FairVote Feed: Reforms

Help FairVote MN's Ranked Choice Voting Video Win Thousands of Dollars For Fairer Elections!

Wed, 15 May 2013 11:16:41 -0700

Today is the last day to show your support for ranked choice voting and FairVote Minnesota in the Looking@Democracy contest. Vote now!

In the Looking@Democracy contest, artists, designers, filmmakers, musicians, and others compete to make the most compelling media presentation on how to improve American democracy. There is $100,000 in prize money to be won by the contest's eleven total winners, and where better for that money to go than to an innovator in the world of democracy?

One important contestant is FairVote ally FairVote Minnesota, which entered a fun video about the benefits of ranked choice voting (instant runoff voting) elections. In the video, stacks of coins are used to represent ranked choice votes for favorite president. The video lucidly demonstrates how ranked choice voting allows voters to have more than two choices and still be confident that the winner will have real majority support.

Check out their video at the contest page. If you like it, click the big red "VOTE" button. You'll be asked to either log in through Facebook or create an account on their page, either of which take very little time and effort. After that you can leave a supportive comment or check out the other videos entered in the contest. Finally, don't forget to learn more about ranked choice voting and what it can do for your community.

Takoma Park Promotes the Vote: Will More Cities, Campuses and Organizations Take Action?

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:52:21 -0700

Last night, the Takoma Park city council passed a charter amendment by a 6-1 vote on first reading that, if approved when before the council again in the coming month, will be in the best tradition of cities and states leading the nation in advancing voting rights. It would establish same-day voter registration and extend voting rights to residents after they turn 16 and after incarceration. Here's why we think it's important.

FairVote's motto is "respect for every vote and every voice." Our reforms are grounded in the belief that bringing more people to the table is the best way to strengthen democracy. Elections with high turnout, real voter choice and fair representation are a nonpartisan way to help representative democracy in our nation, states and cities.

Although changing the Constitution should be an option, most of our reforms can be won by statute, such as the: National Popular Vote Plan to guarantee election of the winner of the most popular votes in presidential elections; fair voting forms of proportional representation to elect Congress and state and local legislators; ranked choice voting(instant runoff) for our single winner offices; and voting access reforms designed to provide for high rates of participation with election integrity.

The one proposed constitutional amendment we highlight is establishing an affirmative right to vote. Adding such language to the Constitution would underscore our nation's commitment to the right to vote and raise the level of scrutiny to any laws that fail to uphold voting rights.

Guided by that vision, we have designed our Promote Our Vote project to encourage immediate action in cities, campuses and organizations to put life into the goal of a constitutional right to vote through concrete action to boost turnout. As underscored by our report on mayoral elections, single digit voter turnout is all too common in city elections, with particularly stark disparities as measured by race, income, education and age.

Last year, we did a voter survey in a hotly contested special election in our hometown of Takoma Park (MD) that showed remarkable differences in who participated. Turnout was up overall from the most recent mayoral election, but was still less than 20% of registered voters. Furthermore, we found that: people of color were 74% of residents, but only 35% of voters; younger adults were 42% of residents but only 7% of voters; and people with graduate or professional degrees were 56% of voters, but only 10% of residents.

Historically, states and cities have been the laboratories of democracy in expanding suffrage and voter access. Promote Our Vote advances resolutions for cities, campuses and organizations to endorse an affirmative right to vote in the Constitution and commit to concrete actions to improve voter turnout, protect voter access when threatened and consider expansion of suffrage rights.

Takoma Park city councilor Tim Male liked the right to vote resolution. Finding a strong ally in fellow councilor Seth Grimes and support from Mayor Bruce Williams, he introduced it to his council colleagues. In so doing, the council decided to move forward on changes for this November's election. The council last night voted to approve the first reading of a charter amendment that would establish same day voter registration in city elections, extend voting rights to more people with felony convictions and make Takoma Park the first city in the United State to join what has become an international movement to extend suffrage rights to people after they turn age 16. The council may also form a task force to consider other ways to increase turnout such as a revision of the landlord code to ensure candidates have greater access to speak with tenants in apartment buildings.

These ideas came directly from councilors' experience. After Grimes introduced Election Day registration, councilors talked about spending time on the campaign trail with residents only to find out they weren't registered and it was past the registration cutoff date. With Maryland this year adopting a new law to establish same day registration during early voting, it was all the easier for the city to go one step farther. Another councilor talked about residents who wanted to vote, but could not due to being on parole or under supervision.

The idea of ensuring candidate access to residents in apartment buildings grew from candidates discussing how much easier it was to engage with homeowners in single-family dwellings than tenants in apartment buildings that were closed to them. It turns out that Minnesota has a law with proven procedures for establishing candidate access to apartments in campaign season.

The proposal to extend voting rights to people after they turn 16 may surprise some readers, but the latest research is a revelation. All evidence suggests that cities will increase turnout by allowing citizens to cast their first vote after turning 16. The reason is simple. Many people at 16 and 17 have lived in their communities for years and are taking government classes in high school. That combination results in more people exercising their first chance to vote if they are 16 or 17 than if they are unable to vote until they have left home and school.

Keep in mind that a voting age of 18 means that many people won't get a chance to vote in city election until they are nearly 20. A detailed study of voting age and voters in Denmark found that 18-year-olds were far more likely to cast their "first vote" than 19-year-olds, and that every month of extra age in those years resulted in a decline in "first vote" turnout.

Allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections will enable them to vote before leaving home and high school, and establish a life-long habit of voting.

Austria is among a growing number of nations like Argentina, Germany and the United Kingdom that have extended voting rights to people at 16 for national, regional or local elections. Evidence from Austria confirms that extending voting rights to people after they turn 16 promotes higher turnout for first-time voters and over time. Austria's experience also shows that 16- and 17-years-olds are ready for voting as far as making choices that accurately reflect their views.

Long-time backers of a lower voting age, like the National Youth Rights Association, make a fairness argument as well. Turning 16 has special significance in our culture. At age 16, we can drive, pay taxes and for the first time work without any restriction on hours. Many states already allow citizens under 18 to vote in Democratic and Republican primaries for president, Congress and governor. Many states like Maryland allow people to start registering to vote at 16, making it administratively easy to extend voting rights.

The idea has taken hold here. Testimony at a public hearing was overwhelmingly positive, the local Gazette endorsed a lower voting with a long editorial and letters of support have come in from our state senator Jamie Raskin (see letter), Congressman Keith Ellison (see letter) and leading scholars on youth engagement, such as CIRCLE's invaluable Peter Levine (see letter). I have little doubt that the practice will quickly spread. Indeed, already the mayor of Orange, Ohio has taken note of Takoma Park's potential action, and the one skeptic on Takoma Park's city council came up with excellent ideas of how to introduce local government and voting to young people if the amendment were adopted.

Democracy is too important to be a spectator sport. Let's vote, of course, but also consider getting directly involved in reform work. FairVote Action presents action ideas for all of our reform ideas. If you like the idea of your city, campus or organization having the kind of substantive, generative conversation on the right to vote that has taken place in Takoma Park, visit Promote Our Vote, look at its resources and take action.

Getting a Real “Colbert Bump” for Women’s Representation Takes Fair Voting Systems and Better Party Rules

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:38:27 -0700

After voters in South Carolina rejected four women running as Democratic Party nominees in the 2012 congressional elections, the state in a special election this May again has a chance to elect its first female House members since 1990. The likely continuation of an all-male delegation provides lessons for what it will take to achieve gender parity in Congress: a combination of gender-conscious party rules and fair voting methods.

In December, Gov. Nikki Haley appointed fellow Republican Tim Scott to the U.S. Senate to fill the vacancy created by Jim DeMint's sudden retirement. The appointment resulted in the Senate's first African American Senator in nearly two years and created a vacancy in the state's 1st congressional district.

The resulting special election has drawn particular attention because Democrats have nominated Elizabeth Colbert Busch, sister of Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert. After easily winning the Democratic primary with 96% of the vote, Colbert Busch will face the winner of a Republican primary runoff in which the favorite is former Gov. Mark Sanford, who is seeking a political comeback four years after his much-publicized extramarital affair.

Even though polls suggest a very close race, Busch faces a tough challenge in the general election in a state without a single woman in its national delegation and heavy Republican partisanship. In 2012, Mitt Romney won the 1st congressional district by 18 percentage points. With few voters today splitting their ticket in presidential and congressional elections, South Carolina's Republican House candidates have a huge advantage.

Even with Nikki Haley as governor, South Carolina has one of the nation's worse records for electing female candidates. It has never elected a woman to the U.S. Senate and only five women have been elected to the U.S. House, four of which were elected in special elections to fill vacancies caused by the deaths of their husbands.

Gov. Haley is South Carolina's only female statewide elective executive; and only three other women have filled statewide positions in the past: Nancy Stevenson was lieutenant governor (1979-1983), while Barbara Nielsen and Inez Tenenbaum were superintendents of education (Nielsen from 1991-1999, and Tenenbaum from 1999-2007).

Before ascending to 49th place in 2012, South Carolina had the lowest percentage of women in its legislature for a decade. In 2012, Republican Katrina Shealy broke through the state's all-male Senate. She was the first woman in four years to be elected to the institution, which has never held more than three women at a time, accounting for a mere 6% of the chamber.

Women have a hard time winning general elections in South Carolina, but it's not due to a lack of running on the Democratic side. While Republicans did not nominate a single female candidate for a House race in 2012 - and last did so in 2008 - four of the six Democratic nominees were women. But they all lost, by an average of nearly 20% with the biggest factor being that Romney defeated Obama in each of their districts by at least 10%. In the 1st congressional district, for example, Tim Scott defeated Bobbie Rose by 27%.

Due to winner-takes-all electoral rules, Democratic House candidates have a good chance to win just one South Carolina district, the 6th district, which has been represented for two decades by James Clyburn. Of the state's seven districts, six are controlled by Republicans with an underlying Republican partisanship of more than 57%. To put that in perspective, even while 2012 was a good year for Democrats nationally, they did not take over a single Republican seat in a district with a partisanship above 54% Republican.

The fact that Democratic women are running and losing in South Carolina underscores the misleading notion that women will always increase their representation simply by running for office. It's not only about women running; it's also about parties running women where they have a real chance to win.

Two reforms would boost representation of women in South Carolina by addressing that problem directly. First, within the current districts, few women will win without Republicans nominating more women. The 2010 gubernatorial primary provides a great example of how intervention can make a difference. In March 2010, Nikki Haley was polling at 12%, in fourth place. Two months later, she surged to the lead with 30%, and ultimately won 49% in the June primary with a landslide win of 65% to 35% in a runoff.

The May poll came four days after Haley earned the endorsement of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Then at the peak of her popularity, Gov. Palin that year endorsed four Republican women in competitive gubernatorial primaries who were ultimately elected. Gov. Palin may stir controversy, but her role in boosting election of women governors cannot be denied - which helps explain why today four Republican governors are women, compared to only one Democratic governor.

South Carolina Republicans have the power to adopt gender-conscious rules to enhance women's representation. At a minimum, they should create incentives for local party arms to recruit and train more women candidates. For example, South Carolina's 7th district has a strongly Republican partisanship and was the state's only open House seat in 2012. Republicans could have recruited qualified, female, primary candidates, but men won 95% of the primary vote. This year's special election in the 1st congressional district was even more abysmal; 15 of 16 Republican primary candidates were male and together won more than 99% of the vote.

Parties can go further by considering rules that parties recruit a minimum number of women candidates to run in open seat elections. Before assuming that such requirements would never gain support, consider that both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC) have party rules promoting gender parity in selection of party leaders. The RNC, for example, reserves one position for a man and one for a woman from every state and territory and requires women to hold key executive positions.

But suppose South Carolina Republicans cling to gender-blind rules and continue to almost never nominate women for high office. What else can be done?

For Democrats to win in South Carolina, they need fairer methods of voting. It's not like the state doesn't have Democratic voters - Barack Obama won more than 44% of the vote in both 2008 and 2012; and Democratic candidates for the House won 41.2% of the vote in 2012.* But the state has an unfair winner-take-all voting system that gives Democrats a realistic chance to win only one of seven districts.

Switching to a fair voting electoral system, like our proposed map with multi-seat districts and a non-winner-take-all voting system like choice voting, would allow far more voters to elect a preferred candidate. Our plan would make it easier for Republicans to have party rules that result in more women nominees and mean that Democrats would likely win three of seven seats - making the fact that Democrats nominate more women directly meaningful for changing representation.

It's premature to write off Colbert Bush this year, of course. In special elections, voter turnout can be a big wildcard, and Mark Sanford's controversial history could make him a vulnerable candidate if he wins the nomination. Also, the "Colbert bump" due to her brother's celebrity may play a meaningful role in the race.

But in today's hyper-partisan political environment, partisanship typically trumps everything else, whether it be a candidate's personal charisma, political philosophy or campaign spending. And regardless, South Carolina will remain a troubling testament of how winner-takes-all districts and a lack of gender-conscious party rules are the leading reasons for why the United States ranks 92nd in the world for representation of women in its national legislature. It's time for real change. We need to adopt gender-conscious party rules and a fair voting system.

*Two races were uncontested, the 2nd district with a Republican incumbent and the 6th district with a Democratic incumbent.

The Voting Rights Act, Jerome Gray and Fair Voting in Alabama

Fri, 08 Mar 2013 08:32:54 -0800

Among the flurry of news coverage surrounding the upcoming landmark Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which will decide the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, one interesting man has been getting considerable attention: Jerome Gray. His story has been related in The New York Times, The Huffington Post, and other publications.

A 74-year-old black Alabama local and civil rights advocate, Jerome Gray has had a remarkable career as a community organizer, including work for years at the Alabama Democratic Conference. In that role he worked regularly with FairVote, including helping FairVote for a time as a member of an advisory committee on our organizing and outreach.

Mr. Gray has voted in every election since 1974. Yet prior to the 2012 general election, a county official improperly removed his name from the voting rolls - along with some 500 other names, all in a small town with a population of only about 4,000, 63% of whom are black. A three judge panel ruled the purging of names from the rolls illegal in a decision invoking the Voting Rights Act.

Alabama has a long history of Voting Rights Act activity. Shelby County, Alabama initiated the lawsuit now before the Supreme Court, and Jerome Gray recalls seeing white men in the beds of trucks photographing black voters as they came out to vote as recently as 2008. But Alabama is also home to many of the Voting Rights Act's greatest successes, especially in those towns and counties that have chosen fair voting as a preferred way of guaranteeing an undiluted vote to their African American and Latino populations - highlighted by Dillard v. Crenshaw County, a voting rights case pursued in 1985 that resulted 32 uses of cumulative voting and the one vote system, which has often has been called "limited voting," a name that unfortunately fails to communicate its capacity for expanding representation while ensuring that everyone has the same number of votes.

We recently wrote about the use of fair voting in Calera, the town whose illegal redistricting directly led to Shelby County filing suit against Attorney General Eric Holder in his official capacity. When Calera's redistricting scheme was found to be illegal, they adopted the one vote form of fair voting, allowing the same level of representation for African Americans as under a majority-minority district plan, but without the need for any line drawing. But Calera is far from alone. In fact FairVote hosts a booklet about the use of fair voting throughout Alabama, written by none other than Jerome Gray.

Fair voting in Alabama dates back to the 1980's, when local activists fought for it as the best option for remedying racial minority vote dilution present in so many Alabama localities, and it continues to be effective today. Chilton County, Alabama continues to elect its county commission using cumulative voting, and it has elected a black representative every cycle since its adoption. Fair voting in Chilton County has helped political, as well racial minorities, as demonstrated by the election of Democrat-turned-Independent Tim Mims to the Chilton County Commission in 2008 (Mims has since become a Republican and was re-elected in 2012).

As Jerome Gray wrote in his booklet for FairVote and the now-defunct Southern Regional Council, "thirty-two different governing bodies use some form of [fair voting]." Most use the one vote system, with a few using cumulative voting. FairVote has paid particular attention to Alabama and those working for fair voting there. Back in January, FairVote Voices, the podcast for FairVote, interviewed Ed Still, a local civil rights attorney who has worked for such systems to protect voting rights.

Although much of Gray's work involved making sure local community's changes to single member districts resulted in effective opportunities for African Americans in Alabama, he saw great promise in expanding opportunities for representation in fair voting. He wrote:

The advantages of alternative voting systems as they have worked in Alabama are enumerated below:

1. They eliminate the requirement of jurisdictions having to redistrict themselves every ten years after a census is taken as is required of single-member district localities.

2. They eliminate numbered places and the majority vote requirement which is commonplace throughout the South. There are no runoff elections. ...

3. Minority candidates and women often benefit greatly from these systems because they allow minority and women voters to "plump" their limited or cumulative votes in a block in support of candidates that they prefer. Moreover, minority and women candidates are not viewed as running against each other or against specific incumbents.

4. The electability of good candidates under these systems is not skewed unduly toward incumbents, candidates with the most money, or those with the best business and professional ties.

5. Strong minority candidates are able to win under these systems, even with less resources and political connections.

6. It facilitates the establishment and/or use of voting centers for local elections, cutting down on the number of voting places required for elections in single-member district jurisdictions.

7. It saves jurisdictions a lot of money in that no runoff elections are required. Money is saved on printing costs for ballots, setting up voting machines and paying poll officials. It saves money for the candidates, too, because they don't have to spend additional money campaigning in a runoff.

8. In the long run, it saves money for the jurisdictions. They will never have to pay lawyers and demographers to assist them in drawing redistricting plans to submit to the Department of Justice for preclearance, nor will they have to pay out any money to lawyers, demographers and experts to defend the fairness of their alternative voting system in court.

9. In small, less populated jurisdictions, these systems generally improve or increase the potential pool of good minority candidates to run and win simply because they do not restrict, or limit winnable candidate selection to the majority black district(s) as is often the case in single-member districts.

10. All the minority voters throughout the jurisdiction (in the city or county) always have the opportunity to vote and help elect the minority candidate(s) of their choice. Under a single-member district system, minority voters who live outside the majority black district(s) cannot help elect the minority candidate(s) of their choice for the simple reason that they aren't residents of the majority black district(s).

11. Preparing and publishing voters' lists, as required by law in Alabama, is made simpler because the alphabetical list does not have to be subdivided for poll officials to determine who is eligible to vote in a given district.

12. The printing and distribution of maps and the training of map readers to help educate voters, poll workers and election officials as to the location of district boundaries and knowing what voting precincts are within each single-member district becomes moot when alternative voting is used.

The benefits of fair voting for achieving voting rights goals have been noted outside of Alabama as well. Cambridge, Massachusetts has used choice voting to elect its city council since 1941, with some noting that the system promoted the representation of racial minorities and promoted racial harmony not seen in other parts of the country. Indeed, Cincinnati, Ohio formerly used choice voting, and the Kerner Commission in 1968 noted that the subsequent racial unrest and ultimately violence may have stemmed from Cincinnati's repeal of the system and the subsequent decline in African American representation.

In fact, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has generally made it more difficult for jurisdictions using fair voting to repeal the system and return to suppressive winner-take-all elections that dilute the votes of racial minorities. The New York Times today has an important article about the role of Section Five in New York City, but does not mention that the last time the Department of Justice denied preclearance to voting change in New York was related to fair voting: when New York City attempted to repeal the use of choice voting for its school board elections, the Department of Justice denied the repeal preclearance under Section 5. And opponents of fair voting have noted that its repeal would be easier if Section 5 did not prevent them from changing their laws in ways that would dilute the votes of racial minorities.

It should therefore be no surprise that FairVote and advocates like Jerome Gray both support the Voting Rights Act in its entirety and support the use of fair voting at every level of government.

A Representative Congress: Enhancing African American Voting Rights in the South with Choice Voting

Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:46:30 -0800

In southern states, racially polarized elections remain an active part of political life. Since 1965, the Voting Rights Act has guaranteed that African Americans in the South cannot be shut out of elections either through direct barriers to voting or through discriminatory districts that prevent the achievement of representation. It transformed suffrage rights and representation in legislatures across the South, with a leading instrument being creation of "majority-minority" districts - ones in which racial minorities gain representation by virtue of making up the majority of the population within some district.

However, relying on winner-take-all elections has inherent limitations. In the belt of southern states including Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and the Carolinas, the use of districting to achieve a fairer level of representation for African Americans has hit a ceiling. While redistricting in 1991 contributed directly to election of seven new African American Members, the total number of African American Members did not change this year.

To push through that ceiling and achieve truly fair representation, FairVote recommends abandoning the single-member district in favor of super districts elected by choice voting. Under choice voting, voters rank candidates in order of preference by whatever criteria they think important, and those preferences then are used to elect candidates in proportion to their popular support without wasting excess votes for standout candidates guaranteed to win or protest votes for candidates sure to lose. With a long history of use in local elections in the United States, choice voting has resulted in fair representation for political and racial minorities.

Louisiana currently has six House districts and exactly one majority-minority district, with every other district having more than 60% white voters and a Republican Members. However, African Americans make up nearly one third of the voting age population of Louisiana. Under our fair voting plan using choice voting in two districts with three Members each, African Americans in Louisiana would have the opportunity to elect two candidates of choice by being above the quarter of the vote needed to win one of three seats.

Similarly, African Americans in Alabama, South Carolina, and North Carolina would have enhanced opportunities to elect candidates of choice. Here is a chart contrasting current African American representation in Congress and shares of the voting age population living in district with a clear opportunity to elect preferred candidates with what it would be with adopting of choice voting in super districts of three, four or five districts:

State	Louisiana	Mississippi	Alabama	Georgia	South Carolina	North Carolina
Seats / Superdistricts	6 / 2	4 / 1	7 / 2	14 / 4	7 / 2	13 / 3
Majority-minority Districts (Currently)	1	1	1	4	1	2
Candidates of Choice Under Choice Voting	2	1	2	4	2	3
*African American Voting Strength (Currently)**	32%	43%	35%	40%	30%	19%
*African American Voting Strength Under Choice Voting**	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

* Measures percentage of African Americans living in district where power to elect a preferred candidate under conditions of racially polarized voting

Note that the number of seats held by African-American preferred candidates would likely increase by four total. More dramatically, the number of African Americans in a direct position to elect preferred candidates would soar from well under half of African American adults to 100% of them - including those African Americans who prefer to vote for Republicans.

This enhanced power can also be true in parts of other states with the same character; for example the eastern edge of Texas is composed of five white-majority districts which, if combined into a single super district using choice voting, would permit the election of a racial minority candidate of choice. In much of this region, African Americans make up a sufficient proportion of the population to earn greater legislative representation, but they are not geographically segregated enough to be drawn into majority-minority districts, making a proportional system the only option for breaking past their current ceiling.

Even in racially polarized states with an insufficient population of racial minorities to gain actual representation, choice voting would guarantee that racial minorities could influence the outcome in a meaningful way. For example, in Arkansas, every congressional district has over 70% white voting population. Given that each representative is elected on a winner-take-all basis, it is therefore not surprising that in 2012 every one of its four districts elected a white Republican. With choice voting, racial minorities still would not compose enough of Arkansas' population to elect a candidate of choice with their votes alone, but choice voting gives you the power to indicate backup choices whom you might help win if your first choice is defeated. African Americans Democrats would have sufficient numbers to influence elections by joining in cross-racial coalitions of voters able to elect at least one candidate more reflective of their policy preferences.

And significantly, choice voting would guarantee that every African American voter - in fact every voter, period - could point to an elected legislator that he or she helped elect. As our table shows, even in states like Georgia, which are currently able to have enough majority-minority districts to elect a fair number of racial minority candidates of choice, most African American voters do not live in those majority-minority districts. Most racial minority voters in the South must currently be satisfied with so-called "virtual representation," in which candidates they favor are only elected in districts they do not themselves reside in. For example, in North Carolina, only 19% of African American adults live in one of the two districts where African Americans have sufficient voting power to elect a candidate of choice. Under choice voting, 100% of African Americans would live in a district with an African American candidate of choice in every state within this southern belt.

In an ideal world, racially polarized voting would not occur and candidates could be defined by their responsiveness to people based on their ideas rather than their identities. But we're not in that world yet, as made plain by such facts as the U.S. Senate not having any African American Members. The first step in that direction requires ensuring that racial minorities cannot be denied a voice. A second step is to encourage voters to think beyond their first choice when indicating backup preferences second and third. The use of majority-minority districts led to much more racial minority representation in legislative bodies, but it has hit an impasse - and has thus far been limited in its reliance on "virtual representation" and acceptance of winner-take-all rules that always deny representation to many people. To continue moving forward requires something new. Choice voting represents a race-neutral and constitutional means of electing a body that fairly represents the population however they may choose to vote.

Arizona Defeats Top Two Primary: What's Next for Reformers?

Fri, 09 Nov 2012 10:32:17 -0800

As the nation eagerly followed the incoming results of the Presidential election on Tuesday, we at FairVote also kept a keen eye on the results of a handful of electoral reform ballot measures, including Arizona's vote on Proposition 121, the Top Two primary law. We recently conducted a thorough analysis of Washington State's use of Top Two and were concerned about the impact that this proposed form of Top Two might have in Arizona. But Prop 121's defeat became apparent early in the evening, with over two-thirds of Arizona voting against it.

Currently being used in Louisiana, Washington, and California, Top Two eliminates partisan primaries in favor of having all candidates run against each other in a preliminary election, irrespective of party preference. Then, the general election in November features only the two candidates who received the most votes in the preliminary, again irrespective of political party preference.

Top Two supporters believed that taking the candidates out of partisan primaries would help take the partisanship out of the candidates, resulting in more moderate representatives responsive to all voters instead of just those within their parties. With that goal in mind, it comes as no surprise that supporters wanted the system in Arizona, which has been criticized for party polarization in its state legislature.

However, we now have clear results from three election cycles in Washington and one in California suggesting that Top Two falls well short of its stated goals. Our Washington state findings included:

The system limits voter choice, both by restricting the general election to only two candidates and by creating incentives to start with fewer candidates in the preliminary round.
Higher profile races tend to feature exactly two competitive candidates in the preliminary round - usually one Democrat and one Republican - suggesting that the parties may be narrowing the field artificially behind closed doors, while lower profile state legislative races rarely have more than two or three candidates in the preliminary at all.
Where larger numbers of candidates participate in the preliminary, many races (more than half in Washington) end up with voters splitting their votes among similar candidates, rendering questionable results in the general election.
Partisan voting patterns appear stable under Top Two: voting patterns between the preliminary and general rounds suggest that voters treat the system much like a partisan primary, with little crossover voting or support for moderates.

As far as easing partisanship, consider Washington elected governor and seven other statewide offices along with the presidential vote this year. All races were familiar Democratic vs. Republican races. Barack Obama won the state with 55%, and the Democrats won seven of the remaining eight offices, all with comparable margins less than 60% - the only apparent Republican winner just ahead with less than 51% of the vote. California had similar results, with Democrats taking over two-thirds of the state legislature, the highest margin any party has had in California for decades.

Top Two also suffers from irrational results. Consider:

The infamous race in California Congressional District 31: a district that is less than 30% white and only 46% Republican, but advanced two white Republicans to the general election, denying any voice in the general election to a majority of its residents. In fact, CD 31 is the most Democratic district in the nation represented by a Republican - and its winner, incumbent Gary Miller, was the candidate who apparently pushed more to the right in winning the district.
The California Congressional District 8 race, where the two advancing candidates each earned less than 16% of the vote, advancing instead of other candidates that may well have been more mainstream candidates.
The State Senate race in Washington's 38^th district in 2010 where special interest groups supported both the liberal Democratic candidate and a conservative Independent to ensure that the more centrist Democratic incumbent could not advance to the general election at all.

FairVote has proposed changes to Top Two that we think would make it work far better for voters. Unfortunately, those suggestions were not incorporated into Arizona Prop 121.

Arizona has been open to election law reform in the past. They passed an aggressive form of campaign finance reform in 1998 and created an independent redistricting commission in 2000. Their rejection of Prop 121 should therefore be understood as a rejection of Top Two, not of change through electoral reform in general.

In that respect, Arizona's rejection of Top Two resembles the rejection by Ohio this year of redistricting reform and redistricting plan referenda in California and Maryland. These are reforms that have been tried elsewhere, but not to great effect, and they do not seem to be giving voters the sorts of elections they want - with real competition, better representation and more candidates responsive to all of their constituents, not just funders and party insiders.

But electoral reform can address these issues. For state legislatures, FairVote recommends American, candidate-based forms of proportional representation we call "fair voting." By expanding current districts to proportionally elected multimember districts, we can make redistricting obsolete while virtually guaranteeing to voters the election of candidates fairly representing the right, left, and center of those larger geographic areas. Our model of fair voting for the United States Congress demonstrates how such systems can elect moderate rural Democrats and urban Republicans while giving voters of all stripes real representation.

This has been tried at the state level in Illinois, where for over a century state legislative candidates were elected from three-seat districts. The result, according to a 2001 report by a commission headed by former Republican governor Jim Edgar and former federal judge Abner Mikva, was greater voter choice, easier access by candidates, more proportional representation by party, more candidate independence from party leaders, and better efforts at statewide consensus. Fair voting at a city level, including in New York City during the La Guardia era, also had positive impacts.

As states grow tired of the same reforms, which in many ways continue to disappoint, fair voting plans offer something new that really works - and has the potential to pull together a coalition that can win and sustain it.

Pledge to Stand with Voters: A New FairVote Initiative

Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:00:39 -0800

The 2012 elections underscored the stark partisanship that governs U.S. politics and divides Americans. Two-thirds of our states now have what we call "monopoly politics" : one party holds a majority of the state legislature, holds the governor's seat and won the state's presidential vote. At the same time, the national vote is very closely divided, fostering extreme competition. In such a competitive environment, politicians jockey for every advantage they can get.

Partisan pundits and politicians blame redistricting, the media, campaign spending and one another for political polarization and gridlock. They are quick to point fingers and shout foul at every turn, claiming the other side for manipulating the system to win races unfairly. But they too easily overlook their own roles in prioritizing partisan outcomes over democratic principles.

It's time to focus on those who are hurt most by partisan bickering and static politics -- the voters and the many Americans who have turned away from politics in disgust. This year alone, two in five eligible voters did not vote, many citing their frustration.

With our "Pledge to Stand with Voters', FairVote asserts that it's time to fight for democratic principle over partisan politicking. Promoting and protecting our representative democracy is far more important than seeking short-term advantage in electoral rules.

Here's our pledge. We ask that you read it, sign it and share it with your friends. Thank you!

Pledge to Stand with Voters

Voters come first. Not politicians, not pundits, not PACs. Voters.

Democracy means a level playing field. We are tired of our leaders weighing election laws and reforms by what the advantages or disadvantages they offer a specific party or incumbent. When it comes to democracy, America is better than that.

Reforming democracy is what Americans do. Our founders left us with a republican framework which we have regularly reviewed and enhanced to strengthen democracy. Every generation has taken steps to improve elections and increase participation.

Now, it’s our turn.

As an American who believes in truly representative democracy, I pledge to:

Support actions to increase voter turnout and voter education
Oppose tactics to game elections through manipulation of voting rights and election laws
Evaluate reforms based on whether they promote a level playing field for all, not whether they hurt or help my party
Support laws that allow for voter choice and oppose laws that suppress it
Open my mind new ideas that might strengthen democracy

SIGN BY CLICKING HERE.

Electing Lords: A Unique Opportunity for Electoral Reform in the British Upper House

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:03:08 -0700

Two decades ago, when FairVote was founded, the United Kingdom and the United States shared the reality of not having proportional representation for any national election. But with our reform counterparts in the UK like the Electoral Reform Society and Unlock Democracy playing a key role, proportional representation has flowered in Britain - with PR systems adopted for the newly created regional assemblies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and London, and for elections to the European Parliament. And now, proportional representation may finally come to Westminster.

Around 100 years ago, Britain began to realize that the House of Lords, the upper house of the British parliament, was a vestige of a long-lost feudal society that bore little similarity to the Britain of the 20^th century. Starting with the Parliament Act of 1911, many attempts have been made to transform it into a body compatible with the democratic nature of the modern British government. For over a century, those attempts have failed.

The Lords does not have the power that it once did, but it remains an undemocratic institution in which most members are appointed by the party in control of the government and many retain their peerages through mere hereditary right. Although the House of Lords cannot override the popularly elected House of Commons, it can introduce non-money bills and significantly delay legislation from the Commons.

Now, some members of the House of Commons, led by Liberal Democrat party head and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and backed by Prime Minister David Cameron, head of the Conservative Party, are trying again. Earlier this summer, with supporters in all three major parties and growing popular sentiment in favor of reform, it seemed that they might finally succeed. But the devil is in the details of Lords reform - and those details are dividing potential reformers.

The Lib Dems proposed a bill that would cull the House of Lords from 775 peers to 450, of which 360 would be elected. The remaining 90 would be appointed by the Prime Minister, via the Queen. An additional 12 members of the Church of England would be allowed to remain in the House of Lords, down from the 26 current Lords Spiritual. Peers would be elected for terms of 15 years, a provision designed to keep them above the fray of regular election cycles and preserve their Supreme Court-like role of judging legislation with little partisan bias.

Of particular interest to FairVote was debate in the formulation of the bill over what voting system ought to be used to elect the 360 members. The use of choice voting, or "single transferable vote," was discussed, but in a compromise with the Conservatives the final bill settled on a "regional party-list" system, in which voters are presented with ordered party lists but can choose to vote for candidates out of that order. Either method would create a body more representative of Britain's electorate than the winner-take-all Westminster system used in Commons elections.

Despite the fact that all three major parties have expressed their support for House of Lords reform, it has not been easy to reach a consensus on the bill. On July 10, 462 MPs voted to give the bill a second reading. But process stalled when, much to the chagrin of Cameron, 91 Tory MPs defected and opposed a "programme motion" to set a timetable for the bill, effectively postponing its consideration. The opposition Labour Party has also been reluctant to throw its full support behind the bill, because they see Lords reform as a low priority and don't want to give the coalition and the Liberal Democrats a reform victory. The issue has become highly politicized and has created a fissure in the alliance between the Tories and the Lib Dems.

This politicization is a shame, as it threatens to further postpone the reform of an institution that needs it desperately. While changing the structure of the House of Lords is unlikely to have an immediate positive impact on British politics, following through on the plan to do so would send an important message that improving electoral systems in a democracy is always a priority.

There remains hope that reform can be accomplished after the House of Commons returns from its summer recess, as Clegg and Cameron are likely to try again with a slightly altered bill. It is crucial that members of all three parties put in the effort to see Lords reform through, as a passive return to the partisan squabbles of the last attempt will inevitably lead to its defeat.

The possibility of an elected House of Lords is a unique opportunity for electoral reform in the UK. The House of Lords elections will, if implemented appropriately, be far less partisan than elections for the House of Commons. This characteristic of the Upper House allows the architects of its reform to experiment with new electoral systems, which is much more difficult for the House of Commons because any change in electoral system might be seen as favoring one party over another. If the House of Lords has success using a choice voting or party list system, the British electorate may be more amenable to a switch to proportional representation for electing the House of Commons in the future.

Update August 7, 2012: Partisan politics appear to have won out over reform, as Nick Clegg announced yesterday that plans to reform the House of Lords are being abandoned because Conservatives "broke the coalition contract" and Labour "opportunistically" refused to cooperate.

Look to Election Rules to Reverse Decline of Political Center

Fri, 11 May 2012 08:34:20 -0700

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Despite having one of the Senate’s more conservative voting records, Dick Lugar (R-IN) has not been a partisan ideologue. His landslide primary defeat to Tea Party-backed challenger Richard Mourdock is the latest sign that reaching across the aisle to build bipartisan policy has become a recipe for a shortened political career.

After a campaign in which Mourdock charged that Lugar was “President Obama’s favorite Republican,” Lugar defended “constructive compromise” and warned that “unrelenting” partisanship would paralyze American government. His remarks mirrored those of Olympia Snowe (R-ME) when she announced her retirement this spring. Snowe lamented that her approach to governance no longer fit an institution in which partisans “block the other side” and demand reflexive fealty to party.

Snowe called on Americans to see “strength in compromise, courage in conciliation, and honor in consensus-building.” But moderates are far more apt to be pilloried and purged than prized and protected. Lugar and Snowe are only the latest in a string of victims of a “do-not-compromise” stance that has been reinforced within both major parties by every new hardliner victory. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Joe Lieberman (D/I-CT), George Voinovich (R-OH), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Lincoln Chafee (R/I-RI), Arlen Specter (R/D-PA), and Bob Bennett (R-UT) are among high-profile senators whose history of bipartisanship led to retirement or lost reelection bids. The ranks of moderates in the House have been similarly depleted.

The decline of the middle in the Senate is especially significant given that its rules make one-party rule almost impossible. Because the Senate needs 60 votes to break a filibuster, moderates can assist the majority by voting for cloture or side against the majority until it tempers its proposals. They often inject restraint into a dialogue often soured by venomous rhetoric.

Yet as the divide between the parties has widened and solidified, moderates today face pressure to conform or retire. Those remaining face a dual threat: stronger challenges to holding onto their party’s nomination and uphill general elections in the “opposition territory” they disproportionately represent. It’s no accident that 2012’s most vulnerable Senate incumbents—Scott Brown (R-MA), Jon Tester (D-MT), and Claire McCaskill (D-MO)—all represent states that their presidential nominee will likely lose. Overcoming that partisan challenge has become harder in every passing election.

Sen. Snowe has rightly faulted the “corrosive trend of winner-take-all politics,” in which winning parties fail to forge bipartisan solutions. But we must go further to understand this behavior. Winner-take-all politics is grounded in winner-take-all voting, in which a plurality of votes earns 100% of representation. We have had those rules for a long time, but not with modern consultants armed with new polling methods, modern technologies, and near-limitless funds. In mastering how to win the game, we have destroyed its ability to produce effective representative government.

While not as enthralling as the battle for power and clash of values that dominate political coverage, election rules matter—they condition ballot tabulation, voter behavior, and campaign strategy. Winner-take-all influences the composition of government—who’s in it and who’s not, as well as how they get there. If Americans are dissatisfied with the latter, they must examine the former.

Winner-take-all rules today simply cannot represent fairly the left, right, and center. In a two-party system, the gain of one side is undeniably the other’s loss when third parties and independents are dismissed as mere “spoilers” rather than viable alternatives. Vilifying one’s opponent leaves voters with only one viable electoral option: oneself. The apocalyptic rhetoric and black-and-white thinking that pass for political strategy work under winner-take-all.

These tools of negative rhetoric and zero-sum campaigning translate into the habits of governing. With only two viable choices, parties are rewarded electorally for obstruction more than compromise. In turn, partisans seek representatives who will fight more than seek consensus.

Winner-take-all voting incentivizes partisanship, compels centrists to squeeze into restrictive ideological boxes and rewards the “us-versus-them” mentality moderates resist. But it is not part of our Constitution, and our cities and states are already providing a roadmap for change. In Illinois, cumulative voting in three-seat state legislative districts led to shared representation across the state for both parties until 1980, when the legislature was reduced in size and went to one-seat districts. In Minneapolis and San Francisco, the instant runoff form of ranked choice voting rewards candidates who can earn the second choice support of other candidates’ supporters.

Electing representatives interested in compromise and independent thinking in proportion to the share of voters who support them will require structural election change. Pleading with voters to support centrist politicians is not sufficient when the institutional framework of American elections and government discourages and penalizes such behavior. Rather than just criticize Congress as broken, let’s act to fix it.

Snowe-ball Effect: How the Loss of Yet another Congressional Moderate Makes the Case for Election Reform

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:30:27 -0700

The Senate’s Moderates under Assault as Polarization and Partisanship Increase

Admonishing the U.S. Senate for “dysfunction and political polarization,” Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who throughout her career often received praise for eschewing party orthodoxy and embracing bipartisanship, announced on March 1 that she would not stand for a fourth term. In explaining her decision, Snowe wrote that her unique brand of moderation no longer fit an institution in which ideologues, laboring to “block the other side” and demanding reflexive fealty to party, ruled the roost.

In her statement, Snowe reiterated the importance of bipartisanship. “There is not only strength in compromise, courage in conciliation and honor in consensus-building,” she insisted, “but also a political reward for following these tenets.” Or at least, she might have added, there should be. Unfortunately, recent elections and retirements have demonstrated that moderates are more apt to be pilloried and purged than prized and protected. Snowe is simply the latest example in an increasing “no-more-moderates” trend that has only intensified as the ideological gulf between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats in the Senate has widened. Consider the following recent examples:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D, NE) – to retire in 2013; Nelson would have faced a robust 2012 general election challenge in a heavily Republican state
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D, CT) – to retire in 2013; Lieberman—the Democratic Party’s vice presidential nominee in 2000—lost in the 2006 Democratic primary to liberal challenger Ned Lamont, but nevertheless won the general election as an independent
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D, AR) – defeated in the 2010 general election after barely besting liberal challenger Bill Halter in the Democratic primary
Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R, RI) – defeated in the 2006 general election after barely besting conservative challenger Steve Laffey in the Republican primary; in 2010, Chafee was elected governor as an independent in a fractured three-way race
Sen. Arlen Specter (R/D, PA) – switched parties in 2009 to avoid conservative challenger Pat Toomey in the 2010 Republican primary; Specter nevertheless lost the 2010 Democratic primary to Joe Sestak
Sen. Bob Bennet (R, UT) – despite a conservative track record, Bennett was accused by Utah Republicans of being too moderate; they defeated his 2010 bid for re-election at the state convention
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R, AK) – lost the 2010 Republican primary to conservative challenger Joe Miller; Murkowski beat the odds, winning the general election as an independent write-in candidate
Rep. Mike Castle (R, DE) – though not an incumbent senator, the long-time House member was considered a lock for the general election, but lost the Republican primary to conservative challenger Christine O’Donnell

Image: New York Times

Whether defeated electorally or departing for retirement, the common theme among these aforementioned moderates is that all faced disillusionment within their own party among the base and, therefore, were susceptible to primary challenges—from the right for Republicans and the left for Democrats. When bases feel energized and confident, as did liberals in 2006 and conservatives in 2010, moderates within their respective party coalition are apt to feel intra-party pressures to embrace party orthodoxy, in order to mollify critics within the party. While some moderates such as Montana’s Max Baucus (D) and Maine’s Susan Collins (R) have been fortunate enough to avoid robust primary challenges, such individuals are the exceptions that seemingly prove the rule.

Nothing highlights the power of a dissatisfied base more than an incumbent moderate who loses the primary despite representing a “safe” state regularly won by their party at the presidential level—Republicans in “red states” (Bennett, Murkowski) and Democrats in “blue states” (Lieberman). For these individuals, victory in the general election was relatively assured—provided they could survive a primary from a base recognizing the party’s nominee could become more orthodox without jeopardizing the “safe” status of the seat.

From Left: Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln

The above list also demonstrates that many moderates today face a dual threat: not only difficulty in winning their party’s nomination as the ideological gulf between them and the base widens, but also difficulty in winning the general election. This is particularly the case for individuals hailing from states within “opposition territory”—moderate Republicans in Democratic “blue states” (Snowe, Chafee, Castle) and moderate Democrats in Republican “red states” (Nelson, Lincoln)—in which their party was the minority in federal races. As such, these individuals were vulnerable to not only primary but also general election challenges. Such is in marked contrast to the past, as Senate moderates historically were able win and hold seats in states the other party dominated at the presidential level, including southern Democrats and northeastern Republicans. However, as polarization has increased, such occurrences have become exceedingly rare.

The electoral stage at which a particular moderate stumbled notwithstanding, it is clear that this group of politicians faces recurrent pressure to conform or perish. While Snowe, Nelson, and Lieberman have exited the electoral stage, others have not. Indeed, many of the most vulnerable incumbent Senators in 2012 are moderates who represent “opposition territory” states: Scott Brown (R) in Massachusetts, Jon Tester (D) in Montana, and Claire McCaskill (D) in Missouri. Veteran Republicans Richard Lugar of Indiana and Orrin Hatch of Utah, both accused of being too moderate for their conservative states, face tough primary challenges from the right of their party. As presidential candidate (and moderate) Jon Huntsman quipped this week when discussing his struggles within the GOP, “This is what [a party does] in China on party matters if you talk off script.” While obviously hyperbolic, Huntsman’s quote nevertheless highlights the way in which a party’s demand for ideological homogeneity and desire to speak with one, official voice can potentially trouble a political system.

From Left: Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter, Bob Bennett

Yet moderates, whether liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats, are essential to the health of a functioning democracy, especially given Senate filibuster rules that make one-party rule almost impossible. In a closely divided Senate, moderate members can act as swing votes, forcing the majority leadership to temper its proposals as it patches together a winning coalition. In a Senate in which one party has a sizable majority, albeit shy of the 60-vote supermajority required to break the filibuster, moderates can cross the aisle and end the deadlock. Moderates also can inject civility and restraint into a discourse too often soured by animus and venomous rhetoric.

How Election Rules Affect the Political Fortunes of Moderates

Snowe’s retirement immediately whipped the political punditocracy into frenzy. It would be a mistake, however, should Snowe’s clarion call, which warned of a paralyzed legislature, lamented a moribund public discourse, and spoke of the need for reform, be lost in the resulting tumult. It is essential for Americans not only to grapple with the question of why our polity has mutated into a creature so disquieting, but also to strike at the root of the cause. That root, as Snowe adroitly noted, is the “corrosive trend of winner-take-all politics,” to which she attributes the prevalence of zero-sum tactics and “brinkmanship” in Congress.

Winner-take-all politics, in turn, are linked inexorably to winner-take-all election rules, in which a plurality of the vote wins 100% of representation; voters who select the losing party receive nothing, no matter the margin of defeat. And the rules of a voting system, while perhaps not as enthralling as the battle for power and the clash of values that dominate political coverage, matter—they condition ballot tabulation, influence voter behavior, and affect campaign strategy. “Electoral laws are of special importance for every group and individual in society,” political scientist Douglas Rae noted in 1967, “because they help to decide who writes the other laws.” In other words, winner-take-all rules greatly impact the composition of government—who is in it and who is not, as well as how they get there. If Americans are dissatisfied with the latter—and polls consistently indicate they are—then they must examine the former.

From Left: Lisa Murkowski, Mike Castle, Claire McCaskill

It is astonishing, as one begins to investigate critically our system, how archaic, broken, undemocratic, and destructive our rules are. While many Americans share Snowe’s concerns over political polarization and the seeming inability of partisans to place aside their differences for the public good, they have failed largely to recognize the contribution of winner-take-all rules. After all, under a framework in which the gain of one party is undeniably the loss of the other, it is understandable—though not desirable—that leaders in the political minority might begrudge collaboration with the majority, if such means handing the latter an accomplishment upon which it may run in the next election. It is no surprise, then, that each party defines itself in singular opposition to the other; winner-take-all encourages this behavior.

Many Americans are tired also of negative campaigns, spooky advertisements, and the regularity with which one side brazenly accuses the other of toiling for the ruin of the country, but, again, fail to examine the culpability of winner-take-all rules. After all, in a two-party system permitting just one winner, if negative advertising can devastate or disqualify a competitor, a candidate for elected office need only vilify her opponent to leave voters with just one remaining viable option: the major party that ran the attack (that, or not to vote). Simply put, the apocalyptic rhetoric and black-and-white thinking that pass for political discussion today work under winner-take-all. If you see the world in shades of gray, too bad—recognizing the humanity of the other party and occasionally teaming with it is no way to win votes.

From Left: Scott Brown, Jon Tester, Richard Lugar

An Alternative Electoral Framework that Could Advantage Moderates

The most natural alterative to winner-take-all is proportional representation (of which there are many forms), a voting system that allocates seats to parties in proportion to their share of the vote. For a while, Illinois employed a "semi-proportional” system, called cumulative voting, for elections to the state legislature; districts featured three seats each. Under this arrangement, each third of the electorate—left, right, and center—typically won a seat. Such meant that most representatives shared constituents with colleagues from other parties. The result was that moderates and independent-minded legislators had the ability and the incentives to forge bipartisan solutions.

While proportionality is feasible for elections to the U.S. House, such a framework, however, is not applicable for senatorial and gubernatorial contests that must feature, by definition, one winner. While no election system is a panacea, there is a lot to like about ranked choice voting (RCV, also called instant runoff voting), an alternative framework—used recently for mayoral elections in Portland, Maine, and San Francisco, California—that would allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference.

RCV consists of a series of rounds, in which last place finishers are eliminated and their voters redistributed to remaining candidates based on second choices. This process continues, round by round, until a candidate receives a majority of continuing ballots. RCV’s requirement of a majority, rather than a plurality, to win office is very important, because a candidate—unless he or she commands over fifty percent of first choices—must build a majority coalition, which means bidding for the supporters of eliminated candidates. Whereas winner-take-all highlights partisan divisions, RCV creates incentives for candidates to emphasize points of concurrence.

Such a system advantages moderate candidates—provided they have genuine support—in a number of ways. First, under RCV, politics is less of a sprint toward the poles of the ideological spectrum. Second, RCV usually sees a decline in negative 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, in that narrow appeals to a niche of base voters is a less sagacious campaign strategy, also encourages ideologues to moderate, in order to appeal to voters outside their partisan bases—ironically, much like their heroes, Franklin Roosevelt for liberals and Ronald Reagan for conservatives.

* * *

Importantly, the habits of campaigning become the habits of governing, the negative rhetoric and zero-sum thinking of the campaign trail become the negative rhetoric and zero-sum thinking of the Senate floor. If we desire a government founded upon compromise and conciliation—as indeed the Senate was designed—then we must fashion an electoral system that selects for candidates possessing such proclivities. Clearly, winner-take-all is antagonistic toward this goal; it not only compels moderates to squeeze themselves into restrictive ideological boxes but also rewards the very “us-versus-them” mentality moderates by definition resist. I suspect Snowe’s retirement will not, unfortunately, have a lasting impact on the political discourse nor will it galvanize Americans to demand structural change. What is clear, however, is that it should. Snowe had the courage of her convictions. It is time for Americans to have the courage of theirs.