Ensuring A Majority; Top-Three With RCV / IRV – Can Voters Accept and Understand?

The goal of any election, whether for political or organizational office, is for the winner to be the candidate that receives the majority of the votes cast.  Using an election process that ensures a majority, rather than a plurality winner, means the candidate elected most likely represents the views of a majority of their constituents.  

Perhaps that is why 17 political jurisdictions, 101 political parties, organizations and corporations, and 68 colleges and universities use some form of Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting (RCV / IRV). (* These numbers represent those reported. Actual use could be higher) Perhaps that is why The Utah Republican Party and the Arlington County, VA, County Democratic Committee (ACDC) have implemented RCV / IRV.  Perhaps that is why Roberts Rules of Order, the leading parliamentary standard includes the use of RCV / IRV. Perhaps that is why politicians, political organizations and publications endorse RCV / IRV. Perhaps that is why a system first used in the late 1800’s is still in use today.

There is a slightly held misconception that RCV / IRV is difficult to understand, that voters will have difficulty casting their ballots and not accept RCV / IRV. Exit data and polls combined with the level of use outlined above clearly put that misconception to rest.

In one group of polling data looking at San Francisco, CA; Burlington, VT; Takoma Park, MD; Cary, NC; and Hendersonville, NC, an average 89 percent of voters understood RCV / IRV.  78.4 percent preferred its use.

In Portland, ME, 94 percent of voters understood RCV / IRV with 66 percent finding it easy. Voters also found campaigns to be more positive with more information available.

In Minneapolis, MN, 90 percent understood the process and 95 percent found it simple to use. When asked if they favored RCV / IRV, 68 percent either preferred it or said it didn’t matter while 65 percent wanted it used in future elections.

The above examples are for uses of RCV / IRV in the pure sense. Since no primary election is held, some races have had a large number of candidates requiring several rounds of runoff. However, voters still understood and accepted the process.

The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) makes the process even easier to understand and use. Because NEMRA includes a primary election narrowing the general election field down to three requiring only one round of runoff should no candidate receive 50 percent plus one first choice votes, the process of ranking several candidates is reduced to simply selecting a first and second choice.  The difference between the current primary / general election system and NEMRA is negligible while the benefit is substantial. This should result in even greater voter acceptance than experienced in other jurisdictions.

Another election method that ensures a majority winner that is used in Washington and California, and in modified form in Louisiana, and Nebraska is the Top-Two non-partisan open blanket primary. With voters selecting the two candidates moving forward to the general election, one candidate will receive the majority of the votes cast. However, as I detailed in August “You Can’t Compare NEMRA to California’s Top-Two”, NEMRA has the potential to provide greater benefits to candidates, voters, political parties, and governing bodies.

It’s no secret that partisanship now shapes our daily lives more than any other issue.  Getting our political discussion back to a level where legislatures can solve the issues facing their constituents should be a priority. The Arlington County Democratic Party in Virginia and voters in Portland, ME verify what other studies have found, systems that use RCV / IRV can accomplish this.

2015 is the year Nevada can join the nearly 200 reported (*actual use could be higher) governmental, political and private, and educational institutions and groups that have implemented RCV / IRV by enacting NEMRA.  These organizations have found this system, which ensures a more representative governing body, where election winners have the clear support of a majority of the electorate, is widely accepted and easily understood. Nevadans deserve no less.  

February 9, 2015, 5:00 P.M.

According to NRS 218D. 150 legislators may submit their final Bill Draft Requests (BDR) between the start of the legislative session; February 2, 2015, and 5:00 P.M. on the eighth day of the session, in this case, February 8, 2015. Assembly members may submit one BDR during this period. State Senators are allowed two.

In addition to this allotment, prior to the first day of the session; February 2, 2015, the Assembly Speaker and Senate Majority Leader may each submit BDR’s equal to the number remaining from the 15 allotted to the previous Speaker and Majority Leader. As of December 5^th, 14 remain for the Speaker while the new Senate Majority Leader has the full 15 remaining. The Minority Leaders of both the Assembly and Senate are allowed to complete the allotment of 10 each. As of December 5^th, the Assembly Minority Leader has submitted two leaving eight for the new Minority Leader. The Senate Minority Leader can submit 10 before the star of the session.

As of December 5^th, very few legislators have used their full allotment of BDR. The opportunity for a legislator to take the lead, to clearly demonstrate to all Nevada voters they matter, and file a BDR for the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) is there until 5:00 P.M. on February 9, 2015.

To make it easy, the necessary detail needed for submission to allow the Legislative Council Bureau (LCB) to write the bill is available here. 

One Month After Election Non-Partisan Registration Continues to Grow

The Nevada Secretary of State’s office released voter registration statistics December 1^st covering the period from close of registration prior to the election; October 14^th to November 30^th. While all categories; Democratic, Republican, Non-Partisan, and other gained active voters, the only voter registration category to increase its percentage of registered voters was Non-Partisan.

The trend was the same; state-wide, Clark and Washoe Counties, and the 18 – 34 year-old demographic. In six weeks, in spite of an historic low turnout that gave control of the state government to one party, voters are still expressing their dissatisfaction with the two major political parties.

	Nov 30	Oct 14	Diff
State
Rep	34.6	34.6	0
Dem	39.7	39.8	-0.1
N/P	19.3	19.2	+0.1
Other	6.4	6.4	0
Clark
Rep	30.6	30.6	0
Dem	43.5	43.5	0
N/P	20.0	19.9	+0.1
Other	5.9	6.0	-0.1
Washoe
Rep	38.3	38.4	-0.1
Dem	35.5	35.7	-0.2
N/P	18.8	17.9	+0.9
Other	7.4	8.0	-0.6
18 – 34
Rep	24.9	24.9	0
Dem	38.0	38.1	-0.1
N/P	28.8	28.7	+0.1
Other	8.3	8.3	0
Total not R or D
State	25.7	25.6	+0.1
Clark	25.9	25.9	0
Washoe	26.2	25.9	+0.3
18 - 34	37.1	37.0	+0.1

The legislature can reverse this trend of growing dissatisfaction. The legislature can demonstrate a commitment to all voters. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) provides the means.

2014 Youth Vote And NEMRA

In an August 13^th blog posting, How to get the Millennial Generation to the Polls and in The Millennial Generation, The Future, and NEMRA posted October 19^th, I cover how the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) will encourage the generation that is our future to increase their participation in the electoral process. These articles highlight the fact that voters in the 18 to 34 year old range vote in lower numbers than the overall average.

The Millennial Generation is also disillusioned to a greater extent than the overall voting population with the two major political parties. This almost ten percent difference is clearly shown in Voters Registered as Non-Partisan Jump Ten Percent Since Last Election.

Now, CIRCLE, The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, out of Tufts University further shows how the Millennial Generation is an enigma to both the Republican and Democratic Parties. This does not need to be the case. Rather than ignoring the largest generation since the Baby Boomers, both major parties should accept the challenge of bringing them into the process, encouraging them to become involved, and perhaps register as a member rather than as independent.  In Nevada, NEMRA is the catalyst and tool to accomplish this.

In its report, Eight Takeaways About Young Voters and the 2014 Election, CIRCLE lists the top two as “Youth propensity for being independent poses a conundrum for political parties and democracy” and “Missing Mobilization”. Millennials are registering as independents in greater numbers. Since party registration is often stressed over issues in today’s campaigns, political parties are not tapping into this large pool of voters. And since they are not affiliated with a political party, Millennials are overlooked in mobilization and get out the vote efforts.

Political parties and elected officials can maintain the status quo and continue to ignore the upcoming future generation of voters and office holders or they can take the proverbial bull by the horns, embrace the differences between old and new, and thereby create a more meaningful and responsive government.

The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) is the means to accomplish the goal. 

Next BDR Deadline – December 10th

The next deadline for legislators to file Bill Draft Requests (BDR) for the upcoming legislative session is three weeks away, December 10, 2014. Who will be known as the leader that places Nevada at the fore of election reform?

The Las Vegas Valley League of Women Voters says the 2015 Nevada legislature needs to take up election reform and sites the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) as an example.

Randi Thompson, political commentator for the Reno Gazette Journal and Nevada Newsmakers says the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act is deserving of further study by the Nevada legislature. (See July 18, 2014; Minority Rules)

Chambers of Commerce have expressed interest but will not take a position until there is a bill introduced.

I doubt there is much, if any disagreement that voter turnout must improve, that confidence in our electoral process must be restored. I’m certain most will agree younger voters and all others who feel left out need to know their views are recognized as valid.  I’m sure Republican and Democratic Party leadership would like to reverse the trend of growing Non-Partisan voter registration at their expense.  Is there a candidate that would not like to claim a true majority mandate after winning? I highly doubt it. Doing everything possible, regardless how small, to attract jobs to Nevada is a legislative priority. NEMRA provides a positive solution for all these.

Problems are solved only through open and honest discussion. As the League of Women Voters and Randi Thompson urge, the time for Nevada legislators to have this discussion on election reform is the 2015 session starting February 2, 2015.  Who will be the legislator known as the leader willing to start the dialog on election reform that will give Nevada the most inclusive voting process in the nation? The next BDR filing deadline is three weeks away, December 10^th. 

Washington Post Endorses NEMRA’s Primary and General Election Process

In an editorial published November 12, 2014, the Washington Post endorsed the use of open primaries, where all voters can participate and Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting (RCV / IRV).

The editorial is addressing three bills introduced by Washington, D.C. Council member David Grosso (I-At Large) to reform the voting process in the nation’s capital. However, the importance of this endorsement by a leading and one of the most respected national newspapers on the need for open primaries and the end of plurality winners cannot be over-emphasized.

The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) gives Nevada legislators the unique opportunity to lead the nation and demonstrate these processes can be implemented on a state-wide basis. As I have written previously on this blog, the Top-Three primary and the use of RCV / /IRV in the general election in Nevada will strengthen the entire electoral system in Nevada. Voters benefit. Candidates benefit. Political parties benefit. Nevada benefits.

Ranked Choice Voting - NEMRA’s General Election Method Is Standard Parliamentary Procedure

  “State legislatures exercise the powers that are delegated to them by the people. The organization and powers of a public body cannot be changed by its members; any change must be made by the authority that created it-the people.” (National Conference of State Legislatures summary of Mason’s Manual for Legislative Bodies)

Mason’s Manual for Legislative Bodies provides the framework for how most state legislatures, including Nevada, conduct business. The above statement from the NCSL provides a key reason why Mason’s and not Roberts Rules of Order, the standard for parliamentary procedure, is used; only the people can change its powers.

Given this, it is easy and reasonable to equate the electorate to any other parliamentary body when it comes to voting. The nomination process and primary election serve as the motion and second. The general election is the vote by the body on the motion. This is why the inclusion of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in Section 45, Voting Procedure of Roberts Rules of Order as Preferential Voting is highly relevant to the general election process as detailed in the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA).  

In Section 45, the requirement for a majority, not plurality winner is central. The use of Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting (RCV / IRV) in the general election, as provided for in NEMRA guarantees the winner of any election does so after receiving no less than 50 percent plus one of the votes cast. In NEMRA, this tally can be achieved in the primary, upon the count of first-choice votes in the general election, or after second-choice votes are added, if necessary. As I highlighted the day after the election, both Congressman-elect Hardy and Attorney General Laxalt, along with 13 other winners at county and city level did not achieve the majority threshold.

Ensuring the winner of an election does so with a majority of at least 50 percent plus one of the votes cast is not a new concept. It is, in fact, the accepted standard as noted in Roberts. This guarantee is one of the many benefits of NEMRA. When added with:

Broadening the scope and depth of discussion on issues

Increasing voter knowledge and awareness of the issues

Potentially increase voter turnout

Potentially reducing campaign costs

Encouraging voters who believe their vote does not matter to return to the polls

Potentially attracting jobs to Nevada

Providing an atmosphere where political parties can regain lost membership

Providing a benefit to taxpayers, and

Allowing candidates who hold moderate views to express them

 the adoption and implementation of NEMRA holds only positive outcomes for the citizens of Nevada.  

How NEMRA Would Have Affected Election Results

Cresent Hardy, Nevada CD4 Congressman-elect, does not have a mandate. Neither does Nevada’s new Attorney General Adam Laxalt. Both were elected with less than 50 percent of the votes cast. Joining them were 13 local officials in Clark, Douglas, Elko, Lyon, Pershing, Storey, and White Pines Counties.  These 15 people had more votes cast against them than for, yet were elected.

Under the general election provisions of the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA), using Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting (RCV / IRV), each would still most likely have won, yet they would have done so with a clear majority, at least 50 percent plus one. From a perception standpoint, and the ability to respond to criticism, this is a major difference.

Voters in Nevada cast ballots in 322 races, not including the three ballot questions. Thirty-seven of those races had more than two candidates vying for the seat. In 22 of those races, the winner received at least 50 percent plus one of the votes. Under RCV / IRV, these candidates would have been declared the winner on first choice votes. The remaining 15 races would have gone to the second count, eliminating the third place finisher and distributing the second choice votes. While the use of RCV / IRV is fairly new, most candidates who receive the highest number of first choice votes go on to win after second choice votes are added in.  Review of results in the cities that use RCV / IRV show it a rarity if this does not occur. While there may be a few others, the only such occurrence I can find is the 2010 Mayor’s race in Oakland, CA.

The use of RCV / IRV in the general election as proposed by NEMRA has no downside. Both races mentioned at the start of this article were highly contentious and costly. I’m certain both Congressman-elect Hardy and Attorney General Laxalt would have appreciated being able to declare a solid mandate going forward.