GOP / Dems Can Regain and Grow Membership

In an era of growing voter frustration with Congress and politics in general, both the Republican and Democratic parties have been bleeding membership. The fastest growing segment in voter registration are those who declare no party affiliation. Recent polls also claim that more than 50% of registered voters consider themselves independent.

The two major parties can reverse this trend. Most people who left the parties have done so because they have, and continue to drift further to the extreme, away from the median voter. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (see Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act - The Details) will bring candidates and the parties back closer the the median.

People like being part of a group, the feeling of belonging. Making the decision to leave a group can be difficult, if not traumatic. There's no reason not to believe that if the Republican and Democratic parties returned to representing the center of their parties, those who left would feel comfortable to return and those who might not have considered registering would do  so. There is only one way to find out...enact the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act.

Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act - Phase II Kicks Off

While meetings with legislators and applicable organizations continue, it's time to go public. Lawmakers have expressed interest but to get a bill filed it will take people letting legislators know modernization and reform of Nevada's voting system is something they want now. 

Randi Thompson, columnist for the Reno Gazette-Journal kicked things off on Sunday, May 25th.  Articles have been published on IVN and Voices.us and a press release (below) has been sent to many media outlets. 

The task of getting these changes passed and signed into law is not easy by any stretch of the imagination. Most legislators and groups I have met with believe this is an interesting proposal worth studying. A big part of this "studying" is hearing from the voters. Working together; voters, legislators, and interest groups, we can and will be successful for the benefit of the entire state.

PRESS RELEASE

Since September of last year, meetings with state legislators, civil liberty, voting rights, and business groups, legislative caucus leaders, and election officials have taken place to determine if a proposal to modernize and reform Nevada’s election process, making it the most inclusive in the nation, could be introduced in the 2015 state legislative session. Most found it worthy of discussion. Some expressed real interest. Phase II, raising public awareness of this proposal and getting their involvement to make it happen has begun. http://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/05/25/randi-thompson-time-election-reform/9567479/

Changes to both the primary and general elections are necessary. The process is not complicated. The primary would list all candidates for each office, regardless of party affiliation or status as a non-partisan, on the same ballot. All voters, regardless of party affiliation or status as a non-partisan would get to vote. This makes sense since our tax dollars, not the political parties, pay the nearly $4 million dollars it costs for each primary. The top three finishers advance to the general election unless one of the candidates gets at least 50%+1 of the votes in which case that candidate is elected. If three or less candidates run all move to the general election. Both these events could reduce campaign costs. Analysis of voter turnout from 2008 – 2012 shows a potential for significant increase in primary election voter turnout.

The general election would be conducted using Ranked Choice voting, also known as Instant Runoff voting. This process is used in several cities with overwhelming voter acceptance. It guarantees the winner receives a true majority, at least 50%+1 of the votes cast, eliminating plurality winners. This is possible because voters would vote for both their first and second choice. If no candidate gets a majority of first choice votes, second choice votes for the top two are added in.

Studies show open blanket primaries draw candidates closer to the median voter. Having more ideas and solutions debated early in the election cycle benefits all candidates regardless of party and the electorate. 

Elected officials like to say they were elected with a mandate simply because they won. Many times though, victory was only with a plurality. Under this proposed system, the result is a true majority, at least 50% + 1 of the votes cast. A claim of a mandate is justified. There is a benefit to voters as well. Many times a voter will face an internal conflict; vote for the preferred candidate or succumb to “I don’t want to waste my vote” syndrome. This conflict is resolved by the use of a second-choice vote.

There are other advantages. Every vote matters so citizens who believe their vote has no impact can return to the polls. Because candidates are drawn closer to the median voter, political parties could regain some of the membership they have lost and continue to lose. And having the most inclusive voting system in the nation could make a difference to companies looking to bring jobs to Nevada. 

Will Top Three Primary Increase Voter Turnout?

One of the claims often made about an open primary of any type is it will increase voter turnout. Depending on the type of open primary; independents identify as Democrat or Republican at the polls and vote that party's ballot, independents register as Democrat or Republican by a set date and vote that party's ballot, or blanket primary where all candidates are listed on the same ballot and all voters cast ballots, the results vary.

One study I link in my post "Nevada Election Modernization and Reform - The Details" states using a blanket format will increase voter turnout especially among unaffiliated voters. But what is the potential in Nevada?

The potential is huge.

Year	Primary Election Turnout / %	General Election Turnout / %	% Increase
2008	188.652 / 18.0	970,019 / 80.3	77.6
2010	320,648 / 30.1	723,515 / 64.6	53.4
2012	199,797 / 18.9	1,016,664 / 80.8	76.6

Considering unaffiliated voters have little incentive to come to the polls under the current system; not much excitement voting for judges and school board, those that do are citizens that are interested in their community. Looking at the general election turnout, imagine the excitement of a 50 - 60% primary turnout. Give unaffiliated voters a reason to show up and they will.

Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act - The Details

THIS POSTING WAS UPDATED ON NOVEMBER 13, 2014

"The devil is in the details". That may be true in some cases. In this case, I prefer "success is in the details". So here they are.

Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act

Problem: Partisanship is now one of the top divisive issues impacting all aspects of our lives (even more than race). It prevents legislative bodies from governing effectively and efficiently

Solution:

·         Create a more informed electorate by focusing candidate discussion on issues.

·         Open up the electoral process allowing an earlier and broader discussion of the issues through implementing an open top-three non-partisan primary system.

·         End plurality victories by implementing ranked choice voting (RCV); also known as instant run-off voting (IRV) process for the general election for all state and federal elected offices. Winner has majority mandate.

Voter Registration:

·         Between 2012 and 2014, the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan grew by 10%. Both major parties lost members

·         Currently over 20% of Nevada voters are registered as Non-Partisan; close to 30% for those between the ages of 18 – 34. With minor party registrations, 26% and 37% of voters respectively are not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party

·         The primary factor is a strong opinion that neither party represents the views of a majority of  voters

Not new / Other jurisdictions use

·         Nevada used open non-partisan primaries until 1918

·         Four states; CA, WA, LA, and NE have top-two primaries. NE is a non-partisan, unicameral state legislature. 38 states have some form of open primary

·         4 states and 12 cities use RCV / IRV.  According to the government agencies overseeing elections in these jurisdictions, voter education was key to implementation and exit poll data shows voter understanding and acceptance of RCV / IRV.  Process is endorsed by many elected officials, organizations, and publications.

·         RCV / IRV has been in existence since the late 1800’s

·         Three states; MA, MN, and NY have legislation implementing RCV / IRV pending.  Six states; MI, MN, MT, PA, RI, and WI have legislation implementing open or non-partisan primaries pending.

·         No state has implemented these two systems on a state-wide basis. Nevada would be the national leader in setting the example for the rest of the country.

Open top-three primary

·         Broadens the scope of the debate by bringing in more ideas / solutions earlier in the election cycle

·         Enhances the chances of all candidates by forcing discussion away from extreme positions  towards specific solutions, appealing to more voters and likely increasing voter turnout

·         All candidates for a partisan position; major party, minor party, independents, listed on the ballot

·         All voters regardless of party affiliation vote increasing voter turnout as available pool of voters increases by the percentage of Non-Partisan and minor party voters

·         Change will apply to non-partisan offices so there is only one system

·         Top three vote getters advance to general election using RCV / IRV
Eliminates cost of primary if 3 or less candidates. All move to the general election. If a candidate receives at least 50%+1 of the votes cast in the primary, that candidate is elected, except for Congress due to federal law and the office would not be contested in the general election again reducing the cost of the campaign. This currently happens if all candidates are from the same party. However, the “majority” received is only from a small portion of only the one party, not all voters. Same vote using a top-three primary, the majority would be of all voters. Winner has a true mandate.

·         The right of political parties to select a preferred candidate, either through party caucus, central committee action, or any other method specified in party rules is specifically upheld.

·         Re-enfranchises those voters not registered to vote as members of a major party to the primary election process.

·         Process upheld by U.S. Supreme Court in Grange v Washington. Justice Scalia recommended open, blanket, non-partisan primaries in his decision of California Democratic Party v Jones

Ranked Choice / Instant Run-off voting

·         Ensures person elected wins with a clear majority of no less than 50% + 1 of total votes cast for each particular office.

·         Further protects the “None of the Above” option and drastically reduces or eliminates the impact of perceived spoiler votes.

·         Winner can declare a rightful mandate in legislative voting decisions

·         Voters who like two candidates or who like a third-party or independent candidate but believe their vote would be wasted can vote for one candidate as second choice – a logical decision that removes confusion or perceived self-conflict

·         If no candidate receives at least 50% +1 of the total first choice votes cast, the candidate finishing third is eliminated. The second choice votes of those who voted for the eliminated candidate as first choice are counted and distributed to the appropriate candidate. After counting of second choice votes, it is possible for the candidate who finished second with first choice votes wins with at least 50% +1 of the total votes cast

Potential to:

·         Provide an atmosphere where political parties can regain lost membership. Candidates would not have to take extreme positions that conflict with their actual views to win nomination

·         Encourage voters who believe their vote has no impact to return to the polls

·         Act as a positive discriminator to businesses considering moving or establishing in Nevada. State having the most inclusive voting process in the nation would appeal to the growing number of socially conscious companies. (Discussed with CEO EDAWN and LVGEA)

Concept Endorsements:

·         Las Vegas Valley League of Women Voters

·         Randi Thompson – Reno Gazette Journal and Nevada Newsmakers columnist

·         Other endorsements pending introduction of bill

System capabilities / Registrar of Voters impact

·         The Nevada Secretary of State’s office and both the Washoe and Clark County Registrar of Voters have stated there would only be a one-time system upgrade and voter education cost. This cost should be minimal.

Academic studies support advantages

·         With minor exception, because of newness and limited use of open non-partisan blanket top-two primaries, studies do not include analysis of this system. However, results focused on use of traditional open, semi-closed, and closed primaries could be reasonably extrapolated to apply to the proposed top-three system.

·         Comments in parenthesis are mine. 

2011 University of Utah, Alvarez / Sinclair; Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: The Effects of Primary Processes – Analyzing California legislature, legislators elected under a blanket primary are more open-minded than legislators elected under a closed primary system.

2013 Cornell College, Hassell; The Non-existent Primary-Ideology Link, or Do Open Primaries Actually Limit Party Influence in Primary Elections – Political parties still maintain influence regardless of primary type. How this influence is used depends on competitiveness of the race(s); increase eligibility of voters or cater to extremism and allow for uncertainty of voter turnout.  (Under top-three primary and RCV / IRV, parties could influence choice towards a preferred candidate at the primary or first or second choice selection at the general election)

2011 UC Irvine, Robb;  The effect of instant runoff voting on democracy – The use of RCV / IRV creates a less negative campaign environment, produces higher voter turnout, and increases minority participation and representation.

2014 Public Policy Institute of CA, McGhee; Voter Turnout in Primary Elections – Top- two primary increases primary turnout especially among independent voters. (Top-three should increase turnout to a greater degree because of increased importance of vote. See separate document on primary election voter turnout for potential impact)

2010 UC San Diego, Hill; The Persuasion Region: A Theory of Electoral Change – Election outcomes change when either voters change decision points or when new voters enter the pool. The size of the electorate determines which is more prevalent. Either can force a shift towards moderation dependent on voters’ knowledge of candidates’ positions.

2003 Appalachian State University, St. Lawrence University, Cherry / Kroll; Crashing the Party: The Impact of Strategic Voting in Primaries on Election Outcomes – The potential for strategic voting is higher in the traditional open primary system; independent voters choose a party ballot at the polls, than in semi-closed or closed primaries. Closed primaries provide the lowest welfare to the electorate. (This study did not look at the top-two system due to its limited use at the time. However, as the next referenced study shows, sincere voting becomes prevalent as voters try to move government closer to the median of their views. A valid assumption would be that a top-three primary would not encourage or result in strategic voting but rather be largely voters casting sincere votes.)

2008 University of Texas at Dallas, UC Irvine, Brunell / Grofman; Testing sincere versus strategic split-ticket voting at the aggregate level: Evidence from split house–president outcomes, 1900–2004 – Sincere voting, possibly resulting in split-ticket results when voting for members of Congress and President will occur as voters try to bring government towards the median of their views. (Top-three primary and RCV / IRV are designed to encourage candidates to be closer to the views of the middle area of all voters)

2008 Columbia University, MIT, Harvard, University of Chicago, Hirano / Snyder / Ansolabehere / Hansen; Primary Competition and Partisan Polarization in the U.S. Senate – Who is elected in the general election contributes more to extreme roll call votes in the U.S. Senate than who gets the party nomination in the primary. Candidates do take extreme positions in the primary but move to more moderate positions during the general election. (While a member of Congress electoral chances can be impacted by their overall voting record, individual roll call votes most often are not considered as crucial; see Masket / Greene study below. A top-three primary, resulting in more moderate choices in the general election could contribute to reduced contentious or extreme votes in Congress)

2011 University of Denver, North Carolina State University, Masket / Greene

When One Vote Matters: The Electoral Impact of Roll Call Votes in the 2010 Congressional Elections – Study shows the impact on democrats in Congress based on their votes on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and the economic stimulus package. While most individual votes do not affect chances for re-election; overall voting record weighs more, democrats’ votes on these three pieces of legislation definitely caused election losses in 2010. (The 2010 congressional elections showed these members of Congress were not in sync with the majority of the voters in their districts. A top-three primary, resulting in a candidate closer to the views of the median voter could have impacted the votes in Congress)

2013 UC Berkeley, Ahler / Citrin / Lenz; Do  Open Primaries Help Moderate Candidates? An Experimental Test on the 2012 California Primary – While voters do tend to vote for a candidate closer to their beliefs, a lack of voter knowledge of the candidates can result in a voter choosing a candidate they believe is close to them while in reality that is not true. (This highlights the importance of voter knowledge. While a top two-primary may not adequately address this issue, a top-three primary places a greater burden on candidates to ensure voters know their positions. This supports my belief that my proposal will result in a more informed electorate)

LA Times, Mehta / Merl, April 15, 2014; Top-two primary might be bad for small-party candidates – Because of the strength of the two major parties, minor parties and unaffiliated candidates have little chance of being in the top two and advancing to the general election. (This is a logical result of the top-two primary. Under top-three, minor parties would not face the same prospect but rather a good chance of advancing in a four-candidate primary. Also, if there are three or less candidates, the minor party would advance automatically; no change to existing system except that their views would be part of the debate earlier in the process)

2006 Naval Post-Graduate School, UC Irvine, Owen / Grofman; Two-stage electoral competition in two-party contests: persistent divergence of party positions – Under the current two-stage; primary and general electoral process, the party closer to the median attitudes of the electorate has a better chance of winning. If a candidate, regardless of party meets this criterion, they also can be victorious. (The top-three primary combined with RCV /IRV will draw the contest towards the median)

2004 UC Irvine, Grofman; Downs and two-party convergence – Plurality elections produce candidates closer to the median voter in their party rather than the overall median voter. Using a more inclusive primary process tends to produce candidates closer to the overall median. (In a system where parties and / or candidates are drawn to moderation, abstention from voting can occur by extremists wishing to force a return to the extreme. Under top-three and RCV / IRV this strategy could be reduced. 

2002 UC Irvine, U.S. House of Representatives, UC Irvine, McGann / Koetzle / Grofman; How an ideologically concentrated minority can trump a dispersed majority: Non-median voter results for plurality, run-off, and sequential elimination elections – Multi-candidate elections under a run-off or sequential elimination system produce a winner between median and mode and more likely to choose the Condorcet winner. (Adopting a top-three primary and RCV / IRV general election would result in a winner more likely to be closer to the center and the one more likely to win by majority)

Why Now?

Hyper-partisanship is taking its toll on governments at all levels, city, county, state, and federal. Voters, at least in polls, are fed up with Congress, their own elected officials, and with voting in general. Younger voters, those we call Millennials who are the future, are staying away in numbers never seen before. Casting your first vote used to be a right of passage, looked forward to with the same excitement as getting your driver's license or having your first legal drink. Not any more. Unless we reverse this trend, our future, the future of our children, and our grandchildren may not be good.

We can't wait. We can't procrastinate. We must act now. Our elected leaders must act now. The surest way to accomplish change is to get agreement from those who would be assumed opposed to it. Citizen initiatives can be antagonistic and create a "us against them" environment that could result in failure. Having those affected enact the change creates buy-in, an acceptance that change is needed and will benefit all the citizens of the state.

The next session of the Nevada legislature convenes on February 2, 2015. Legislators can submit bills up to February 9, 2015. The sooner the better. The number of bills each legislator can submit it determined by which chamber, Assembly or Senate, they are a member of  and whether they are an incumbent or newly elected. That is why I started this project September, 2013.

Phase I, which is concluding now, involved meeting with key legislators and groups to gain a sense of acceptance. Would a change be possible? As a result of these meetings, I can say the answer is a qualified "yes". Comments received ranged from basic interest; will keep an open mind, to genuine agreement.

Phase II starts now. This involves informing the public, letting legislators know there are enough people and groups who support these changes to make it worth their while to introduce the bill and give it a hearing.

Phase III will start on February 2, 2015. That will involve lobbying for passage.

The immediate challenge is to get a bill filed. This is your chance to act. Spread the word, contact legislators, let those running for office know your vote depends on their support for election modernization and reform in 2015.

Welcome

Welcome to the home of the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act. On this site you will find all the information and discussion on bringing a bill to the floor of the Nevada Legislature to modernize and reform Nevada's election statutes to include participation by all voters and all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, in all elections. The result will be the most inclusive voting system in the nation that will maximize voter participation and voter knowledge while reducing hyper-partisan rhetoric. Elected officials will be more focused on representing the majority of those they represent, allowing the legislature and our Congressional delegation to return to doing the peoples' business.

I look forward to your comments and invite you to join the effort to make this proposal the law of Nevada.