FairVote Feed: Research Reports

Top Two in Washington State

Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:55:16 -0700

Lost Votes in Vermont State Senate Elections

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:35:06 -0700

Legal Analysis of Alternative Single Winner Election Methods

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:39:57 -0700

Monopoly Politics 2012

Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:36:36 -0700

What's the partisan landscape in Congressional races in your state?

Monopoly Politics 2012 includes our analysis of the impact of redistricting, the partisan fundamentals for each state and each district, and our projections for the 2012 Congressional elections.

Update: November 7, 2012: All 333 of those projections proved to be correct.

2011-2012 Redistricting and District Partisanship Data for Every State

Overview of each state's redistricting process in 2011-2012
The partisanship rating for all 435 House districts
The partisanship rating for incumbents' 2012 district compared to their 2010 district, along with information about incumbents' past performance
Our 2012 election projections for every district based on these factors, made in July

Click a state name below for each report. Click here for National projections. Our methodology clarifies the reports.

Alabama	Hawaii	Massachusetts	New Mexico	South Dakota
Alaska	Idaho	Michigan	New York	Tennessee
Arizona	Illinois	Minnesota	North Carolina	Texas
Arkansas	Indiana	Mississippi	North Dakota	Utah
California	Iowa	Missouri	Ohio	Vermont
Colorado	Kansas	Montana	Oklahoma	Virginia
Connecticut	Kentucky	Nebraska	Oregon	Washington
Delaware	Louisiana	Nevada	Pennsylvania	West Virginia
Florida	Maine	New Hampshire	Rhode Island	Wisconsin
Georgia	Maryland	New Jersey	South Carolina	Wyoming

Pre-Election Analysis

Impact of redistricting - How redistricting in 2011-2012 affected voter choice and shielded vulnerable incumbents
Election projection overview - What our projections say about the 2012 elections and beyond
Power of partisanship - How district partisanship overwhelmed all other factors in 2010 elections
The great partisan shift in the South - Comparison of the partisan landscape in southern states in 1991 to 2011 and that shift's impact on competition and voting rights
Partisanship and crossover voting in the U.S. House - How district partisanship is the strongest explanation for why some Members break from their party's majority on certain votes

Post-Election Analysis

Update: November 29, 2012

FairVote Correctly Predicts 333 House Races: In July, FairVote made projections for 333 of the 435 congressional races in the 2012 election, all of which proved to be correct
Partisan Bias in U.S. House Elections: In a Washington Post op-ed, FairVote Executive Director Rob Richie argues that House elections have a significant structural bias in favor of Republicans as a result of winner-take-all elections
The Vanishing Congressional Moderate: The number of moderates in Congress is likely to further decline as a result of the 2012 elections, as district partisanship shows
Most Voters Wanted a Democratic House: FairVote's analytic methods demonstrate that although the Republicans won the House, 52% of voters preferred Democratic candidates
Incumbency Bump Analysis: An explanation of the incumbency bump received by incumbent candidates in 2012, and how that advantage fits into the context of recent congressional elections

Source Data: Find here a spreadsheet containing the complete data used to create the Monopoly Politics 2012 and Fair Voting 2012 reports. This data includes partisanship ratings and racial makeup for each congressional district before and after redistricting, as well as a breakdown of each proposed Super District by partisanship and race.

Related___

Dubious Democracy

Comprehensive state-by-state data on competition and representation in every state since 1982

Fair Voting 2012

FairVote's proposed maps for every state that would put nearly every voter in the United States in the position to elect candidates of choice in a competitive election
Fair Voting Interactive Map

Copyright of FairVote. You may download Content for your personal use only. You may not copy, reproduce, modify, distribute, publish, license, transfer, sell, or otherwise use this Content for any commercial purposes except pursuant to a separate written agreement with FairVote. To obtain permission for commercial use of this Content, please contact FairVote at info@fairvote.org.

No More Gerrymanders: Missouri

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:15:58 -0700

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: A History and Analysis of Relevant Supreme Court Cases

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:52:37 -0700

Federal Primary Runoff Elections and Voter Turnout Declines, 1994 - 2010

Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:03:09 -0700

This report analyzes turnout data for the 146 primary runoff elections held between 1994 and 2010. Primary runoffs are elections between the top two vote-getters that are held after the initial primary should no candidate surpass a certain vote threshold (typically a majority) in the first round. However, these elections are plagued with declining turnout that negates the representative nature of the system. Noting the numerous factors that may impact turnout decline, this report attempts to quantify and measure these effects to promote the best possible election policy.

Presidential Elections State-by-State: Hardening Partisanship

Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:44:27 -0700

Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable, to the point that only ten states were considered competitive in the 2012 election. Due to the state-by-state winner-take-all method of allocating Electoral College votes, competitive states receive much more campaign attention than their non-competitive counterparts.

The table below provides a state-by-state review of presidential outcomes and competitiveness. It shows how some states have not been competitive for than a half-century and how most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position for at least a decade. Additional information is available for download in PDF and Excel formats.

Highlighted Findings:

Number of States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012 = 41 of 51 states (counting D.C)

Number of States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012 = 32

Number of States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012 = 13

Number of States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012 = 19

Number of Safe Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988 = 7

Number of Safe Republican States Not Swing State since 1988 = 16

Definitions:

"Close state": A state with a margin of victory less than 6% in a given election

"Swing state": A state with partisanship rating between 47% and 53% in a given election

"Partisanship": A state's partisanship rating based on its deviation from the national partisan division between the major parties in a given presidential election

State	Last Year: Swing State	Last Year: Battleground	Last Year Won by Party That Lost State in 2012	# of Elections In a Row Won by Same Party
Alabama	1984	1980	1976	9
Alaska	1972	1968	1964	12
Arizona	1952	1996	1996	4
Arkansas	2000	2000	1996	4
California	1996	1988	1988	6
Colorado	2012	2012	2004	2
Connecticut	1992	1988	1988	6
Delaware	1992	1980	1988	6
District of Columbia*	(never)	(never)	(never)	13
Florida	2012	2012	2004	2
Georgia	1992	2008	1992	5
Hawaii	1992	1980	1984	7
Idaho	1948	1964	1964	12
Illinois	1988	1988	1988	6
Indiana	1984	2008	2008	1
Iowa	2012	2012	2004	2
Kansas	1988	1992	1964	12
Kentucky	1992	1996	1996	4
Louisiana	1996	1992	1996	4
Maine	2000	2000	1988	6
Maryland	1988	1988	1988	6
Massachusetts	1956	1984	1984	7
Michigan	2004	2004	1988	6
Minnesota	2012	2004	1972	10
Mississippi	1976	1996	1976	9
Missouri	2004	2008	1996	4
Montana	1992	2008	1992	5
Nebraska**	1912	1964	1964	12
Nevada	2012	2004	2004	2
New Hampshire	2012	2012	2000	3
New Jersey	1992	1992	1988	6
New Mexico	2004	2004	2004	2
New York	1976	1988	1984	7
North Carolina	2012	2012	2008	1
North Dakota	1988	1976	1964	12
Ohio	2012	2012	2004	2
Oklahoma	1976	1976	1964	12
Oregon	2000	2004	1984	7
Pennsylvania	2012	2012	1988	6
Rhode Island	1956	1984	1984	7
South Carolina	1960	1996	1976	9
South Dakota	1988	1996	1964	12
Tennessee	2000	2000	1996	4
Texas	1988	1996	1976	9
Utah	1948	1912	1964	12
Vermont	1988	1988	1988	6
Virginia	2012	2012	2004	2
Washington	2000	2000	1984	7
West Virginia	1972	1988	1996	4
Wisconsin	2012	2004	1984	7
Wyoming	1956	1992	1964	12

* The District of Columbia did not vote in presidential elections until the election of 1964, three years after the ratification of the 23rd amendment. It has voted for the Democratic candidate in every election since 1964.

**In 2008, Nebraska's 2nd congressional district was both a swing district and went to Barack Obama (D). However, the state as a whole has been solidly Republican for 50 years.

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

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

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

Not Your Parents' Presidential Elections: The Decline of Swing States, 1960-2008

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:43:27 -0700

Summary: American presidential elections have undergone a dramatic change in recent decades.The number of swing states (which are states defined as projected to be won by less than 10% in elections in which the major parties candidates split the national popular vote) has dropped sharply, especially since 1988 and especially among our nation's largest and smallest states.

For example, only one of the 13 smallest states and only four of the 27 smallest states were swing states in 2008, much fewer than in the 1980s. We don't see this imbalance changing soon -- indeed, in 2008 only three of the smallest 13 states were within even a 15% partisanship disparity.

Furthermore, at the other end of the population spectrum in our 11 largest population states,, fewer than half were swing states in 2004 and 2008 -- down from 10 out of 11 of these states in the 1960 and the 1976 presidential elections and 8 of these states in 1988.

Looking forward, none of the 2008 non-swing states are expected to become swing states in 2012, yet some 2008 swing states may well move to non-swing state status. This decline would continue a 50-year trend summarized here.

Swing States (within 9%) by # 2008 Electoral Votes, 1960-2008*
Year	2008 Electoral Vote 15 or more	2008 Electoral Votes 9 to 14	2008 Electoral Votes 5 to 8	2008 Electoral Votes 4 or less	Total
2008	5 of 11 states	6 of 13 states	3 of 14 states	1 of 13 states	15
2004	4 of 11	6 of 13	5 of 14	1 of 13	16
1988	8 of 11	4 of 13	8 of 14	6 of 13	26
1976	10 of 11	6 of 13	8 of 14	5 of 13	29
1960	10 of 11	7 of 13	8 of 14	6 of 13	31

*Washington, D.C. is included in all years except 1960

Partisanship Disparity (P), All States, 1960-2008*

Year	P=<9%	9%<P<20%	P>=20%	Notes
2008	15	19	17	13R & 4D landslide states
2004	16	20	15	10R & 5D landslide states
1988	27	22	2	1R & 1D landslide states
1976	29	14	8	5R & 3D landslide states
1960	31	13	6	2R & 4D landslide states

*Washington, D.C. is included in all years except 1960

Of 11 largest population states with 15 or more electors in 2008

2008: 5 states within 9% partisan division (FL,NC, NJ, OH, PA)

2004: 4 states within 9% partisan division (FL, MI, OH, PA)

1988: 8 states within 9% partisan division

1976: 10 states within 9% partisan division (all but GA)

1960: 10 states within a 9% partisan division (all but GA)

Of 13 mid-sized states with 9 to 14 electors in 2008

2008: 6 states within 9% partisan division (VA,IN,MO,MN,WI,CO)

2004: 6 states within 9% partisan division

1988: 5 states within 9% partisan division

1976: 6 states within 9% partisan division

1960: 7 states within 9% partisan division

Of 14 smaller mid-sized states with 5 to 8 electors in 2008

2008: 3 states within 9% partisan division (NM,IA,NV)

2004: 5 states within 9% partisan division

1988: 8 states within 9% partisan division

1976: 8 states within 9% partisan division

1960: 8 states within 9% partisan division

Of 13 smallest population states (including DC except in 1960) with 4 or fewer electors in 2008

2008: 1 state within 9% partisan division (NH /Only 2 more within 15%)

2004: 1 state within 9% partisan division (NH / Only 3 more within 15%)

1988: 6 states within 9% partisan division

1976: 5 states within a 9% partisan division

1960: 6 states within a 9% partisan division