FairVote Feed: FairVote Blog

The Next Step in Expanding Democracy?

Mon, 20 May 2013 09:21:37 -0700

Recently, several news outlets have noted a new expansion of suffrage in one small city in Maryland. On May 13, Takoma Park, Maryland - home of FairVote - became the first city to allow residents to vote in local elections at ages 16 and 17. As detailed in a FairVote news release, it adopted this new law along with two other charter changes designed to expand suffrage, and, separately, a powerful resolution in support of an affirmative right to vote in the Constitution.

Indeed, Takoma Park is now the first city to become what we call a "participation city" in our new Promote Our Vote project. Participation cities (and participation campuses) pass Promote Our Vote resolutions calling for a right to vote in the U.S. Constitution and creating a task force to review electoral laws and policies. The voting age change was part of this initiative, given evidence gathered by the council about its likely positive impact on how many young people take advantage of their first opportunity to vote.

As more localities debate Promote Our Vote resolutions, the conversation about who is included in the community of suffrage will expand. Age is not the only line that may be reevaluated. For example, Takoma Park also expanded suffrage rights for all residents after they have served their time in jail, joining a practice of many states. Another is whether citizenship status should be critical to exercising the fundamental right of suffrage.

Unlike voting at age 16, allowing all residents to vote, irrespective of citizenship, is not new. From the Founding until 1926, 22 states and federal territories permitted noncitizens to vote in local, state and even federal elections. And of course citizenship has never guaranteed the right to vote either: for example, female citizens prior to 1920 could not vote in most states.

Even today, several communities continue to allow anyone to vote in local elections who has lived there, based on the notion that if a person lives in a community, works there, pays taxes, and otherwise has a real stake in local government, they should be allowed a voice in how that government is run. Six of those communities are in Maryland - including Takoma Park.

Key arguments made in favor of the change include:

Individuals should have a say in the laws that govern them;
We need to close the gap between local government and the people it serves; and
Immigrants make enormous financial, social and cultural contributions.

FairVote does not have a position on non-citizen voting beyond believing that communities should debate the issue with an open mind.

A strong coalition has formed to promote the issue in New York City, led by the group IVote. On May 9th the New York City local government held hearings on legislation to allow legal, non-citizen residents to vote in its local elections. A large majority of the city council has endorsed the change.

I went to New York City to testify both as to our position on suffrage as a fundamental right and to provide descriptions of the Maryland experience on election administration of noncitizens voting. In preparation for my testimony, I conducted interviews with town clerks and managers in several of the Maryland cities that allow non-citizen residents to vote. None of them reported any controversy over the practice or any attempt at repeal. Takoma Park even reported wariness about consolidating local and congressional elections because it would complicate the practice (no city allows non-citizens to vote in federal elections, as doing so would violate federal law). These cities use a separate voter registration form and maintain a separate voter roll for non-citizen voters, but on Election Day the rolls are consolidated so that no one knows whether a particular voter is a citizen or not - only whether they are properly registered to vote for that election.

This discussion takes on special relevance when viewed in the context of the right to vote as a fundamental right. When seen in that light, any question of suffrage is not "should [group] be allowed to vote?" but rather "should [group] continue to be denied the fundamental right to vote?" For this reason, FairVote recommends that communities consider these changes in the context of the Promote Our Vote movement for an affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. In that way, all questions are grounded in principle, not politics.

To find out about introducing a Right to Vote resolution in your community or campus, visit http://www.promoteourvote.com.

Philippines Holds Elections Using Degree of Proportional Representation

Fri, 17 May 2013 10:23:58 -0700

The results from Monday's midterm elections in the Philippines are in, with President Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III's Liberal Party and his ruling coalition "Team PNoy" (named after their leader) coming out on top. Although President Aquino himself was not up for reelection (his 6-year term expires in 2016, after which he may not run again), success in the elections was considered vital for his agenda. In addition to maintaining its control of the House of Representatives, Team PNoy is poised to pick up nine of the 12 contested Senate seats this cycle, making Aquino the first president since the restoration of democracy in 1986 to have majorities in both houses of Congress.

As a former American colony that elects a component of its national legislature using proportional representation, the Philippines' elections are of particular interest. But because of the unusual nature of the proportional seats and the unique characteristics of the politics of the Philippines, few conclusions can be drawn from these elections about how proportional systems could work in other American-style democracies.

The elections in the Philippines come on the heels of a controversial decision by the country's Supreme Court on its party list system, used to elect 20% of the seats in the House of Representatives. Under the terms of the Philippines' 1987 Constitution, 80% of the seats in the House are comprised of single-member geographic districts, with the rest of the seats reserved for at-large party list seats. The party list component of the House does not follow the traditional model of simply giving each party seats in proportion to their nationwide vote share. Instead, the framers of the 1987 Constitution mandated that the party list must represent "labour, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector." The goal of this system, as articulated in a 1995 law, was to "enable Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties... to become members of the House of Representatives."

The results of the party list have been mixed. Because parties running for list seats needed to be independent of the national parties, the system provides the opportunity for marginalized groups to express themselves in government. In reality, however, critics have noted that many of the representatives coming from the PR tier are relatives of the prosperous and well-connected political elite that dominates Philippine society. Nevertheless, the party list has created a small degree of proportional representation and allowed groups representing senior citizens, women, farmers, and others to participate in governance.

The manner in which parties are elected to the PR tier is unique and somewhat complex. All parties that receive 2% or more of the vote receive a seat, although a party receiving 6% or more of the vote is capped at three seats. Since a 2009 Supreme Court ruling, any of the 55 seats in the PR tier that remain are allocated to parties receiving less than 2% of the vote until all seats are filled.

That brings us back to the most recent Supreme Court ruling on April 5^th, 2013, which altered the nature of the PR tier just over a month before the election. The Court ruled that national and regional parties could now run in the party list along with marginalized and underrepresented groups. The Court remanded to the Commission on Elections (Comelec) the petitions of 39 parties that Comelec had previously denied entrance to the party list. Although the major parties, such as Aquino's Liberal Party, may not run directly in the PR tier, the ruling allows for larger parties, potentially affiliated with the major parties, to run in the elections.

Reaction to the ruling has been divided. Unsurprisingly, previously-banned parties that are now allowed to participate, such as the Ako Bicol party, support the ruling, arguing that it provides much-needed reforms and includes safeguards to protect the system from abuse by the rich and powerful. Constitutional scholar and retired justice Vicente Mendoza lauded the decision as well, noting that the intent of the Constitution all along was to open up the party list to non-sectoral groups after a certain amount of time. Criticism of the ruling, however, has been strong as well, with party list groups as well as watchdogs warning that the decision "opened the floodgates for powerful, filthy rich and long-established personalities and groups to infiltrate and dominate the world of real marginalized and underrepresented sectors," as one recent op-ed in the Philippine Daily Inquirer put it.

But a look at the party list winners of Monday's elections shows that the claims of both those supporting and opposing the ruling were likely overstated. The latest vote totals released by Comelec show the Buhay party list in the lead, with a little over a million votes (4.7% of total votes cast). Buhay is a pro-life party founded by the multimillionaire leader of the charismatic Catholic religious group El Shaddai, Mike Velarde, and had been allowed to run and win seats in the 2010 election. Fourth-place finisher Akbayan, meanwhile, has members serving in the executive branch and was explicitly endorsed by President Aquino; it too has been running in the PR tier for years. The Court's ruling did little to affect the underlying fact of the concentration of political power in the elite families of the Philippines, a problem that is by no means unique to the party list. Philippine society on the whole is dominated by celebrities and a handful of political dynasties. The presence of the wealthy elite in the PR tier is less a cause than it is a symptom of deeper problems in the politics of the Philippines.

Consequently, the success or failure of the Philippines' current party list system cannot be used to predict the results of applying proportional representation to other countries currently using winner-take-all, simply because the system itself and the politics surrounding it are so unusual.

Furthermore, there is not an obvious electoral solution to prescribe for the Philippines to address all the unique challenges its political system faces. However, many of the problems that continue to plague elections in the Philippines, such as uncompetitive elections and distorted outcomes, are common in winner-take-all systems. Shifting away from the current party list system, which comprises a small tier that gives a few representatives to minor interests, to a more broadly proportional system that accurately represents all parties, viewpoints, and interests in the nation would likely benefit the Philippines in the long term.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Election Administration Under National Popular Vote: Simpler Than You Might Think

Wed, 15 May 2013 10:18:01 -0700

Connecticut State Capitol

The National Popular Vote plan has been making great strides in state legislatures around the country. A few weeks ago, it passed the Oregon House of Representatives, and it is poised to pass other legislative chambers in the coming months, including in Connecticut, a state I had the privilege to call home for four years.

Unfortunately, there are still some misconceptions out there about what the bill does and what that would mean for presidential elections. A few of these misconceptions were recently expressed by Luther Weeks of Connecticut Voters Count, a Connecticut-based election integrity organization, in a comment made under an article about former presidential candidate Michael Dukakis’ recent visit to Connecticut to support the passage of the National Popular Vote there. Weeks' concerns center around questions of election administration under National Popular Vote, namely, whether there is an official national popular vote count based on which compacting states would be able select their electors, and how a recount might work under a national populate vote. He also worries that a lack of uniformity in state voting procedures could make the votes in some states count more than others.

His concerns are not unusual among skeptics of the National Popular Vote plan. Luckily, each question is easy to answer.

An Official National Popular Vote Count

Some question whether there is an official national popular vote count for the purposes of this bill, since under National Popular Vote, compacting states select their slate of electors based on who won the popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The quick answer is that there is an official national popular vote count. The National Popular Vote bill defines the national popular vote count as the summation of the popular vote count in every state, as certified by the chief election official in each state. Under section 6 of Title 3 of the United States Code, every state is required to report its official vote count in a Certificate of Ascertainment to the Archivist of the United States prior to the mid-December meeting of the Electoral College. Since every state is required to report its official vote count prior to the meeting of the Electoral College – more specifically, six days prior to the meeting, as specified under section 5 of Title 3 of United States Code – states party to the National Popular Vote plan will be able to determine the official national popular vote total by adding up the vote totals reported in each Certificate of Ascertainment prior to the meeting of their own electors.

Recounts under National Popular Vote

Luther Weeks was correct when he pointed out that there are no national recount or audit laws. Under the National Popular Vote plan, each state would be responsible for conducting recounts within their own borders, just as they are under the current system. Thus, under the National Popular Vote plan, if a presidential candidate desired a recount in every state, they would need to request one in every state, in accordance with each states’ individual recount procedures. In effect, recounts under the National Popular Vote plan would operate the same way that they do today, on a state-by-state basis. Of course, recount are extremely rare, and are also extremely unlikely to alter the outcome of an election. Between 2000 and 2012, of the 4,072 statewide elections that took place, only 22 resulted in a recount. Of those 22 elections, only three resulted in a different candidate winning than after the original count, and the average change in the outcome was a decrease in the margin of victory of 294 votes. Under a national popular vote, a recount would be highly unlikely, but if it were to occur, individual states would control how those recounts were conducted, just as they do under the current system.

Voter Fraud and Error

Some claim that the current system is preferable to a national popular vote because under the current system, any fraud occurring in one state would only affect the electoral votes in that state, and not nationwide. However, even if under the current system, fraud would only affect the electoral votes in one state, if that state was the last state that a candidate needed to reach the winning threshold of 270 electoral votes, than the fraud in that state could easily affect who becomes the next president. Therefore, under the current system, fraud and error would be more likely to change the outcome of an election than under National Popular Vote.

For example, in 2000, a flip of 527 votes from George W. Bush to Al Gore in Florida would have made Gore president, while under a national popular vote, and a flip of 250,000 would have been necessary to change the outcome. In 2004, flipping 60,000 votes in Ohio would have made John Kerry, not George W. Bush, president, while nationwide, 1.5 million Bush supporters would have needed to vote for Kerry to alter the outcome. It is hard to imagine a national popular vote, in which about 130 million votes are cast, with margins as narrow as we saw in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.

Equality Between States

Under National Popular Vote, every vote would be equal, unlike under our current winner-take-all system, when a vote in Ohio is far more likely to alter the result of the election than a vote in Connecticut, and is therefore valued far more highly by presidential candidates. It is true that states that suppress their voter turnout will contribute fewer votes to the national popular vote total than they could, and it is at the discretion of those states’ legislators to change their election rules to increase their share of the national popular vote by enfranchising more of their citizens. In this way, National Popular Vote promotes fairness in presidential elections, while our current system perpetuates an unacceptable inequality that must be changed.

Got any more questions? Email Andrea at alevien@fairvote.org. Also, you can find more detailed answers to these questions in Chapter 9 of the new edition of Every Vote Equal, available for free download at Every-vote-equal.com.

The Elizabeth Colbert-Busch Guide to Running in the Other Party’s Safe Districts

Wed, 08 May 2013 15:51:07 -0700

AP Photo

It's no secret that congressional elections have a bit of a competitiveness problem. Most congressional districts invariably vote for either Republicans or Democrats. In those districts, the minority party's candidates have no hope of winning elections, and their voters have no hope of winning representation. Take the 2012 election, when Democrats didn't pick up a single seat in the 201 districts where Mitt Romney beat Barack Obama by more than 4% and Republicans didn't pick up a single seat in the 167 districts where Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney by at least 11%. That's an awful lot of safe districts.

But maybe you're foolhardy enough to believe you could actually break through those impenetrable partisan walls. You're a Democrat in a red district or a Republican in a blue district, and you want nothing more than to represent your district in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Well, with this election-tested* guide, you too can fruitlessly struggle to overcome our increasingly hyper-partisan winner-take-all congressional elections. If you follow the guide closely, you might even feel like you have a real chance at winning your race before your inevitable failure on Election Day.

Before we get started, it goes without saying that you need to run a strong campaign, not have any personal baggage, raise at least twice as much money as your opponent, and decisively win any debates.

Once you've got that down, just follow these four simple steps.

*Guide tested in South Carolina District 1 special election between Elizabeth Colbert-Busch and Mark Sanford, May 7, 2013. SC-1 voted for Mitt Romney at 11 points above his national average in 2012. Sanford won the election with 54% of the vote.

1. Timing is everything. Whatever you do, don't run in the general election. General elections have a high turnout and are highly predictable. Voters are unlikely to split their tickets.

Instead, wait until a special election - that is, until your current representative is appointed to a higher office, retires mid-term, resigns in disgrace, or dies. It should happen eventually, if you don't die of old age first yourself. Special elections tend to garner national attention, and they allow more emphasis to be placed on the individual candidates.

2. Support the other party's policy positions. There's no way you can get elected just by representing the viewpoints of your party's supporters. Don't completely forsake them, but also don't be afraid to register your opposition to your party's most important legislative accomplishment in recent memory.

3. Family fame. You're going to want to have a close relative who is a popular celebrity. Not just a B-lister; this should be someone who has a personal legion of fans from both parties and, preferably, a TV show on which to advertise your candidacy and mock your opponent.

Speaking of which...

4. Choose your opponent wisely. This may be the most important step. If you're facing an average or even mediocre candidate from the other party, you will lose. Your opponent needs to be embarrassing.

Here's an example of an opponent who was bad, but not bad enough: in 2008, Representative Henry Brown (R), incumbent of South Carolina's District 1 (61% Republican), was forced to pay a fine for starting a fire that ended up burning down 20 acres of a national forest. Brown still won his election by 4%.

No, you'll want an opponent who's done something even more embarrassing than recklessly causing massive environmental destruction. Something like a sex scandal. Better yet: a sex scandal funded by taxpayer money.

In case the scandal took place a while ago, try and keep it current. Make sure your opponent does something new to remind everyone of the really scandalous thing he or she did, like trespassing on an ex-spouse's property. It should ideally be shameful enough that your opponent's national campaign committee pulls out all its funding from the race.

DISCLAIMER: If you somehow manage to make all of that happen, don't get too excited. You will still almost certainly lose. And if you do win the special election, you'll probably just lose in the next general election anyway. But at least you did everything you could to strike a blow for disenfranchised minority party voters all over the country!

Except for one thing: if you get tired of waiting for that perfect storm to hit your district, you could always help the U.S. House switch to using multi-member districts elected under fair voting methods that would guarantee minority party voters the ability to elect a candidate in every district in the country. No sex scandal necessary - just a federal statutory change.

How Districts Plus Has Worked for German Elections

Fri, 03 May 2013 09:44:35 -0700

FairVote has posted several times recently about the benefits that a Districts Plus electoral system (also known as mixed member proportional representation) can confer: namely, combining the advantages of local, personal representation with overall proportionality. But you don't have to take our word for it. Districts Plus-like systems have been proven to be effective in national elections in some of the world's most robust democracies.

Headlining that list is the Federal Republic of Germany, which has used a version of mixed member proportional since the Bundestag was established in 1949 under the guidance of the United States. Germany's current system allows voters to cast two votes: one for a representative in their single-member district, and another for a nationwide party list that will compensate parties for any distortions caused by the single-member districts. Thus, Germans have both local representatives and a parliament that accurately represents the political views of the whole of Germany.

Despite its success, the German electoral system has attracted some undeserved negative attention of late - enough that in November of 2012, Foreign Policy ranked Germany at the bottom of its list of the five electoral systems worse than the Electoral College. But this criticism has been enormously overstated.

Here's the background: on July 25, 2012, Germany's Constitutional Court ruled the current electoral system unconstitutional due to the problem of "overhang seats." It was the second time that the court had declared the system unconstitutional in four years, and it temporarily left Germany without an electoral law.

The issue, in short, was that Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Party was winning so many constituency (single-member district) seats that the party list seats were unable to compensate for the distortion. After the 2009 election, the 598-seat Bundestag proportionally reflected the votes that each party received in Germany's states. Because the CDP won more seats via constituencies than its proportion of the vote in several states, however, these extra or "overhang" seats were added to the Bundestag, creating a legislature of 622 seats.

Of course, the extra seats created a small degree of disproportionality in CDP's favor. The overhang seats also led to the unusual phenomenon where voting for a party in a region where they won overhang seats could actually lead to that party winning fewer nationwide seats, which is what the court objected to.

It's worth remembering that these problems only seem significant in the context of an electoral system that is almost completely proportional and in which opportunities for strategic voting are minimal. In the U.S., our distorted and strategy-prone electoral system wouldn't register an issue this miniscule. Given that context, Foreign Policy's dubious honor is absurd.

Fortunately, Germany now seems to have addressed the small flaws in its system, as the Bundestag passed a new electoral law in February that guarantees that parties will receive "balance seats" to compensate for any disproportionality caused by overhang seats. While this new law may result in a larger legislature, it will ensure that the Bundestag more accurately reflects the votes of the German electorate.

The overhang seat controversy has shown that Germany is able to recognize the flaws in its electoral system and correct them. The United States would do well to follow its lead. While a German-style Districts Plus system could not be implemented nationwide in the U.S. without a constitutional amendment, it could realistically be used by many state legislatures that suffer from distorted outcomes and uncompetitive elections. In fact, FairVote has proposed such a plan for the Michigan State House of Representatives.

To be a voter in Germany is to know that your vote will always have an effect on the outcome of an election, regardless of how competitive your local district is. Even when large parties such as the Christian Democrats prevail in the Bundestag elections, other parties and viewpoints are still able to win representation and influence policy. American voters need look no further than Germany to see just how much better their experience with democracy could be.

Winner-Take-All Elections Exacerbate Kenya's Ethnic Tensions

Thu, 02 May 2013 08:49:25 -0700

On March 30th, the Kenyan Supreme Court upheld the election of Uhuru Kenyatta to the Kenyan Presidency, dismissing claims of electoral fraud brought by his primary challenger, Raila Odinga. While the court's decision was met with some protests and scattered reports of violence, these disturbances paled in comparison to the chaos surrounding the 2007-2008 Kenyan electoral crisis, which left over 1,000 people dead and many more injured. The relative peace surrounding this year's contest, along with Odinga's decision to respect the court's ruling instead of calling for mass demonstrations, have led some to declare the 2013 elections a victory for Kenyan democracy.

Still, the election's results demonstrate that politics in Kenya remain highly contentious, with the electorate fracturing sharply along ethnic divides. Despite concerted efforts to push voters away from ethnic politics and towards consideration of the candidates' résumés and policies, the largest parties in the political coalitions that nominated Kenyatta and Odinga are each closely tied to one of Kenya's largest ethnic groups. Kenyatta is Kikuyu, while his running-mate, William Ruto, is Kalenjin. The pair won lopsided victories in areas with majority Kikuyu and Kalenjin populations. Odinga, who is Luo, and his running mate Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka, who is Kamba, won by wide margins in Luo and Kamba areas of the country.

These ethnic divides are more salient in Kenyan politics than any regional or ideological differences. As the New York Times noted after this year's election, "some areas voted 95 percent for the politician from their ethnic group, while other areas, equally poor, with people in very similar circumstances, voted 95 percent in the opposite direction." The dominance of these ethnic cleavages is reinforced by the traditional practice of Kenyan leaders rewarding their ethnic constituencies with land, import licenses, and other benefits, to the exclusion of other groups. Though Kenyatta has billed himself as a reformer, there is little evidence that he will depart from this pattern of ethnically-based patronage politics.

Kenya's largely winner-take-all electoral system exacerbates these ethnic tensions in ways that other electoral systems might avoid. Like many former British colonies in East Africa, most of Kenya's legislators (47 of 68 senators, and 337 of 349 members of the National Assembly) are elected through winner-take-all contests in single-member districts. Because Kenyan counties tend to be much more ethnically and politically homogenous than Kenya as a whole (while Kenyatta received just over 50% of the vote nationally, in most districts he received either over 80% or less than 30% of the vote), minority groups in many of these districts stand little chance of ever electing representatives to the Kenyan National Assembly or Senate.

Non-competitive elections like these are a common feature of single-member district systems around the world. Winner-take-all also often leads to distortions between the demographics of the electorate and the composition of government, as has been the case in previous Kenyan elections. For example, in 1992 the Kenyan African National Union party (KANU) won a 53.2% majority of seats in parliament with just a 24.5% share of the popular vote. In 1997, KANU again won a majority of the seats in parliament, this time with 38.4% of the popular vote.

Kenyans of all ethnic groups would be better served if country's newest constitution, adopted in 2010, had abandoned the British tradition of single-member districts and winner-take-all elections in favor of a multi-member district system of proportional representation. If each Kenyan electoral district elected multiple representatives, Kenyans of ethnic groups that are in the minority in their district would still be able to have their voices heard in government, and the potential for continued distortions between the popular vote and government would be reduced.

The single transferable vote method of electing representatives in multimember districts, which FairVote refers to as choice voting, would provide Kenyan politicians with much-needed incentives to reach across ethnic divisions in order to earn high rankings from voters in other groups. This would have a moderating effect on Kenya's polarized ethnic politics, as candidates would be rewarded for broadening their appeal beyond their ethnic base. Instant runoff voting could provide similar benefits in elections for single-seat offices such as the Kenyan presidency by encouraging candidates to build broad coalitions and reach out to their opponents' supporters, potentially reducing the likelihood of future post-election violence.

The tendency of ranked choice systems and proportional representation to foster constructive dialogue and deescalate political tensions should make it an attractive choice not only in the ethnically-polarized Kenya but also in the increasingly dysfunctional and partisan political environment of the United States.

FairVote Maps the 2012 Presidential Campaign

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:57:43 -0700

For some time now, we have known that presidential candidates focus their attention and energy on swing states. They do this because under the winner-take-all method of allocating Electoral College votes, the only states that matter are the ones that could go for either the Democrat or the Republican, while the ones that are squarely for one party or the other do not matter. For example, in 2012, the presidential candidates focused on only ten states. Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire were the only states in which Barack Obama and Mitt Romney held public campaign events after the Democratic National Convention, and those same ten states received 99.6% of all the Obama and Romney campaigns' television advertising money spent nationwide between April 11 and Election Day.

But where within the swing states did the candidates travel? Did they travel everywhere within these swing states, or just to the largest cities? How did geography and demography within swing states affect their campaign strategy?

Now, we have the answers.

FairVote has published a new map charting in detail when and where the presidential and vice presidential candidates campaigned after the 2012 Democratic National Convention in early September. Overall, the candidates attended 253 events in 168 different cities and towns, 59% of which were held in just three states (Ohio, Florida, and Virginia).

As we can see from our map, while the candidates did spent a lot of time in the largest swing state cities and their suburbs, they also traveled to more remote areas in search of votes as well. For example, in Ohio, the candidates traveled to 49 different cities and towns over the course of 73 different events. 37 of those events (50%), were in the three largest metropolitan statistical areas (urban cores and their surrounding suburbs), or MSAs, in Ohio. However, 48% of all Ohio residents live in these three metro areas, so the candidates' attention to voters there is not surprising. Conversely, Iowa's five largest MSAs contained only 37% of its population, and therefore the candidates held only 44% of their events there.

Below is a roundup of how the candidates divided their time in the most targeted swing states. As we will see, the candidates gave areas within swing states attention in proportion to their population size.

For a more detailed look, check out our Google Map, and for a look at our work, you can find our spreadsheet here.

Ohio

Number of campaign events held in state: 73 (29% of all visits)

Number of cities and towns visited in state: 49

Three Biggest MSAs: Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati (contain 48% of the state's population and 52% of events held)

Number of Events in these MSAs: 38

Number of individual cities and towns within these MSAs that were visited: 23

Florida

Number of campaign events held in state: 40 (16% of all visits)

Number of cities and towns visited in state: 28

Four Biggest MSAs: Miami, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville (contain 63% of the state's population and 70% of events held)

Number of Events in these MSAs: 28

Number of individual cities and towns within these MSAs that were visited: 19

Virginia

Number of campaign events held in state: 36 (14% of all visits)

Number of cities and towns visited in state: 22

Three Biggest MSAs: Washington, Virginia Beach, Richmond (contain 69% of the state's population and 69% of events held)

Number of Events in these MSAs: 25

Number of individual cities and towns within these MSAs that were visited: 13

Iowa

Number of campaign events held in state: 27 (11% of all visits)

Number of cities and towns visited in state: 18

Five Biggest MSAs: Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Waterloo, Iowa City (contain 37% of the state's population and 44% of events held)

Number of Events in these MSAs: 11

Number of individual cities and towns within these MSAs that were visited: 7

Colorado

Number of campaign events held in state: 23 (9% of all visits)

Number of cities and towns visited in state: 15

Biggest MSA: Denver (contains 51 % of the state's population and 48% of events held)

Number of Events in these MSAs: 11

Number of individual cities and towns within these MSAs that were visited: 8

Wisconsin

Number of campaign events held in state: 18 (7% of all visits)

Number of cities and towns visited in state: 13

Three Biggest MSAs: Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay (contain 42 % of the state's population and 56% of events held)

Number of Events in these MSAs: 10

Number of individual cities and towns within these MSAs that were visited: 8

Nevada

Number of campaign events held in state: 13 (5% of all visits)

Number of cities and towns visited in state: 4

Two Biggest MSAs: Las Vegas and Reno (contains 94% of the state's population and 100% of events held)

Number of Events in these MSAs: 13

Number of individual cities and towns within these MSAs that were visited: 4

New Hampshire

Number of campaign events held in state: 13 (5% of all visits)

Number of cities and towns visited in state: 9

Biggest Combined Statistical Area (encompassing mutliple MSAs): Boston (contains 78% of the state's population and 92% of events held)

Number of Events in these MSAs: 12

Number of individual cities and towns within these MSAs that were visited: 8

As we can see, there is some variation between states in the way that candidates travel within them, but the candidates do usually travel to areas based on their population sizes. The variety comes from that fact that some of these states are far more urban than others, and therefore, the concentration of campaign events are less dispersed in these states than in more rural states. In Nevada, for example, 94% of the population lives in the areas surrounding the state's two largest cities (Las Vegas and Reno). This population distribution incentivized the candidates to campaign only in these cities and their suburbs, since that was where most of the voters were. Conversely, in Iowa, the five largest MSAs only combined to make up 37% of the state population, incentivizing the candidates to travel throughout the state and visit different locations (18, to be exact), in search of votes.

Although it is impossible to know exactly how presidential campaigns would be run under a national popular vote, it is reasonable to assume that in an election in which every vote, in every state, was equally important, presidential and vice presidential candidates would divvy up their campaign attention nationwide in proportion to each area's share of the population. In that case, every state would host at least one event with a presidential or vice presidential candidate, and the midsized and larger states would receive multiple events, in both their urban and rural areas. A larger cross-section of the country would experience presidential elections and have a say in who becomes our commander in chief, and therefore, when National Popular Vote passes, our presidential elections will be better for it.

FairVote’s Top Ten List: The Breakdown of Winner-Take-All Elections

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:35:12 -0700

Want the facts faster? Take a look at this one-pager on our top 10 indicators of the breakdown of winner-take-all.

Geography has become an increasingly rigid indicator of which political party will win a state or legislative district in the United States. Voters are far more likely to vote only for candidates from a single political party, and to vote for that same party from election to election. When there is a shift in an area's underlying partisanship, it is now more likely to be away from the national political center than towards it.

The end results of these trends include:

- A Congress that is more partisan in its voting behavior than at any time in recent history, and legislative leaders who consistently use every procedural tool available to dominate the opposing party when in the majority, or to obstruct it when in the minority.

- A partisan voting consistency that means less ticket splitting in votes for president, Congress, and state elections.

- A pattern of majority domination that removes that vast majority of states from the battleground in presidential elections. This pattern incentivizes candidates to allocate more than 99% of their attention and resources on courting voters in just 10 states.

- A partisan consistency in congressional districts that makes it difficult for either party to make gains in the House outside of a shrinking band of competitive districts. The vast majority of incumbents are secure in their districts and do not have to worry about reelection.

Top political analysts have been addressing these trends, including the Washington Post's Dan Balz, the Cook Political Report's Charlie Cook and Crystal Ball's Rhodes Cook. But one factor consistently overlooked by these analysts is that this partisan gridlock can be remedied with a simple change in electoral rules. By doing away with winner-take-all voting laws, by which 50% + 1 of the vote earns 100% of representation in a single state or district, political polarization could be substantially remedied, and voters would find themselves more accurately represented in their legislative bodies.

Many people wring their hands over how district lines are drawn, highlight the dangers of voting laws designed to reduce voter participation, or bemoan the role of money in politics. But however important these issues may be, they collectively have a minor effect on electoral outcomes when contrasted with the overwhelming power of winner-take-all voting rules. Under winner-take-all, once a candidate in a race for a congressional seat or a state in a presidential race has a partisan balance three percentage points or more away from the national vote, the odds of a victory for supporters of the minority party plunge.

Once an area's partisanship is six percent or more away from the national vote, any party shift is nearly impossible.

Fortunately, we can ditch the winner-take-all voting laws that have impaired our electoral process for far too long. With simple changes to federal and state statutes, the US can be on its way to better and fairer elections. The United States has a long history of using different voting rules that would, absent any other changes, dramatically improve elections, representation, and legislative behavior. To underscore the urgency of consideration of these reforms, FairVote has made a list of the top ten biggest indicators that winner-take-all elections have contributed to the polarization and stagnation that plagues our political process.

Definition of terms:

A swing state or congressional district is one that voted within three points of the national popular vote for president (47%-53% partisanship), meaning that their partisanship leaning is similar to the nation's as a whole. Presidential elections in states and congressional elections in districts (especially if there is an open seat or a first-term incumbent) within this partisanship band are likely to be competitive in a nationally competitive election.

A safe state or congressional district is one that voted at least 8 percentage points more Democratic or Republican than the national popular vote for president (42%-58% partisanship). Barring a landslide election for one party nationally, there is virtually no chance that any of these states or districts held by the majority party will be won by the minority party.

Presidential Elections

1. Decreasing state competition: In 1988, safe states collectively held only 40 electoral votes. In 2012, they held 247 electoral votes. During that time the number of electoral votes held by swing states shrunk by nearly half, from 272 to 140.

2. Consistent voting patterns: Between 2000 and 2012, 41 states voted for the same party in every presidential election. In both 2008 and 2012, 35 of these states received less than 1/100th of the attention from the presidential campaigns that they would have received if every state received attention in proportion to its population.

3. More partisan rigidity: The number of states where partisanship shifted by five or more percentage points between elections has decreased from an average of 23 states between 1960 and 1976 to an average of three between 2000 and 2012.

Congressional Elections

4. Decreasing district competition: Between 1998 and 2012, the number of swing districts decreased from 121 to 47. There are now 284 safe congressional districts, up from 179 in 1998.

5. Increasing dominance of partisanship over local factors: Only six incumbents remain in seats that favored the other party by a margin of more than eight percentage points in the 2012 presidential election, down from 34 such incumbents after the 2006 election and down from 47 after the 1992 election. In 2012, neither party took a seat away from the other party in a district that favored the opposing party by more than eight percentage points. Only six percent of districts (26) voted for different parties for president and Congress in 2012.

6. More partisan rigidity: Comparing partisanship in current congressional districts based on the 2008 presidential elections and 2012 presidential elections, only 30 districts (7%) experienced a partisanship shift of five or more percentage points - and all but four of those districts trended in the direction of the previous majority party, making them less competitive.

7. More regional domination: In 2012, large areas of the nation were dominated by one party. Democrats swept all 21 House seats in New England while Republicans won all 22 seats in the belt of states running from Arkansas through Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. In 1992, Republicans held 10 House seats in New England and Democrats held 14 House seats in this line of midwestern and western states.

8. More racial connection to partisanship: White Republicans represent 66 of 70 majority-white U.S. House districts in the adjoining nine states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. In 1991, 50 white Democrats represented these states, nearly all in white majority districts.

State Elections

9. More monopoly-controlled states: In 38 states, one party controls the governor's mansion and both state legislative houses - and the presidential candidate from the same party won 31 of those states in 2012. This is the largest number of states with one-party-monopoly governments since World War II.

10. More partisan rigidity: In North Carolina's 2012 elections for its 120-seat House of Representatives, 119 seats were won by the candidate with a partisan advantage in his or her district. In New Jersey's first election since its new two-member legislative districts were drawn by a commission in 2011, all 40 assembly districts elected two members of the same party.

As we can see, the phrase "all politics is local" has been replaced with "all politics is partisan." To see how we can fix presidential, congressional, and state legislative elections, visit

Presidential Elections: www.fairvote.org/national-popular-vote

Congressional Elections: www.fairvoting.us

Have your own favorite example of winner-take-all breakdown? Send it to us at info@fairvote.org.

Remembering Bob Edgar

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:31:15 -0700

When my husband, Rob Richie, shared the news of the death of Common Cause president Bob Edgar with me this morning I felt a rush of shock and sadness. I met Bob in the fall of 1982 at an event in Media, Pennsylvania – when I was 18 and in my first semester at Swarthmore College. A number of us were active on campus on a range of issues and we found in Bob an eloquent and tenacious representative in Congress.

I soon began to volunteer in his district office, amidst tough fights on abortion rights and middle-east policy and later worked on his bid for the US Senate in 1986. During that campaign I had the honor to hear him speak truth to power many times a day for months on end. In between events and appearances he would educate me about immigration legislation and weapons systems and the complexities of government.

Over the ensuing 25 years I had the pleasure of hearing Bob speak in larger settings, at gatherings of Quakers and activists and political consultants. His message was always grounded deeply in his faith and in his passion for change.

During his tenure as president of Common Cause, our paths crossed again, this time as colleagues in the struggle to improve the very core of democracy. The issues he championed—including campaign finance reform, the filibuster and FairVote priorities like a national popular vote for president, universal voter registration and redistricting reform -- are all grounded in the profound understanding that every voice in a democracy is vital to its strength. Kathay Feng of California Common Cause today wrote that “one of the things Bob tried to teach all of us was to remember the humanity of each and every person.”

Bob Edgar’s lived his life as if in direct response to this admonition from Quaker founder George Fox in 1656:

“Be patterns, be examples in all countries, places, islands, nations wherever you come; that your carriage and life may preach among all sorts of people, and to them; then you will come to walk cheerfully over the world, answering that of God in everyone; whereby in them you may be a blessing, and make the witness of God in them to bless you.”

His tireless advocacy for peace, justice and democracy has opened many hearts and minds.