FairVote Feed: FairVote Blog

Rule Breaker: The Florida Republican Primary, Winner-Take-All Allocation, and the Undoing of American Democracy

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:36:52 -0800

Alligators and orange juice, space ships and sunshine be damned, Florida’s greatest claim to fame over the last decade has been its penchant for political controversy. Having labored and lucked its way into the spotlight of successive election cycles, the Sunshine State is today an almost mythical place for presidential candidates, a land of both hope and hazard. And more than any other state over the last decade, Florida has demonstrated to Americans the perils of reflexive adherence to current voting procedures and the overwhelming need for election reform.

Two days ago, Florida once again found itself on the frontlines of a presidential election, as it played host to a Republican Party searching for clarity amid the disorienting fog of war. In the GOP’s 2012 nomination contest, three states had gone before Florida, each coronating a different would-be nominee—Iowa for Rick Santorum, New Hampshire for Mitt Romney, South Carolina for Newt Gingrich—a lack of concurrence that positioned Florida as an all-powerful tiebreaker with the schedule to itself.

After days of attention, a handful of nationally televised debates, and millions of dollars in advertisements, the candidates—having made their respective pitches—could only wait for Floridians to render a collective verdict. In the end, Romney overwhelmed Gingrich, winning with 46.4% of the vote—his largest plurality of the campaign thus far—to 31.9% for Gingrich, 13.4% for Santorum, and 7.0% for Ron Paul.

Not only did Romney right the proverbial ship after a sobering loss in South Carolina, but the former Massachusetts governor collected all 50 of Florida’s delegates to the Republican Convention, the Sunshine State’s winner-take-all rules inflating the strength of his non-majority victory (46.4% of the vote yielding 100% of delegates). Despite combining for a 52.3% majority of the vote, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul exited Florida empty handed, delegate-less.

* * *

Perhaps most disquieting for Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul is that, had the RNC enforced its own rules, Florida would not have been able to employ winner-take-all allocation. In a confrontation last year, the RNC stripped the Sunshine State of half its delegates for violating party scheduling rules proscribing a primary date that encroached upon the privileged status of Iowa and New Hampshire. With the RNC apparently unwilling to penalize the state by reducing its delegates twice, Floridian powerbrokers subsequently broke the RNC rule requiring all states holding pre-April contests to employ proportional methods of delegate allocation, opting instead for a winner-take-all primary. By breaking these two rules and holding an early winner-take-all contest, Florida, as The Washington Post notes, made itself “one of the most pivotal states in the presidential race.”

While the RNC should be commended for moving to proportional allocation* for convention delegates for the pre-April contests this election cycle, its inability† to force an insubordinate early state like Florida (soon to be followed Arizona, which also is breaking the rules with a winner-take-all primary) to obey party policy threatens to undermine the key changes—such as a longer nomination battle and its corresponding voter enthusiasm and media attention—the party hoped to effect with its rule modification. Forty-nine confiscated delegates to the Republican Convention in exchange for a much-hyped winner-take-all contest and two weeks of adoration from doting candidates might have been a good deal for Florida, but it was a sour deal for the American people.

Put simply, proportional allocation keeps a nomination battle going in that it enables more than one candidate to seize delegates—and therefore, influence within the party. Winner-take-all allocation—which many states prefer because it provides for larger swings in the delegate race and increases their importance—tends to abbreviate the process, as the candidate with the most votes in a state, no matter her share, lands all of its delegates. Such a result is undemocratic, as it not only leads to delegate counts unreflective of the vote, but also often drives the de facto nomination of a candidate before the majority of Americans have had an opportunity to vote.

For example, in the 2008 GOP nomination battle between John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani, Florida’s January 29 winner-take-all primary proved decisive. McCain, despite winning an unimpressive 36.0% of the vote to Romney’s 31.0% (a mere 5% margin), gathered all 57 of the state’s delegates, or 100%. Like Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee, despite 14.7% and 13.5% of the vote, respectively, received no delegates.

Although McCain’s margin was small and the race extremely competitive, Florida’s winner-take-all rules portrayed the Arizona senator’s victory as absolute—the latest step in his inexorable march to the nomination—and gave him enormous momentum heading into Super Tuesday on February 5. In other words, winner-take-all allocation made an admittedly vulnerable candidate look invincible, a storyline that subsequently shortchanged the process, as each of McCain’s challengers—having staked so much on one state, Florida—retreated into premature obscurity, the race essentially over before millions of voters and the majority of states had had a chance to weigh in. Trademark winner-take-all.

* * *

Never one for nuance, winner-take-all undermines American democracy, reducing million of voters to irrelevancy. The RNC was correct to move away from a winner-take-all system. Importantly, proportional allocation of delegates is more likely to lead to a prolonged nomination fight, which gives more voters an opportunity to evaluate formally the candidates. Proportionality, additionally, is more reflective of the popular vote, including—rather than excluding—candidates, rewarding them for their effort, spreading—rather than concentrating—influence, and granting voters of all stripes a voice at the party convention. The GOP must make an example of Florida in order to deter similar rule infractions in 2016, by Florida or any other state. If it fails to do so, then winner-take-all will continue to slither its way back into American primary politics.

_________

* In 2010, the RNC—recognizing that states prefer holding early, winner-take-all contests—changed party rules to prohibit winner-take-all allocation of delegates to the Republican Convention for any primary or caucus occurring before April 1, 2012, with the exception of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada (see Rule 15(b)(1) and 15(b)(2)). In other words, states were presented the choice between an early primary employing proportionality and a winner-take-all primary occurring later on the schedule. By doing so, the RNC hoped to accomplish the twin goals of prolonging the nomination battle and deterring front-loading of the schedule.

† Florida could be compelled to allocate its delegates to the Republican Convention proportionally, although for now, the winner-take-all method stands. A provision in the RNC’s rules allows a registered Florida Republican to file a challenge with the RNC Committee on Contests, asking the committee to force Florida to allot its delegates proportionally. If such a complaint is approved by the Committee on Contests, the RNC could force the Sunshine State to retroactively give delegates to Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul. If the race between Romney and his competitors evolves into a delegate-driven war of attrition, debate over Florida’s delegates could take center stage once more.

Romney vs. Romney

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:13:07 -0800

The majority of media attention is (rightly so) on the current race between Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum, but it's also interesting and informative to compare Romney to another candidate: himself, circa 2008. In the battle of "Romney vs. Romney," who has performed better? While it was the 2012 version in all early states except Iowa, this version has performed poorly in recent contests in Nevada, Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado. See below:

States in which Romney 2012 has outperformed Romney 2008: 3
States in which Romney 2008 has outperformed Romney 2012: 5

Presidential Tracker: New Evidence of our Shrinking Battleground

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:57:30 -0800

Since FairVote's last presidential tracker update in December, President Barack Obama's travels have followed the standard rule of prioritizing the swing states. Indeed, just like his predecessor George Bush as he prepared for re-election, the president's destinations and the nature of his visits followed the same trends that we've seen in the past: battlegrounds and fundraising.

According to the Washington Post's POTUS Tracker, since the first of December, Barack Obama has officially visited 11 states and held a total of 17 events, excluding his personal trip to Hawaii over the holidays. Of the 12 most likely battleground states for the 2012 election, the President visited eight of them in the past 2 months alone.

As indicated in the chart below, events in the New Year are similarly shaping up to be a complimentary mixture of fundraising and swing state public events. During his trips to New York and Illinois, both typically strong blue states, the President held a total of seven events, all of which were for fundraising. And, battlegrounds are gaining momentum, as expected. Last week, the president completed a 3-day battleground tour to Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, and Michigan, with an additional visit to one state that is unlikely to be a real battleground: Arizona.

This is what his 2012 is shaping up like so far:

States	Type of Event(s)	No. of Events	State Status
Ohio	Public & Private	2	Battleground
Illinois	Fundraising	3	Safe Democrat
Florida	Public	1	Battleground
New York	Fundraising	4	Safe Democrat
Iowa	Public	1	Battleground
Arizona	Public	1	Leaning Republican
Nevada	Public	1	Battleground
Colorado	Public	1	Battleground
Michigan	Public	1	Battleground

As discussed in previous tracker updates, visits to these so-called "battleground" states (and safe states for fundraising) meet a strategic need in a candidates bid to get elected to the office of the president. Typically, the President takes a public tour or delivers remarks in battleground states. Yet, it is also common to travel frequently to certain safe states that can lend a helping hand in the fundraising department. President Obama regularly held events in New York and California over the past year - both of which top the list for most events held in 2011 and are famous for many big campaign donors.

This focus on swing states is a direct result of the winner-take-all system of our Electoral College. Once the nomination is decided - which it effectively is for Obama, as he avoided a primary challenger - presidential candidates have every incentive to focus all of their campaign-related attention on a dwindling number of swing states. This leads to many being excluded from the national conversation. Indeed, there is no real need for the President to be concerned with "safe states" under such a system (other than for fundraising purposes). It is the incentives created by the system.

When Obama had different incentives, he campaigned differently, of course. In his hard-fought race for the Democratic nomination in 2008, he visited nearly every state. But in his three years as president, he still has yet to travel to nine states - a direct result of our indefensible way of electing presidents.

To wrap up the past year, in 2011, 61% of the country received 100% of the attention and event visits from the president, but more than half of those states are considered "battleground". Although fundraising in safely democratic states was high on the agenda during the past year - a combined 52 events - public events in battleground states totaled a hefty 49.

As you can see from the map below, 20 states in total never had one event in all of 2011-including the nine that have never received a visit since he took office in 2009. 15 other states across the nation still had three or fewer visits. Iowa, New Hampshire and Minnesota are the only "battleground" states to have less than four events in 2011. In fact, of the 12 battlegrounds for this election, 11 of them each had three or more events in the past year.

Data on President Barack Obama's travels is obtained from the Washington Post's POTUS Tracker

2011 Year-end Summary

The Supply Side: Alternative Reform Approaches to Campaign Finance

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:19:30 -0800

Last Saturday marked the two-year anniversary of the controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Citizens United overturned decades of campaign finance law by extending First Amendment protection to political expenditures by corporations and unions. In tandem with other court rulings and with decisions by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Citizens United allows independent expenditure committees (Super PACs) to collect unlimited sums from individuals, labor unions, and corporations. Super PACs can spend unrestricted amounts of money on ads in support of or opposition to candidates, provided they do not donate directly to or coordinate with them.

The ruling became an instant fault line in American politics, leading to heated debate and one of the most incendiary issues of 2010. The decision itself was highly contested, with Justice John Paul Stevens authoring a strongly worded dissent. In the weeks after the decision was released, an ABC-Washington Post poll showed that 80% of those surveyed opposed the ruling, sentiments that President Barack Obama echoed in his 2010 State of the Union Address. Justice Samuel Alito’s mouthed retort left commentators across the political spectrum arguing about potential breaches of decorum on both sides.

“Occupy the Courts,” a movement part of the “Occupy Wall Street” protests, has lambasted the decision for enabling wealthy donors to bombard swing state voters with negative advertisements. Even comedian Stephen Colbert has made a mockery of the lack of regulations regarding what Super PACS can and cannot do by creating his own Super PAC. Currently, opponents of the decision are considering unlikely range of tactics in response, including constitutional amendments.

The 2012 election is the first election for president to take place with the influence of Super PACs. Notre Dame Law professor Lloyd Mayer, in an interview with The Politic, predicts that, “Super PACS will likely target presidential swing states and close federal and state elections, ignoring other sates and elections.” This conclusion is reinforced by data derived from the CRS Super PAC report. Of the $40,841,528 Super PACs spent on 2010 senate races, $28,422,989 (70%) was spent on just seven races ranked by RealClearPolitics as “toss-ups,” which accounted for only 19% of contested seats. As Mayer predicts, Super PAC money was strongly concentrated in the small number of truly competitive races. Furthermore, this money appears to primarily fund negative campaigns, adding to what many Americans feel is a growing problem of divisiveness and negativity in politics. For instance, approximately 80% of ads in the Republican primary funded by Super PACs were attack ads.

Money has been an integral part of political campaigns long before the Supreme Court made its 2010 ruling in Citizens United. The 2008 presidential campaign saw record-breaking fundraising efforts with Barack Obama raising a total of $745.7 million in private funds after declining to receive public funds. Money will continue to be important in politics, unless we look at the issue from an alternative perspective.

Most reformers focus on how to affect the supply of money in politics. When it comes to money in politics, FairVote’s focus is on electoral reforms that will reduce the demand for money in politics by reducing the impact of money. We examine the way the electoral system creates incentives for politicians to target expensive campaigns at the handful of “swing” voters that decide election outcomes and to rely on excessive negative advertising. Changing the electoral system, and thereby changing the incentives, is a promising means to “keep money in its place.”

The underlying problem behind the lack of meaningful elections in America is the winner-take-all rule. Winner-take-all is an electoral rule wherein the candidate with more votes than any other candidate wins the election, without taking into account the preferences of voters who did not vote for the winning candidate. This system traps most voters in elections they have no hope of affecting, accentuates the effects of gerrymandering, and encourages presidential candidates and big money interests to focus on the small set of swing states and swing districts where persuading 4%-5% of voters will change who’s in the White House, runs Congress and runs our state legislatures.

With winner-take-all rules, political activity only makes sense when candidates are not comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind Long before the Citizens United decision, the majority of senate and congressional races, as well as the presidential race in most states, were and are considered “safe” for the Democratic or Republican Party - which is just another way of saying that the elections in those states and districts have been reduced to meaningless formalities.

But what if every election was meaningful? What if presidential elections depended on more than a handful of swing states, Senate races provided more choices than the party-appointed candidates, and voters were not locked into congressional districts designed to re-elect incumbents? FairVote’s proposals to change winner-take-all voting rules would reduce the impact of money by increasing the impact of voters. When it comes to a general election choice between candidates representing different parties, most voters know what they want – freed from winner-take-all, their power to earn representation is not affected by money.

Each of FairVote’s core reform proposals in their own way would reduce the power of money in politics. Let’s review them briefly:

A constitutional right to vote and reforms to enhance voting rights and participation: A great deal of money is spent trying to get people to vote – or to get people not to vote. If we developed rules and cultural norms promoting high participation, such spending would be less affective.

A national popular vote for president: Today, 99% of campaign spending in the final months of the general election for president is focused on “battleground” states” representing about a third of Americans. In those states, it is focused heavily on swing voters. If every vote counted in every election, that money would need to be dispersed more widely- -and create new incentives for grassroots organizing to build and sustain voter turnout in every election.

Instant runoff voting: This ranked choice voting systems makes it easier for more than two candidates to seek a winner-take-all office by essentially eliminating the “spoiler” problem associated with our plurality voting system. It would make negative campaigns a losing proposition because winning candidates would have to appeal to voters rather than drive away their opponents’ voter in order to receive second- or third-choice support. Negative attacks designed to hurt a candidate are less certain to help the perpetrator of such attacks when there are more than two candidates. That helps explain why in a number of major instant runoff voting elections for mayor in recent years, candidates better at grassroots organizing and coalition-building defeated candidates who spent much more money.

Proportional voting: Most fundamental of all, proportional voting provides an alternative to winner-take-all elections for legislatures. It allows most voters to help elect a candidate of choice by joining with like-minded voters: 10% of the vote earns 10% of seats, 33% of votes wins a third of seats, 51% of votes wins a majority of seats and so on. The many voters not affected by money in their voting decisions would be liberated to elect candidates they like.

FairVote understands why the campaign finance debate generally focuses on the regulations under which campaign funders operate. But we offer an alternate perspective: by changing the incentives that motivate campaign funders, we can change the way campaigns are run.

________

Colbert Photo Credit: Tyler Sadonis

South Carolina Primary: One Candidate May Easily Win All Delegates

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:28:37 -0800

The political world is focused on South Carolina’s primary tomorrow, which has been a volatile race that seems to be coming down to Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Polls this week show both men hovering around a third of the vote.

But the statewide outcome is not the only story tomorrow. At this point, more attention should be paid to what nomination contests mean for allocation of delegates to the Republican National Convention this August in Florida. The bottom line is that whoever wins South Carolina will not only gain momentum, but also will likely take the lead in delegates earned from nomination contests.

The Iowa caucuses triggered great media hype over the Iowa caucuses and attention to whether Romney or Rick Santorum “won” them with a quarter of the vote, but in fact no delegates were bound by what amounted to a straw poll. The New Hampshire primary allocated only 12 delegates, with the top three vote-getters dividing them on a roughly proportional basis. With the nomination winner ultimately needing 1,144 delegates, we obviously should have a long way to go – that is, if the media will let the contest keep unfolding without prematurely crowning the current leader as the sure winner.

Delegate allocation isn’t nearly as straightforward as it might seem. FairVote has posted an updated review of delegate allocation rules in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and five territories. In 2010, the Republican National Committee, to much fanfare, established a new rule (Republican Party’s Rule 15(b)(2)) requiring any state or territory holding a contest before April 1 must allocate delegates by proportional representation. But that’s not quite how it worked out.

First, South Carolina was one of four states exempted from the requirement to use proportional representation, but it’s the only one taking advantage of that exemption. It has established a rule that may well lead to one candidate winning all of the state’s delegates with less than 40% of the state’s popular vote.

Second, two additional states, Florida and Arizona, are allocating all delegates to the statewide winner in upcoming contests held before April 1st. They’ve lost half of their delegates already due to breaking RNC rules on when to hold the contest (as have South Carolina and New Hampshire), but are not being sanctioned for using the winner-take-all rule instead of proportional representation.

Finally, Puerto Rico is breaking the rule as well, holding a winner-take-all contest in March without any apparent penalty whatsoever.

South Carolina’s delegates may end up being allocated to more than one candidate, but it won’t be according to proportional representation. According to South Carolina’s Republican Party rules, the state party will award its 11 at-large delegates to the winner of the statewide primary vote and will award two delegates on a winner-take-all basis to the winner of each of the seven congressional districts.

In winning statewide, a candidate likely will, although not necessarily, carry most of the state’s congressional districts. That means that the winner will likely earn at least 19 of the state’s 25 delegates (11 state-wide, plus eight for carrying four districts). The winning candidate could end up with a plurality of the vote in each congressional district and earn all 25 delegates, even with far less than 50% of the vote.

South Carolina effectively would become a winner-take-all state if one candidate were to sweep the statewide primary and the congressional districts, as well. Romney still has a real chance to win the state, which would strengthen his frontrunner status, but most polls show Gingrich with a growing lead. He has the best changes to secure all of South Carolina’s 25 delegates, which would put him into the national lead.

A Gingrich win also could propel him toward a win in Florida, where his large December lead had recently evaporated as Romney surged ahead. With Florida using winner-take-all as well, whoever wins the state may well keep the lead in delegates no matter what happens in all the February contests, as those contests will be allocated largely by proportional representation.

This raises questions about why the Republican National Committee seems more concerned about trying to enforce the scheduling of primaries than its 2010 requirement of proportional representation in early contests. The party adopted strict limits on use of winner-take-all rules to ensure more states had a chance to hold meaningful contests and to force their eventual nominee to demonstrate strength in more parts of the country. With uneven enforcement of its rule, that goal is less likely to be met – and outcomes more likely to be distorted.

South Carolina voters better enjoy it while it lasts

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:13:52 -0800

With the South Carolina primary just around the corner on Saturday, the preferences of South Carolina voters are of intense interest to the nation -and of course to the candidates swarming the states. Events, polls, debates and the media are all focused on South Carolina voters.

Today alone, GOP candidates are holding a combined 16 events throughout the state . Even comedian Stephen Colbert is holding a rally with Herman Cain, and the online world is full of chatter about Newt Gingrich's showdown with the media in last night's debate and who took home the prize for best debater of the night. There have been five total debates in South Carolina since politicians first started announcing their candidacy - three in the past week alone.

But after Saturday? Forget it. South Carolina will be lucky to see a presidential candidate in the next four years - -indeed, they may hardly see whoever is elected president until 2016. The state and its voters effectively won't matter once they cast their vote on Saturday.

It's all a product of our November election rules. Because South Carolina has a law to allocate all its electoral votes to the winner of the state, and since the outcome in November is not in question (a Republican is sure to carry the state in a nationally competitive year), there will be no incentive for the Republican nominee to return once the primary is over.

President Barack Obama will almost certainly skip the state as well. In fact, according to our Presidential Tracker, the president has visited South Carolina zero times since taking office in January of 2009. That's right. Zero. In contrast, he has held 14 separate events in neighboring North Carolina, which is also more likely to be a November battleground.

Just take a look at the two charts below that show a general news trend of interest in South Carolina voters and politics. The 2008 spike in interest in South Carolina and its voters is quite noticeable, but so too is the four-year drought in between presidential elections. Now, the cycle is just repeating itself again this month as interest in South Carolina climbs back up during this year's primary season -- its inevitable decline on the horizon.

So South Carolina soon will find themselves back in the undesirable position of "safe state" and be excluded from the national conversation come November. It's one alone. Truly, most states don't matter in presidential elections in November. Thanks to current state rules governing the Electoral College-- specifically, the winner-take-all system that 48 of our 50 states use -- about 40 states will be effective spectators in the general elections. All the hail storm of promotional ads, fancy suits, political rhetoric, and rallying cries will be in the familiar states of Ohio, Florida and the like. For South Carolina? Just a memory.

The best way to make every voter matter in every election is the National Popular Vote plan. South Carolina in fact had a debate about the idea, with CSPAN coverage . Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson, a 2008 Republican presidential candidate, was among those championing the NPV proposal. The proposal keeps making steady progress and has a real chance to be in place in 2016.

There are less than 48 hours of relevancy left for South Carolina voters. We hope they enjoy it while it lasts. Presidential candidates probably won't be back for another four years.

Learn more about the national popular vote plan for electing the president

RCV for the GOP: Mitt Romney, Fractured Conservatives, and the Importance of Rules in Determining Election Outcomes

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:09:32 -0800

Photo Credit: Justin Sullivan, Getty

After low-plurality “wins” in the Iowa caucuses* and the New Hampshire primary, Mitt Romney became the clear frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination. Viewed in historical context, Romney’s impending nomination appears rather unremarkable; the GOP has long had a reputation for hierarchy, regularly opting for the “heir apparent” over a challenger, and 2012 was Romney’s turn after having waited patiently in line for four years. Yet when viewed through the prism of current events—with the recent ascent of energized conservatives† in the Republican coalition—the GOP’s nomination of a man widely considered the least conservative remaining candidate in the 2012 Republican presidential field is remarkable.

As disillusioned conservatives wonder how a “Massachusetts moderate”—as Romney’s opponents call him derisively—found a path to the nomination in a party moving rightward, they would do well to remember that, as always, the devil is in the details. Romney’s steady march to the nomination is very much a product of the current election framework in place, which allows a candidate to win a state with a plurality, rather than a majority, of the vote. True, in this election cycle, more GOP contests will allocate delegates proportionally than ever before, but in actuality, the media, commentators, and voters still treat each state contest as “winner-take-all.” In Iowa and New Hampshire, for instance, a plurality of the vote no longer earns a candidate 100% of delegates, but it still gives her a surge of momentum, the true life-giving force in a presidential campaign.

Majorities, though technically unnecessary, are desirable in that they “legitimatize” candidates and give the appearance of widespread consensus. But plurality election rules only guarantee majorities in races featuring two candidates. In a multi-candidate contest sporting three or more viable candidates, plurality voting does a woeful job—the larger the field, the more difficult it becomes to win a majority, the “triumphant” candidate often denied the legitimatizing effects of a convincing victory. Plurality elections are also susceptible to “spoiler effects,” which occur when a voting bloc fractures between two (or more) like-minded candidates, a schism that allows a third, least-preferred candidate to win. Spoiler effects, as the inherent bitterness of the term implies, can lead to animosity between campaigns and disillusionment among voters, lingering negativity that could prove detrimental to a party in subsequent elections.

Romney's 2012 Opponents: Gingrich and Paul

Although too late for the 2012 Republican nomination battle, there are alternatives to plurality elections, voting systems designed to respect the nuances of opinion in a multi-candidate field, while at the same time guaranteeing a majority of voters support the winning candidate. Ranked choice voting (RCV, also called instant runoff voting) —recently used for local elections in Democratic-leaning Portland, Maine, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and San Francisco, California, but also for key party contests held by Republicans in Utah—allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference: one, two, three, four, etc. If no candidate receives a majority of the initial vote, the last place finisher is eliminated, his votes redistributed to surviving candidates based on expressed second choices; this process of elimination/redistribution continues, round by round, until a candidate has received a majority of the vote.

Whereas plurality elections highlight the division within a party and often weaken candidates, RCV seeks consensus and concurrence, strengthening the position of the party and its nominee as it pivots to the general election. In ensuring winners can earn a majority when matched against their toughest opponents, RCV not only precludes plurality winners, but forces a candidate to build carefully a diverse, layered coalition, combining her own first choices with voters of subsequently eliminated opponents (unless, of course she commands a majority in the first round).

As a result, RCV usually sees a decline in negative campaigning and 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 also removes the spoiler effect from the electoral equation: like-minded candidates who divide a voting bloc in the first round are pared eventually down to one representative, voters liberated to cast expressive rather than strategic ballots.

________

Plurality rules have affected greatly the 2012 battle for the GOP nomination, and although RCV might achieve the same ends, plurality’s means of selecting a nominee arguably have been negative for all parties involved—whether Romney or his conservative challengers. Whom RCV would have benefited in 2012, had it been implemented, depends on the narrative to which one subscribes—does a latent majority reside in the possession of a unified conservative bloc or that of a diligent Romney campaign that has successfully courted select conservatives? Polls have contradicted each other on this point—some showing a latent majority for conservatives, others for Romney—and, as such, both should be treated as equally plausible.

Scenario 1: Assuming an Anti-Romney Conservative Majority

According to this narrative, plurality rules have penalized conservative voters for failing to coalesce around a single ideological standard-bearer, dividing their majority within the party between a multitude of candidates—each garnering enough support to survive, but never enough to flourish—and allowing Romney to take advantage of the disarray and lack of coordination. Despite Newt Gingrich’s declaration that Romney must “get a majority somewhere,” in fact under plurality rules, he need not get a majority anywhere, steamrolling to the nomination like McCain four years ago without ever having had to prove his standing among conservative voters.

Romney's 2012 Opponents: Santorum and Perry

This version of events portrays Romney as usurper, an opportunistic “conservative of convenience” rather than an authentic ideological warrior of the Right, in the process of snatching the GOP nomination away from the party’s fractured conservative majority, the beneficiary of a “spoiler effect.” If true, such an occurrence is deeply troubling for the Republican Party, as it would contribute to the perception that, yet again, the voice of conservatives has been muffled and its wishes disregarded. The Weekly Standard recently gave voice to such resentment, questioning why “the party of Ronald Reagan” repeatedly nominates individuals who “opposed Reagan” in the 1980s.

In order to unite a divided movement under plurality voting rules, one or more conservative contenders would need to withdraw from the race—thereby denying voters in other states the right to evaluate all candidates; already, such considerations have forced Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann out of the field. Such was the reasoning behind Gingrich’s recent statement that “any vote for Santorum or Perry is in effect a vote to allow Romney to become the nominee,” the former House speaker imploring the South Carolinian, anti-Romney vote to solidify around him, as well as a recent Texas meeting among influential evangelical Christian and conservative leaders seeking to encourage a united front for Santorum.

RCV, by contrast, would eliminate such concerns, allowing conservative voters to rank Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, and Perry (that is, before he dropped out) on a ballot—permitting, rather than penalizing, nuance—and to unite behind one anti-Romney in subsequent rounds. At the very least, RCV would have forced Romney to reach out to conservatives, moving rightward to repair a strained relationship. Regardless, the spoiler effect would be eliminated and the voice of conservatives heeded.

Scenario 2: Assuming a Pro-Romney Majority

According to this narrative, while many conservative voters might prefer other candidates first, Mitt Romney has made significant and numerous rightward strides this election cycle in an attempt to pursue Tea Party supporters and evangelical Christians. The quarrels over ideological purity and questions over Romney’s standing among conservatives, which have dominated the media’s coverage of the race, have merely obscured the existence of an increasingly strong Romney majority, concerned most with defeating President Obama in November and which views Romney as the most “electable” of the Republican crop. Plurality voting then, has allowed Romney to win by clearing the lowest necessary bar, but has prevented him from displaying his wider appeal as the second choice of many voters.

This version of events portrays Romney as consensus candidate, the one man capable of uniting the GOP’s diverse coalition of voting blocs and preventing a second Obama term. Romney’s pluralities have failed to convince, the rules masking his majority, portraying him as vulnerable, and denying him the legitimacy that only a majority can confer. Sensing weakness, Romney’s conservative opponents have continued to believe in the existence of a “stop-Romney” majority, which—if this narrative is true—simply does not exist.

Under RCV, however, Romney, buoyed by an electoral framework that respects nuanced, multilayered opinion, would have the opportunity to demonstrate his appeal, a “consensus candidate” preferred most by all elements of the party and in command of a majority. The damaging and unflattering story that he cannot win among conservatives would be rendered untenable, and Romney’s efforts to attract conservatives would finally pay electoral dividends. And if, in actuality, a majority proved outside Romney’s grasp after the reallocation of second/third/fourth choices, then RCV would at least legitimatize another candidate.

________

The rules matter, discussion over electoral law being more than an esoteric, philosophical abstraction best left to academics teaching Political Science on a college campus. Rather, it affects citizens and political actors in very real, personal ways. Too often wrongly dismissed as a ploy by progressives, RCV and other reforms transcend the traditional divide between conservatives at one end of the ideological spectrum, progressives at the other, and centrists in between, and could have very real benefits for a divided Republican Party craving consensus and searching for unity in the age of Obama.

________

* Although finalized vote totals show Rick Santorum winning the Iowa caucuses by 34 votes over Mitt Romney, we purposefully refer to the contest as a win for Romney, who—since the media jumped the gun on election night and declared Romney the victorious candidate—received the lion's share of post-Iowa momentum.

† As a term, "conservative"—like most labels—is nebulous and difficult to define. In this article, we have used conservative as an umbrella term for a heterogeneous coalition of evangelical Christians and Tea Party supporters, which is consistent with journalistic opinion.

FairVote Tracks GOP Primaries: Understanding Proportional Representation in NH

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 06:43:01 -0800

Mitt Romney won 39% of the vote in New Hampshire in the nation's first 2012 primary and received seven of the state's twelve delegates, or a 58% share. An in-depth look into New Hampshire's voting method allows us to see how a disproportionate delegate distribution arises from the proportional system utilized by the New Hampshire Republican Party.

The Rules of the Republican Party Rule 15(b)(2) dictates that contests prior to April 1 must be conducted according to proportional allocation but does not specify by what means. This allows states to differ wildly in their interpretation of "proportional." As written about in FairVote's blog on January 10, New Hampshire's Republican Party chose to allocate its delegates proportionally based on a 10% threshold.

In New Hampshire, presidential primaries must be conducted according to Elections Procedure Section 659:93, requiring a minimum of a 10% threshold. Of the remaining candidates who meet this threshold, the secretary of state proportionally allocates delegates according to a version of the "highest remainder" method, one of several proportional representation formulae.

Under this method, delegates are divided according to the remaining candidates' redistributed vote percentages, with each proportion rounded down to the nearest whole number. Often there are extra delegates remaining due to this rounding procedure. While the classic version of this method allows for unassigned delegates to go to the candidates with the highest remainders, New Hampshire's version awards all remaining delegates to the candidate with the highest number of votes.

Using the classic highest remainder method for this election, Romney would come out of the first distribution with the highest remainder of 0.96, so the first remaining delegate would be awarded to him. Since a second delegate remains, it would be distributed to the candidate with the next highest remainder. Jon Huntsman, whose remainder of 0.56 just tops Ron Paul's remainder of 0.47, would be the recipient of this second delegate. In contrast, New Hampshire's variation - in "winner-take-all" fashion - awards both remaining delegates to Romney.

Here's how New Hampshire's delegate allocation compares with the classic version of highest remainder:

Candidate	Actual Percent Vote	Percent of Vote of Qualifying Candidates over 10%	Delegates Totals Under Strict Proportionality	NH Highest Remainder Method Using 10% Threshold	Classic Highest Remainder Using 10% Threshold
Romney	39.25%	49.68%	5.96	7	6
Paul	22.88%	28.96%	3.47	3	3
Huntsman	16.88%	21.37%	2.56	2	3
Gingrich	9.42%	-	0	0	0
Santorum	9.40%	-	0	0	0
Totals	97.83%	100%	12	12	12

Another unique feature of New Hampshire's allocation is its employment of a 10% threshold - a threshold that both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum barely missed achieving, even though their voters consisted of nearly 20% of the total vote. Most nations that use proportional allocation systems for their legislatures use lower thresholds (commonly a 5% threshold). With many competitive candidates in the New Hampshire primary, it should be noted that a slight change in this threshold significantly impacts the distribution of delegates. A 5% threshold, for instance, brings Gingrich and Santorum into the distribution of delegates.

Here's how the primary would have played out using a 5% threshold, compared with New Hampshire's 10% threshold - using the New Hampshire method of awarding all remaining delegates to the candidate with the highest remainder.

Candidate	Actual Percent Vote	Percent of Vote of Qualifying Candidates over 10%	NH Method Allocated Delegates Using 10% Threshold	Percent of Vote of Qualifying Candidates over 5%	NH Method Allocated Delegates Using 5% Threshold
Romney	39.25%	49.68%	7	40.12%	6
Paul	22.88%	28.96%	3	23.38%	2
Huntsman	16.88%	21.37%	2	17.25%	2
Gingrich	9.42%	-	0	9.63%	1
Santorum	9.40%	-	0	9.61%	1
Totals	97.83%	100%	12	100%	12

Other notable news from New Hampshire:

President Obama on the Ballot: Barack Obama also was on the ballot in New Hampshire yesterday in the Democratic primary. He earned 48,970 votes, for a total of 82%, and all 35 of New Hampshire's delegates awarded by the Democratic primary. That vote total was comparable to GOP candidate Jon Huntsman, who placed third. Note that all Democratic primaries and caucuses allocate delegates on the basis of proportional representation, but no other candidate surpassed the Democrats' typical 15% threshold.

Ron Paul Wins Landslide among Young Voters: Exit polls showed that Mitt Romney did well in a broad range of categories, e.g., income, education, religious and philosophical viewpoints. Among voters under 30, however, Ron Paul won 47% of that demographic, compared to Romney's 25%. Congressman Paul also won nearly half the youth vote in the Iowa caucuses.

Romney 2008 vs. Romney 2012: Comparing Mitt Romney's performance in New Hampshire from election to election, in 2008, Romney earned 75,675votes and 32%in the New Hampshire primary, compared to 97,532 votes and 39.3% this year. In the Iowa caucuses, his share of the vote was slightly lower in 2012 than it was in 2008.

The Role of Proportional Representation in the New Hampshire Primary

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:51:00 -0800

In the wake of the nonbinding Iowa caucuses, the first primary of the 2012 presidential election is being held today in New Hampshire. Those eagerly anticipating the results of this Republican primary will note that the delegates elected will be allocated according to proportional representation, and not by a winner-take-all allocation.

New Hampshire’s primaries are conducted according to state national party rules, although within rules established by the state relating to who can vote. The Democratic Party requires the allocation of delegates according to proportional representation based on a 15% threshold. Without a major challenger, Barack Obama is expected to earn all of the state’s delegates,

Meanwhile, Republican parties are holding a hotly contested primary with six major candidates. As in the past, the New Hampshire Republican Party allocates delegates on the basis of proportional representation. To earn a share of the state’s 12 delegates up for grabs today, a candidate must earn at least 10% of the vote, which as many as five candidates (Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich) may surpass. Thus, even if Mitt Romney wins, as expected, it’s quite possible that nearly two-thirds of delegates will be awarded to other candidates.

State rules vary widely. After March 31st, a number of states will award all their delegates on a “winner-take-all” basis to the winner of the statewide vote. Some states have a mix of delegates being allocated based on the statewide vote (using either winner-take-all or proportional representation) and based on results in districts. South Carolina, for example, allocates 11 delegates based on the statewide vote and 2 each according to who carries each congressional district. That’s not “proportional representation,” although it may lead to more than one candidate earning at least some delegates.

Although the New Hampshire delegation has been penalized half of its original 24 delegates under Republican Party Rules 15(b)(1) and 16(a) for moving its primary date before February 1, the state has fully complied with Rule 15(b)(2), which states that all primaries held before April 1 shall be conducted using proportional representation. Thus, New Hampshire may have lost half of its delegates, but its delegates will represent the voters of New Hampshire more fully than states that use a winner-take-all system.

As FairVote’s Rob Richie has written, the Republican Party in 2008 was not helped by so many winner-take-all contests, which effectively ended the nomination battle before many states had voted. This allowed Democrats more chance to dominate the media and develop get-out-the-vote operations in more states ultimately carried by Barack Obama, such as late-voting states like Indiana and North Carolina. As a result, Republicans in 2010 modified their rules to require great use of proportional representation. States like Florida have flaunted that rule, as they will award all their delegates based on the statewide vote.

Texas Redistricting in the Hands of the Supreme Court Yet Again

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:00:29 -0800

Texas redistricting has been one of the most contentious in the nation in recent decades. Plans drawn in the 1990s and 2000s went to the Supreme Court, including a 2006 challenge that required redrawing of some districts. In 2003, a battle over district lines led Democratic lawmakers to flee the state in an attempt to avoid a mid-decennial redrawing of districts by newly empowered Republican legislators, who began constructing a map with then-House Majority Leader Tom Delay and Gov. Rick Perry. With congressional redistricting required after the 2010 Census, Texas has redrawn district lines -- and yet again is before the Supreme Court.

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for three cases pertaining to Texas redistricting: Perry v. Perez, on the Texas House of Representatives; Perry v. Davis, on the Texas Senate; and Perry v. Perez, on the U.S. House seats.

At issue, the Supreme Court will decide whether a federal court has the power to impose redistricting maps on a state whose plans have not yet obtained preclearance required by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Under Section 5 of the Act, Texas' redistricting plan must be cleared by the Department of Justice or by a three-judge district court in Washington, DC. Texas pursued the latter option, but the San Antonio District Court, apparently anticipating that the Texas plan might not be precleared, drew new maps for the 2012 elections that gave racial minorities more opportunities to elect candidates of choice.

Due to congressional reapportionment and the state's rapid population growth over the past decade, mostly driven by a booming growth in Latinos, Texas gained four U.S. House seats. Republicans, who control both the state legislature and the governorship in Texas, have been accused of aggressively drawing up a gerrymandered plan that increases representation for their party at the expense of representation for racial minority groups - indeed, the new congressional plan created just one new opportunity for Latino voters to elect candidates of choice.

As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in, we must evaluate alternatives to this clearly inadequate process. Redistricting in winner-take-all, single-member districts inherently leads mapmakers to put partisan considerations ahead of voting rights. Fair voting plans, in contrast, utilize American forms of proportional representation in larger "super-districts" and achieve accurate representation of a state's partisan divide while empowering communities of racial minorities to elect preferred candidates.

We're drawing an alternative Texas plan right now that will underscore our point: you can balance competing goals best by simply putting voters first. For the moment, you can see an example of fair voting by viewing our recent California plan as part of our fair voting series that will present alternative plans for the entire country.

FairVote Feed: FairVote Blog

Rule Breaker: The Florida Republican Primary, Winner-Take-All Allocation, and the Undoing of American Democracy

Romney vs. Romney

States in which Romney 2012 has outperformed Romney 2008: 3States in which Romney 2008 has outperformed Romney 2012: 5

Presidential Tracker: New Evidence of our Shrinking Battleground

2011 Year-end Summary

The Supply Side: Alternative Reform Approaches to Campaign Finance

South Carolina Primary: One Candidate May Easily Win All Delegates

South Carolina voters better enjoy it while it lasts

RCV for the GOP: Mitt Romney, Fractured Conservatives, and the Importance of Rules in Determining Election Outcomes

FairVote Tracks GOP Primaries: Understanding Proportional Representation in NH

The Role of Proportional Representation in the New Hampshire Primary

Texas Redistricting in the Hands of the Supreme Court Yet Again

States in which Romney 2012 has outperformed Romney 2008: 3
States in which Romney 2008 has outperformed Romney 2012: 5