FairVote Feed: FairVote Blog

Presidential Tracker: The Orphaned States of America

Tue, 15 May 2012 14:20:30 -0700

Three weeks ago, voters in South Carolina looked on as President Obama passed them by once again. Since coming into office in 2008, the president has held 18 events in North Carolina, yet has not once held any sort of event in South Carolina. Geographically, religiously, and historically, the Carolinas are quite similar. The big difference: In 2008, President Obama won North Carolina with 49.9%, but lost South Carolina with 44.9%.That modest difference means everything given the way states currently cast their electoral votes.

Under the current system, presidential candidates must target all their attention towards swing states, meaning those politically divided states that could tip the majority of the Electoral College towards one candidate. Candidates have no incentive to focus any resources on states that will predictably vote Democratic or Republican in nationally competitive elections. Even with the similarities between states like North and South Carolina, a small percentage of difference can be the gap that labels a state either an election favorite or an election orphan.

As we track the movement of the president, his trend to focus on swing states stands out. According to The New York Times, 34 states will decidedly vote Republican or Democrat this election. Most analysts reduce the number of states that can truly tip a close election to seven or eight.

Both major party candidates will funnel resources away from predictable orphan states like South Carolina into battleground states like North Carolina. The Boston Globe reports the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has given $25 million to state parties for voter outreach in about a dozen swing states, and that a Super PAC tied to Mitt Romney has bought $4 million in ad time to be spent in those same states.

The Globe reports the DNC has already invested $976,000 in North Carolina, exceeded only by donations to parties in the usual trio of big swing states: Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.

That kind of focus is also demonstrated by our Presidential Tracker, which reports on every event and state visit by President Obama since assuming the presidency. Just as in 2004, when George Bush ran for re-election without a primary opponent, the White House will again keep a close eye on swing states when prioritizing where to travel.

President Obama’s Five Most Visited States:

Ranking	State	# of Total Events	Margin of Victory (%)	% of National Donations in 2008
1	New York	59	25.5% (D)	10.52
2	California	45	23.6 (D)	17.8
3	Florida	38	2.6 (D)	4.91
4	Virginia	37	6.3 (D)	5.27
5	Ohio	31	4.6(D)	5.98

In a practical effort to lead the United States, candidates are left with no other option than to bypass millions of American voices in order to hear the few that will actually influence their victory. Utah, for example, has not come within 6% of voting Democrat since 1912 – and is among the least likely swing states for at least another generation. .

That means presidential candidates have consistently lacked incentive to seek the voice of Utah citizens, Republican, Democratic or independent. Unsurprisingly, Utah is among the five states with the biggest drop in youth turnout over since the voting age was lowered 40 years ago.

This year, all 2.8 million Utah residents will again stand by watching with the majority of the United States as candidates from both parties pour millions of dollars into a handful of states as they bounce back and forth speaking and advertising to the few voters with any decision power.

With the polarization of parties and shrinking number of battleground states, the electoral system is muting an increasing number of American voices. The current system stifles the majority of Americans by locking them into geographic regions where they are barred from casting a vote that carries any weight. While 72% of Americans favor a national popular vote in presidential elections, the Electoral College continues to speak on their behalf.

More than 98% of campaign events and campaign spending took place in only 15 states in the final months of the 2008 election. These states make up 37% of the nation’s eligible voter population, and their voter turnout was only 67%. In other words, 25% of the country’s population received 98% of attention from candidates in 2008. From within the 25% of Americans that voted in these swing states, the real campaign targets were a small pool of swing voters who can decide a state like North Carolina, but not one like South Carolina.

A national popular vote, in contrast, would shift the focus of presidential candidates from fighting ruthlessly over the margins of an already marginalized country and on to listening to the rest of U.S. voters. It won’t happen in this election, but if the national popular vote determines the president in 2016, maybe 98% of funds and campaigning will be used across 98% of the country.

Follow our Presidential Tracker as we update you on President Obama’s location on the campaign trail. We will also be keeping you posted on former Governor Romney’s campaign whereabouts as things heat up before elections. Keep your eyes open for the Romney Tracker.

Tracker Highlights from White House travels 2012:

*38% of events held by Obama in 2012 (30 of 80) have been held in swing states. We predict this number will surpass the current 38% as the campaign season continues forward.

* President Obama has held five public events in Ohio, a swing state, since January and hasn’t yet gone to Ohio’s neighboring states of Indiana, Kentucky or West Virginia since May of 2011.

*115 electoral votes are currently tossups between 9 swing states.

* Obama has held 23 of 45 campaign fundraising events in California, New York and Florida so far in 2012.

Democracy Demands Civic Education

Tue, 15 May 2012 13:41:18 -0700

Through at least 40 years of polling, the American public has claimed that the number-one purpose of the nation’s schools is “preparing people to become responsible citizens.” The best way to prepare ‘responsible citizens’ is to instill basic democratic values and ideals into the nation’s youth, which is most effectively achieved though civic education, that includes instruction about the specifics of our democratic processes and a general introduction to open-minded engagement with the challenges facing our nation. The American school system needs to increase its role in civic education, and help foster democratic values in its young people.

While school is stereotypically seen as a place to learn grammar and mathematics, it is also a place where moral education is taught to the youth who will one day control the fate of our democracy. Perhaps best stated over one-hundred and seventy years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville noted in his observations of American

Democracy, “I see the time drawing near when freedom, public peace, and social order itself will not be able to do without education.” Such a time is upon us, and we must dedicate a significant amount of educational time to instruct students in the area of citizenship.

Today, when people are polled about what they want out of their children’s schools, people continuously respond that the personal and social development of the children is just as important as vocational and academic development. As one such person believes, “what [students] deserve and must receive through schooling is an education conducive to the development of a sense of political efficacy, and, coupled with this, a program of concerted community enculturation in the ethic shouldering a responsible measure of civic virtue.” Civic education is a key factor in personal and social development, as well as essential to the democratic process.

Although our young people can become responsible adults through instruction outside of the classroom, it is still necessary to provide civic education within a school setting to reach the youth who do not have access to quality alternatives. As pointed out by Wolfgang Edelstein, a German social and educational scientist, “the only institution that can provide opportunities to cultivate democratic experience-not for elite groups, but for all children and youth- is the school.”

Because all citizens become eligible voters by age eighteen, it is important they understand their role and responsibility as democratic citizens — knowledge they only have the resources to learn through education. Our emphasis at FairVote is ensuring that knowledge includes the mechanics of how to participate, but ensuring everyone is registered to vote, knows how to change their registration when they move, what offices are elected in their community, and other key aspects of our democracy. We also want them to see the rules of our democracy as an evolving process — one with a history of invention and reinvention that demands a critical eye about how our democracy is living up to core American ideas.

That’s why one of my major tasks during my FairVote internship is to develop and refine curriculum tools on voting and electoral reform, as well as to study and share best practices from other nations. Without a thorough understanding of the civic education learned at school, how could you expect anyone to perform their civic duties- you wouldn’t want a population full of untrained doctors, would you?

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.

Primaries Spotlight Sharp Decline in U.S. House Moderates

Tue, 08 May 2012 13:41:02 -0700

Left to right: Tim Holden and Jason Altmire

Pennsylvania’s April 24 primary lacked the anticipated fireworks between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in the Republican presidential race, but results on the Democratic side may have a far more lasting impact: they underscore the disappearing center in American politics. Two Blue Dog Democrats*, Jason Altmire and Tim Holden, were defeated by more mainstream Democrats. After 20 years of victories in Republican-leaning districts, Holden fell to newcomer Matt Cartwright in a district drawn to be much more Democratic, while Altmire was upset by his colleague Rep. Mark Critz† in a race that, because of redistricting, featured two incumbents battling over one seat.

Both Cartwright and Critz received strong support from unions and other progressive groups, which sought to defeat Holden and Altmire because of their opposition to President Obama’s health care and climate change legislation. In other words, the party’s base organized against Holden and Altmire because their voting records were not sufficiently orthodox. While the Tea Party’s targeting of moderate Republicans in 2010 and 2012 has received the most media attention, the Pennsylvania results indicate a similar (and arguably just as strong) tendency in the Democratic Party.

Indeed, the Democrats’ Blue Dog caucus—a barometer of moderate strength—had its numbers reduced by more than half, from 54 to 26, in the 2010 election, in which Republicans made most of their gains in the Republican-leaning districts that wee disproportionately represented by Blue Dogs. The Washington Post reports that primary defeats and retirements are expected to reduce the caucus by at least eight more members by next year.

Although it is no surprise that a party’s most fervent supporters would desire “faithful” representatives ready to stand up for their core principles, the decline of moderates in Congress is worrisome, with Senate moderates also under attack. Although a minority in both major parties, moderate voters exist in large numbers that deserve representation. Furthermore, the political center is necessary to the health of a democratic system, especially one like ours grounded in checks and balances across branches of government.

Moderates, for instance, can serve as bridges between the two parties, swinging to the majority or away from it in order to develop policy that is more temperate. They also inject civility into a poisonous discourse. But we are in a vicious cycle: the decline of moderates causes each party to become more polarized and isolated, which in turn, only further accelerates the decline of moderates. With the center under attack, moderates face pressure to conform or perish.

Whatever one may think of Holden and Altmire, it is critical for a political system to reflect the wide range of viewpoints; such is the essence of a democratic system. Yet, our current election framework disadvantages moderate candidates and the voters that back them. As manipulated by modern campaign consultants, winner-take-all rules (in which a plurality of votes wins 100% of representation) encourage partisanship, zero-sum thinking, apocalyptic rhetoric, and negative campaigning—since only one side can win in a given congressional district.

As such, winner-take-all creates a political environment inhospitable to compromise, as it forces centrist politicians to fit themselves into narrow ideological boxes. Clearly, we need rules in place that reflect nuances and partisan gradations, rather than the “two-sizes-fit-all” mentality of winner-take-all. The most natural alterative to winner-take-all elections at the U.S. House level is proportional representation, a system in which like-minded voters can elect candidates in proportion to their share of the overall vote.

FairVote advocates for candidate-based, American forms of proportional representation, what we call “fair voting,” in which voters would elect several representatives in larger “super districts” with voting methods in which 51% of votes wins most seats, but not all. The key is that fair voting plans lower the threshold of votes necessary to win a seat and create opportunities for an array of opinions to be represented within a given super-district. This contrasts sharply with winner-take-all, in which the candidate with the most votes wins and his or her voters receive representation while everyone else gets nothing.

By fairly representing the left, right, and center in any given super district, fair voting would liberate moderate candidates from pressures to conform. With the threshold lowered, moderates could focus on targeted appeals to their core constituency, including a mix of centrist independents and more partisan voters. Both Holden and Altmire were targeted by a Democratic base that demanded fealty to party. It is not terribly difficult to imagine the way in which proportionality could have freed them from these pressures—and given voters in these districts a centrist alternative to the traditional partisan-Democrat-versus-partisan-Republican race set for November.

Fair voting would also weaken the power of partisan redistricting. Winner-take-all makes gerrymandering a particularly potent tool; without those underlying “if-you-win-I-lose, if-I-win-you-lose” rules in place, its power is diminished. Both Holden and Altmire faced difficult roads to reelection, in part, because of redistricting. Pennsylvania Republicans controlled redistricting and packed more Democrats into Holden’s district in order to help Republicans in adjoining districts—thereby making the district less hospitable to Holden’s unique brand of moderation and exposing him to a primary challenge. Altmire, meanwhile, was paired in a district with fellow incumbent Critz. Under fair voting, the Republican’s strategic cartography would have been without purpose and Holden, Altmire, and their opponents all would have a chance to win seats. Fair voting allows such shared representation.

It is time for structural election change. Election 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. Clearly winner-take-all amplifies partisanship and polarization in Congress; it is therefore antagonistic toward the goal of achieving a more collaborative and collegial legislature. Blue Dog Democrats like Holden and Altmire are struggling to survive, while most moderate Republicans were long ago pushed out of Congress. To ensure fair representation in Congress, we must act before all bridges between the parties in Congress have been burned.

* The National Journal’s vote rankings of members of Congress places Altmire (187) and Holden (186) as the fourth and fifth most conservative of the 190 Democrats in the U.S. House; only representatives Dan Boren (OK-2), Mike Ross (AR-4), and Jim Matheson (UT-2) posted records that were more moderate. Both Boren and Ross have decided not to seek reelection in 2012.

† Relative to Altmire, Critz is more liberal. The National Journal’s vote rankings of members of Congress places Critz (169) as the 22nd most conservative Democrat in the U.S. House. While this would arguably place Critz among the party’s Blue Dogs, he is not a member of the Blue Dog caucus.

French Elections: Preview of May 6 Runoff

Fri, 04 May 2012 15:20:56 -0700

The French were strongly mobilized for the first round, with a turnout of 79.47%. Such a high turnout confirms that the presidential race is a highly regarded election for the Fifth Republic, with an average turnout of 81.2% in all presidential elections since the introduction of the direct universal suffrage in 1962.

In the first round, the socialist candidate, Francois Hollande, with 28.6% of votes cast, is in the lead, while the incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy trailing narrowly with 27.2%. Among the eliminated candidates, were right-wing nationalist Marine Le Pen (17.9%), left-wing champion Jean-Luc Melenchon (11.1%) and right-center Francois Bayrou (9.13%). Exit polls showed that backers of the eliminated candidates generally lean toward Hollande, as he would have defeated Sarkozy by approximately 10% among these voters if the runoff had taken place on April 22.

Hollande and Sarkozy will participate in the second round on May 6th. Hollande recorded the highest score ever for a Socialist candidate in the first round of the presidential elections, with the exception of François Mitterrand in 1988 who was running for his own succession. In comparison, Ségolène Royal (Hollande’s long-time companion with whom he had four children) received 25.87% in the first round, behind Sarkozy (31.18%).

Meanwhile, Sarkozy is the first incumbent French president in the Fifth Republic to not lead in first round votes – although in 1981 Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was defeated in the runoff.

A Strong Vote for the Nationalist Right in the First Round

Although Hollande is favored to win the runoff over the more conservative Sarkozy, the strong result of the extreme right constitutes the main surprise of the first round of the French presidential election. By gaining 18% of the cast votes, Marine Le Pen managed to register the highest score of the Front National (FN), in a presidential election.

Never has the extreme right seemed so strong in France, even when her father Jean-Marie Le Pen made the presidential runoff in 2002, only to be crushed by a four-to-one margin. She almost doubled the percentage of Jean-Marie’s 2007 percentage of 10% and solidified the party in third place, ahead of Melenchon of the Left Front (11.7%).

Le Pen’s FN focused its campaign on four major themes: immigration, insecurity, the output of the euro and consumers’ purchasing power. The first two themes are still and always mark the “frontist” determinants of the vote - immigration is cited as a priority by 62% of voter’s insecurity for 44% of her electorate. However, the theme that allowed her to broaden the party’s electorate is helping consumers: 43% of its voters were sensitive to this issue, a level equivalent to national average (46%).

This week the Front National held its annual May 1st meeting. The event drew much attention, because everyone knew that Marine Le Pen give instructions on how to vote for the second round. She decided to make no endorsement, instead saying “I will partake in the none of the above voting system” and that “our hope lies in the legislative battle” in anticipating the parliamentary elections this summer.

According to Le Monde, Marine Le Pen, with her speech although apparently neutral, has especially aimed to dissuade her audience to vote for Nicolas Sarkozy. By betting on Sarkozy’s defeat, Ms Le Pen does not hide her strategy of having her party supplant Sarkozy’s UMP. She already mentions clearly her objective for the next general election: “gather a maximum of deputies so as to form the only real opposition to the ultra-liberal left, and libertarian party then conquer the power.”

In search of Le Pen’s first round votes, Nicolas Sarkozy said “What am I suppose to do? As Mr. Holland, I cannot pretend to ignore these 6.5 million French? I tell them, ‘I respect you, I hear you and, in some ways, I understand you.’” He criticized immigrants, saying “We cannot keep accommodating as many people in our territory because our integration system has failed, many people are attracted by our welfare system which is one of the generous in the world.”

Has Sarkozy lost the Center?

Sarkozy’s strategy of a shift to the right, followed by some of his faithful partisans, may scare some of the more moderate right voters, who could turn to François Hollande.

Confirming this potential reaction of centrist voters,, the surprise of this political campaign came from the right-centrist candidate, François Bayrou, who did not endorse any candidate in the second round after his 2007 presidential bid. For the first time, a leader of a centrist party has chosen to vote for a socialist candidate, with Bayrou backing Hollande, although he said he "respects the different expressions" within his party.

Bayrou explained that Sarkozy "has engaged in a pursuit-race to the extreme right ", with “an obsession of immigration and borders"has engaged in a pursuit-race to the extreme right ", with “an obsession of immigration and borders .” Bayrou added that "the political line chosen by Nicolas Sarkozy is violent, comes in conflict with our values, my own, but also those of Gaullism"

Hollande saluted Bayrou’s choice in his favor for the second round, he added that was an 'independent choice , " and there was" no negotiation "with him at the microphone of RMC radio. On the other hand, the head of Sarkozy’s UMP party did not hide his dismay, “I'm sad. I deeply regret the decision of François Bayrou because I absolutely do not understand the motivation.” declared UMP chief J.F Copé.

Predicting the Runoff

The combination of the first round results, low approval ratings for Sarkozy, the Bayrou endorsement and the Le Pen non-endorsement suggests that Hollande has the upper hand for the runoff. According to recent polls, the Socialist candidate would obtain between 52.5 and 53.5% of the votes, against Sarkozy 46.5 to 47.5%. The campaign since the runoff and a debate this week did not seem to change the basic dynamic of French voters wanting to turn to someone knew.

Turnout again should be high. French voters like to say that the first round is a chance to vote for whom you really like. The final round is a chance to vote against the candidate you most really don’t like. Nearly half of voters will not have a chance to vote for their first choice from April 22. But they will be able to vote against the candidate they don’t like. That likely won’t be good news for President Sarkozy.

French Elects a New President: Analysis and Five Notable Facts

Fri, 04 May 2012 15:16:54 -0700

On May 6th, Francois Hollande won the second round runoff in France’s presidential election and will become the second socialist president of the Fifth Republic. Hollande defeated Nicolas Sarkozy (UMP), who will serve only one five-year term in the Elysee Palace. Hollande obtained 51.6% of valid votes, as compared with 48.4% for Sarkozy.

Voter turnout was 80.35% of registered voters, including more than two million voters (nearly 6% of all voters at the poll who did not cast a valid ballot). Overall turnout was higher than the 79.34% turnout in the first round of voting last month (although lower among valid ballots), but lower than the 83.97% turnout in the final runoff election in 2007

France acts on its elections quickly, with the official count done quickly. Sarkozy will turn power over to Hollande on May 15, only nine days after the election. Tomorrow the two men will appear together at the May 8th ceremony in Paris.

At his campaign headquarters in Paris after the election, Hollande said that he had already turned to forming his government – a more straightforward task in France than in the United States, where the Senate must confirm all major political appointees and where parties are less cohesive and organized than in France. Among his commitments, Hollande plans to pursue equal gender balance in his major political appointments.

Holland must also prepare immediately for upcoming international meetings, such as the G8 and NATO summits. Given the result in France and the backlash in this weekend’s elections in Greece to the parties that negotiated its economic bailout, these meetings will be very important and may lead to changes in European economic policy.

Sarkozy Faces the Voters

Having faced an economic crisis since 2008 -- meaning most of his term -- Sarkozy faced a difficult re-election challenge. He was counting on a surge of right-leaning voters with appeals to the backers of the 6.4 million “frontist” voters who backed Maxine Le Pen in the first round, but failed to obtain the majority necessary for re-election.

Up until Election Day, he nevertheless displayed his confidence and promised "surprises", a burst of the "silent majority qui n’a pas eu lieu. But on Sunday night, he accepted his defeat, saying, "I bear all responsibility for this defeat, I'm not a man who does not assume his responsibilities. I need to draw all the consequences.” He has pledged to abandon electoral politics and resume his law career.

International Reactions

White House press secretary Jay Carney said that Barack Obama congratulated Francois Hollande for his election to the French Presidency, and invited him to a bilateral meeting at the White House before the G8 and NATO summits planned for 18th and 20th May in U.S. Carney said that “President Obama said he intends to work closely with Mr. Holland and his government on a range of difficult issues in economic and security.”

German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who had taken the unusual step of publicly backing Sarkozy’s candidacy, has called the new Socialist president to congratulate him on his election. “They had a first exchange and agreed to work together on a Franco-German relationship that is strong, friendly and at the service of Europe, "according to the socialist Pierre Moscovici.

General Elections for Parliament in June

In the aftermath of this victory, both socialist and right parties are embarking on a new campaign, the legislative elections will be held on 10 June, with any necessary runoffs on 17 June. Since the presidential term was lowered from seven to five years, general elections for parliament take place immediately after the presidential election. This timing allows the French to more easily ensure a majority for the newly elected President, as they did in rewarding the party of the winning president in parliamentary elections in 2002 and 2007. In addition, parliamentary elections are held with winner-take-all, single-member districts, allowing the leading party to exaggerate its representation in parliament.

Conservative parties will argue for a "rebalancing" of power in these elections, because currently the President, the Senate and most regions are controlled by the Socialists. But they face their own divisions, with the first round of voting key to seeing if Sarkozy's UMP party will be hurt by his defeat and whether Marine Le Pen's National Front will grow in support Socialists will appeal to French voter to give Hollande the power to pursue reforms. They are calling for the mobilization of "all those who want change" to give the president a socialist "clear majority."

In the Spotlight: Five Notable Facts about France's May 2012 Election

1. France’s voter turnout is far higher than the United States: Voter turnout in the election was 80.35% of registered voters (with France, like most established democracies, having a much higher rate of voter registration of eligible voters than in the United States). Analysts expect that fewer than 60% of eligible American voters will cast votes in the November 2012 presidential race, with turnout disproportionately high in the dwindling number of "swing states."

2. Nearly 6% of voters spoiled their ballot: Many French voters go to the polls out of a sense of civic duty to participate in presidential elections – it can be embarrassing to admit missing an election for president. But that doesn’t mean some also don’t take pride in electoral acts of protest nor displeasure at a runoff lacking their preferred candidates. Even though the presidential race was the only item on the ballot, more than two million French voters -- 5.8% of all those at the polls -- spoiled their ballot. That's a large increase from the spoiled ballot rate of 1.92% in the first round when voters had a far greater array of candidates and could cast a more affirmative vote for a candidate they liked.

3. Voting is so easy that spoiled ballots are done on purpose: France administers presidential elections with a very simple method. Each presidential candidate is listed on a separate ballot paper. Each voter places the ballot paper of his or preferred candidate in their voting envelope and returns the envelope. (A voter wanting to keep his or her choice secret takes more than one ballot paper and discards the unused one in the trash.)To invalidate their ballot, the voter has to leave the voting envelope empty, put ballot papers for more than one candidate in the envelope or deface the ballot with writing.

4. No voter, even if living overseas, is allowed to vote by mail, but can designate proxies: France does not allow any of its voter to cast an absentee ballot in presidential races, although it will allow this option in a limited fashion in the June elections for parliament. A voter who is homebound or travelling (even those serving France in its military) has two options: to find a way to get to a diplomatic office like an embassy to vote in person or to designate another French voter with the power to cast a ballot on their behalf. That helps explain why turnout among French voters overseas was much lower than those in France, but also why election results were so prompt and difficult to dispute.

5. France has its own red-blue partisan division, but every vote counts: The Guardian newspaper has provided well-presented data on the French election, with accompanying analysis. As with presidential elections in the United States, support for Hollande and Sarkozy varied dramatically in different parts of the country. But because France holds a national popular vote for president, every vote is equal wherever it is cast, and candidates and their backers have incentives to seek votes everywhere. Hollande in particular campaigned personally in a range of urban, suburban and rural areas.

Presidential Campaign Strategies Based on Swing States

Fri, 04 May 2012 14:42:01 -0700

With former Senator Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently departing from the presidential race, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is all but guaranteed to be the Republican nominee for the 2012 presidential election in November. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is ramping up campaign efforts and holding events and fundraisers across the country in an attempt to secure a second term in office. But, both Obama and Romney are zeroing in on the swing states where either candidate could come out on top in the November elections.

Recently, Obama has traveled to college campuses in several swing states in an attempt to rally the youth voter base, which overwhelmingly supported him in his 2008 bid. He visited the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he taped an episode of Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, as well as the University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of Iowa, and is planning on making stops at Ohio State University and Virginia Commonwealth University this weekend. All five are widely seen as swing states, and his campaign hopes that regaining the youth vote's enthusiasm in these states will help swing these states in his favor.

Over the past few weeks, meanwhile, Romney has made visits to several key battleground states alongside Republican leaders who are rumored to be on his short-list to be Vice Presidential nominee. He has had high-profile visits in Wisconsin with Representative Paul Ryan, Florida with Senator Marco Rubio, New Hampshire with Senator Kelly Ayotte, and Virginia with Governor Bob McDonnell.

President Obama's campaign this spring released several "road maps to victory," mapping out states the campaign is focusing on to try to ensure winning a second term in November. This focus on swing states seems to be at odds with his victory speech after his historic 2008 victory, in which he stated, in part, "...we have never been just ... a collection of red states and blue states; we are and always will be the United States of America." Of course, he has to win under current Electoral College rules that divide the country into just these partisan divisions.

The Obama campaign has highlighted four main strategies for winning a second term in Washington, D.C. There are the "West Path," which focuses on Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa; the "Midwest Path," which prioritizes Iowa and Ohio; the "South Path," which concentrates on Virginia and North Carolina; and the "Expansion Path," which hypothesizes Obama winning Arizona and Virginia, while (presumably) Romney would take New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. All four plans take into account the states that Democrat John Kerry won in his 2004 bid for the presidency (nineteen, plus the District of Columbia), as well as the changes in the number of Electoral College delegates in each state as a result of 2010 Census-related redistricting.

On one hand, it appears the president is giving up on certain states in the South and Midwest largely due to historical voting patterns. After all, many states in the South and Midwest have voted almost exclusively for Republican presidential candidates in the past, such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. On the other hand, it can be argued that he is only reserving campaign resources for states where the Democrats have a better chance at winning in November.

With super PAC money dominating the campaign finances of the 2012 election cycle thus far (especially for the Republicans), candidates are spending vast amounts of money on advertising in order to bring their message to the voters. For instance, advertisements are being run on television in swing states criticizing both candidates on issues ranging from the economy to energy policy.

Meanwhile, in shifting to general election mode, Romney is already targeting battleground states as well, as Virginia, New Hampshire, and Florida are all seen as toss-ups for the 2012 race, and Wisconsin is also considered a possible target, pending next month's recall election on Governor Scott Walker. Also, with his appearances with high-profile Republican officials, he seems to be seeking to stir up excitement within the party, which in turn will likely bring Republicans to the polls in November.

The unusual amount of attention given to certain states while others are essentially left by the wayside illustrates the disparity between the campaigns we have under the current Electoral College system and what we would have with a national popular vote in which every vote in every state would count the same. As Obama and Romney focus on certain areas of the country, others are left largely ignored, which appears to countervail the American ideals of equality and fairness. That explains why FairVote has been a leading proponent of the National Popular Vote plan for president--and why many hope it will govern the 2016 election.

Election Wonk: Growing trend of plurality wins in governors' races

Fri, 04 May 2012 09:20:24 -0700

Mark Dayton of Minnesota won the governorship in 2010, despite winning only 44% of the vote.

In 2010-2011, a staggering 28% of the nation's 39 races for governor were awarded to a candidate who failed to win at least 50% of the vote. Though these candidates were able to win a plurality of the vote among a slate of candidates, it's possible that a second-place finisher would have won the election if a one-on-one runoff had been held. When so many state executives are placed in power without the expressed consent of the majority, we have to question whether our system successfully functions to deliver the will of the people.

In fact, FairVote's analysis of gubernatorial elections shows that this trend has increased steadily, decade by decade, since the post-World War II era. What used to be a rare occurrence in governor's races has now become common practice in a lot of states. While only 11% of gubernatorial elections since 1946 were won with less than a majority, that percentage has jumped from 5% of races in the late 1940s to over 20% in the past decade. While no general election was won with less than 35% of the vote, we're getting closer: over the last 20 years, eight governors won with less than 40%.

States have varied significantly in the proportion of elections resulting in a non-majority winner. Alaska, for instance, has held 14 gubernatorial elections since it became a state in 1959, and eight of those elections (57%) awarded the governorship to a candidate lacking a majority of the vote. Eleven states, in contrast, have never sent a non-majority winner to the governor's mansion.

States with Most Non-Majority Wins States with No Plurality Wins

Dividing the states into the four regional classifications designated by the Census (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West), there is another glaring disparity: northeastern (17%) and western (14%) states have a much higher occurrence of non-majority wins and make up a combined 65% of all gubernatorial plurality wins documented in this study. Meanwhile, the South, which accounts for 32% of states in the country, constitutes just 14% of the country's plurality wins since 1946, and only 5% of the state's gubernatorial elections ended in a non-majority winner.

Interestingly, fourteen sitting governors (28%) have been elected to a term in the state's highest office without a majority in a general election race - previous studies by FairVote show that governors also regularly win office with less than 50% of the vote in a primary. Nine gubernatorial candidates since 1946 won the governorship with a mere plurality not once but twice. Almost all of these governors won with a plurality in back-to-back elections, but Walter J. Hickel of Alaska has the distinction of winning two terms as governor without a majority in non-consecutive elections (1966 and decades later in 1990).

Will Problems in Maine and Minnesota Lead to a Solution?

Two states have fallen into a particular rut with regard to electing a governor without a majority. Minnesota's last four gubernatorial elections (and last five out of six) have resulted in a non-majority winner, while the last six of seven gubernatorial elections in Maine have ended in plurality wins. Maine is a frequent offender of non-majority winners, as 38% of the state's gubernatorial elections were delivered to a candidate with a plurality, and nearly a quarter of gubernatorial elections went to candidates with less than 40% of the vote. Winning percentages for Maine governors include 38% in 2010 and 2006, 47% in 2002, and 35% in 1994.

With so many high profile plurality elections in Maine and Minnesota, there is little surprise in all the talk surrounding the instant runoff voting form of ranked choice voting (RCV) in these states. RCV simulates series of runoff elections based on voters' preferences until a candidate receives a majority of the vote. Without forcing taxpayers to pay for multiple elections, RCV ensures that a candidate never takes office over the majority's strong opposition. It also alleviates concerns for the "spoiler effect," which often plagues states with significant independent voices, such as Maine and Minnesota - it is nearly certain that more than one governor in both states has been elected only because the majority vote was split between two or more like-minded candidates.

While RCV has yet to be implemented for the highest office in these states, there has been progress in these state's largest cities. Minneapolis first used RCV for municipal elections in 2009, and St. Paul voters used RCV for the first time in November of last year. When officials in Portland, Maine were considering a voting system to transition away from mayoral appointments, they opted for RCV for its first mayoral election in 88 years - and the system earned wide praise.

Non-majority wins in gubernatorial elections used to be an anomaly, but a growing trend demonstrates a need to reevaluate our electoral processes. Municipalities have shown that RCV works, and it behooves us to consider alternative systems to ensure majority victories for the state's highest office.

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.

Kenya Visit Shows Youth Vote Key in Next Presidential Election

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:02:33 -0700

Railroad tracks cut through Kibera (Photo by Danya Hansberger)

Last month I travelled to Kenya for an alternative spring break with a group of fellow American University students. The focus of our trip was learning about youth civic engagement in preparation for the upcoming Kenyan presidential election - the Kenyan Electoral Commission recently set the date of the election for March of 2013.

This presidential election marks the first in Kenya since 2007. In that election Mwai Kibaki was declared the winner, with 46% of the vote. This was less than a majority of the vote and there was a clear "spoiler" dynamic splitting the opposition. Riots erupted throughout the country when the election results came into dispute, leaving 1,133 killed, 3,561 injured, and 350,000 displaced. In one town, a church was burned to the ground and all 30 people inside were killed. A child who tried to escape on the arms of her mother was thrown back into the fire by one of the attackers.

Much of the bloodshed that took place in the aftermath of the 2007 election was carried out by Kenyan youth, but it in no way paints an accurate portrait of the young people I met on my trip. The Kenyan youth who I met are all striving to fix a broken political system and create meaningful change in the lives of their peers. Young people may have been responsible for violence following the 2007 election, but it was the campaigns of incumbent Mwai Kibaki and challenger Raila Odinga who instigated the civic unrest. It was another unfortunate example of Kenyan political leaders exploiting the youth. Young people ages 15-34 make up 36% of the population in Kenya but they are underrepresented and largely ignored in politics. Politicians only reach out to the youth for political self-gain and too often the youth are the victims of government corruption.

Sanitation in Kibera is poor as sewage runs through walkways (Photo by Katie Zahm)

Take for instance, a recent government program to put young people back to work. The Kazi Kwa Vijana Program was launched in 2009 with the goal of employing young people to complete public works projects. Before all three stages of the program were completed, a financial management review by the World Bank found that millions of schillings meant to pay young people for their work were instead given to senior officials in government.

This story helps explain why the unemployment rate in Kenya for young people ages 15-34 is 65%. Such corruption severely limits the future potential of a young generation eager to enter the workforce. Despite these problems and the memories of the tragic 2007 post-election violence still fresh in the minds of Kenyans, the country moves forward with a palpable feeling of cautious optimism.

"Politics is like food on the table." That's what Ken Omolloh tells me. He's a young man who lives in Kibera, an informal settlement outside Nairobi where most people live on less than $1 a day. On a sunny afternoon, Ken takes me through a labyrinth of small dirt paths that wind narrowly around shacks of tiny houses made of tin and mud. Bags of trash, in some cases piled higher than the shacks themselves, force you to take your steps carefully. At one point we have to jump out of the way of a garbage train that passes by no more than several feet away from the homes in Kibera.

Ken tells me that politics are ingrained in the culture. He describes a home environment where everyone gathers around the television to watch the evening news report about the latest political happenings. The violence following the 2007 election destroyed Ken's home, and forced him to rebuild from the ground up.

It is estimated that roughly 1 million people live in Kibera (Photo by Dayna Hansberger)

We visit his home- a small, one room structure furnished with a couch and small coffee table, divided down the middle by a sheet of cloth to separate the living room from the bedroom. The walls are so thin you can hear a crying baby from next door. Sixty-percent of the people who live in informal settlements such as Kibera are youths ages 15-34.

Later in the week, my fellow trip members and I attend a meeting with the Kibera community. We watch a PET performance- Participatory Educational Theatre, an expression of community concerns and government problems through interactive theatre.

Performers put on a small performance chronicling a young person's struggle trying to get a job in a government system that encourages corruption and excludes qualified job applicants over those who have connections or pay bribes.

Bribery is built into day-to-day services, expected by government employees just as much as a restaurant waiter or waitress expects a tip. To give you an idea, Transparency International, a non-partisan international watchdog, recently rated Kenya's police force as the most corrupt in Eastern Africa. We even experience the corruption first-hand when our driver has to pay a construction worker a bribe to let us pass. It is one of the biggest hurdles holding young people back from advancing in society.

What's impressive is that for all the obstacles young people face, they are just as determined to make things better. The Initiative for Community Action (ICA), a non-governmental organization in Kibera works to empower youth through a variety of programs. Ken is the Finance Director for ICA and he is determined not to have a repeat of the rioting that took place in the aftermath of the 2007 election.

Since the organization was founded in 2003 as a soccer program for young people, it has expanded into a larger operation of providing youth mentorship for young girls, financial literacy trainings for aspiring young entrepreneurs, and computer skills trainings for those seeking work. "Many people think nothing good can come from Kibera," Steve Omondi, an administrator at ICA recently told The Star. "By involving the community through motivational talks, confidence-building through pageant shows, talent search and showcasing successes stories we instill the right attitude in the locals who start viewing life with lots of possibilities," he says.

American University students at ICA (Photo by Dayna Hansberger)

A visit to the organization's tiny office in the heart of Kibera shows the amazing work ICA is doing, despite their lack of resources. My colleagues and I are herded into a small reception area where we sit shoulder to shoulder and speak with ICA's leaders. Each of them, from Ken to Steve, are volunteers who have to work other jobs to maintain their living.

Ken points to a bank of four desktop computers and explains how many youth in Kibera lack basic computer skills necessary to get a job. He also explains how one of the biggest problems the organization faces is finding land for a permanent location. Kibera is all temporary housing, and because of government regulations nothing permanent can be constructed. This puts ICA and other organizations in Kibera at a severe disadvantage.

The presidential election in Kenya next year may mark a turning point. Not only is it the first election since the 2007 post-election violence, it is the first election since Kenya's new Constitution was ratified in 2010. The election promises to be a referendum of sorts on the success of the new constitution.

Certainly, doubts remain. A constitutional convention decided to keep winner-take-all elections for nearly all seats instead of moving to proportional representation, ignoring the evidence of how winner-take-all can exacerbate regional and tribal polarization and distort outcomes. The one exception is the product of an important development: 80 out of 290 seats will be reserved for women, with proportional representation used to elect those seats.

Chart showing the government under the new consitution (Photo by Tyler Sadonis)

Already, we have seen issues arise from the awkward transition a country faces when changing constitutions. For the past several months, there was much uncertainty as to the date of the presidential election. According to the new constitution, the election would take place this August, but the old constitution set the date for whenever the president and prime minister dissolve parliament. Competing opinions over whether to follow the old constitution or the new constitution left much uncertainty as to the date of the election. Adding to the confusion was a court ruling which stated that the election could take place in January 2013, which is when the parliamentary term ends.

Kenya is a country of many dynamics. The country is still a relatively new democracy. Kenya gained independence from Great Britain in 1963 and first started having multi-party elections in 1992. Corruption, economic inequality, and tribalism drive the nation's politics, though the country is making progress in reforming these practices.

As Kenya moves forward, it will be fascinating to see what role the youth play in the elections. This large segment of the population seeks to take the lead in deciding which direction the country will go. Each of my conversations with the Kenyan youth I met reveal that they have ambitions to start businesses, seek careers in medicine and law, and find opportunities to serve their fellow citizens. As the 2013 presidential election approaches, we may well see more young people voting and creating the change Kenya so desperately needs.