments.

The bill also calls for the general compactness of districts, which would include: Each district containing no less than 60 percent of the population contained in that figure drawn around that district, bounded by only straight lines, with the shortest possible perimeter; The average of the sum of percentages calculated under clause for all the districts in the State shall not be less than 75 percent; Only the population within the State in which each district is located shall be used in making the calculations described in clauses and except that the population of offshore islands may be excluded in making these calculations.

Additionally, the bill implements a public notice requirements, which mandates that during the period, the entity of the government of a State which responsible for conducting Congressional redistricting in the State shall make available on the Internet (on a continuously updated basis) all of the population and demographic data which is used by the State to develop Congressional redistricting plans.

Congressman Nunes currently features his press release on introduction of the bill on the homepage of his website. http://nunes.house.gov/ The fact that the sponsor is a Republican makes this a bill to keep an eye on if Republicans take over the House of Representatives in the November 2010 elections.

Redistricting Reform in the States: June 2010

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:44:42 -0700

REDISTRICTING REFORM IN THE STATES: JUNE 2010

by Patrick Withers with Billy Organek

Summary of Trends:

This report seeks to report on redistricting bills introduced in state legislatures this term. (Please alert us at rr@fairvote.org if you know of an omission.)

This review of redistricting reform in the states in 2009-2010 presents a mix of optimism and frustration for supporters of redistricting in the public interest. Of the many proposals addressed by the fifty state legislatures in 2009-2010, very few passed. Most of the proposals have died or are stuck in committee. Given the fact that the laws in many states prohibit redistricting more than once a decade, few states are likely to engage in redistricting with any new, less partisan procedures before 2021 at the earliest.

For reformers, the picture is not completely bleak. The fact that most state legislatures had members who felt compelled to introduce legislation, most of which was for actual reform of the process, could very well mean that the public’s tolerance for gerrymandering and politicians selecting their constituents is lessening. When state legislators do introduce legislation to undo reform, as in California, there was significant pushback. We may not see reform across the country for at least another decade, but the problem of politically-driven redistricting at the expense of the public interest is gaining awareness from average voters. This awareness may turn to action, making it all the more important to evaluate different approaches to make sure they achieve their objectives.

State Reform in the Spotlight in November 2010:

The two major redistricting issues to watch in November 2010 are competing ballot measures expected in California and Florida. In both states, voters are faced with two competing ballot measures: one which advances redistricting reform and one which protects the status quo and the interests of legislators. There is a lot of money and a lot of activism going into both sides and the outcomes of these twin elections, especially given the importance of California and Florida in national politics, will go far in shaping the tone of the debate for years to come. These two state races also will go far in gauging grassroots involvement in the issue and act as a barometer for the engagement of average voters in redistricting reform.

Download the full 50-State Analysis