On June 24th, following 18 months
of study, the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Commission on Political Reform
released its report titled “Governing
in a Polarized America: A Bipartisan
Blueprint to Strengthen our Democracy”. Why is this important
and what does it have to do with the proposed Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA)?
First, a little about the BPC. It is a Washington, DC-based think
tank dedicated to promoting bipartisanship in governing throughout the nation.
It was founded in 2007 by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker (R-TN),
Tom Daschle (D-SD), Bob Dole (R-KS), and George Mitchell (D-ME). It’s current
Co-Chairs are Daschle; Dan Glickman, Former U.S. Secretary of
Agriculture and U.S. Representative (D-KS); Dirk Kempthorne, Former Governor of Idaho, U.S.
Secretary
of the Interior, and U.S. Senator (R-ID); Trent Lott, Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader (R-MS); and Olympia Snowe, Former U.S. Senator (R-ME). Its 24 Commissioners are either former
federal or state elected or appointed officials and leaders of non-profit
political or social action groups and think tanks. Nevada can be proud that Elaine Wynn, National
Chairman, Communities in Schools and current President, Nevada State Board of Education
is among them.
The report examines three major areas of concern; electoral
system reform, congressional reform, and increasing citizen involvement, making specific recommendations that both
state and the federal government can act upon to improve and strengthen the
process of governing.
Why
is this important and what does it have to do with the proposed Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act?
Within the section on electoral system reform, the commission looks at primary elections
and recommends states enact systems that expand participation allowing the
maximum number of voters to cast ballots regardless of party affiliation. Systems
put in place should be able to achieve primary election turnout of 30% by 2020
and 35% by 2026. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act should
accomplish this by 2018 if implemented for the 2016 election.
The
partisan divide in the U.S. goes beyond legislative bodies. It now permeates our
daily lives. A poll conducted last year by BPC and USA TODAY shows Americans
are self-segregating along partisan lines in their communities and jobs. In that
poll, 37% of the Republicans and 34% of the Democrats indicated the people they
talk to in their communities are mostly from the same political party while only
17% of Republicans and 18% of Democrats said that most of their neighborhood
interactions were with individuals of a different party. On the job, 28% of Republicans
and 27% of Democrats indicated the people they talk to are mostly from the same
political party and only 12% of Republicans and Democrats indicated that their conversations
on the job were mostly with individuals of a different party. It has gotten
worse!
In a poll released by Pew
Research on June 12th of this year 63% of consistent
conservatives and 49% of consistent liberals say most of their close friends
share their political views. Of those polled with mixed ideology, only 25% say
the same. The Pew poll also showed that 50% of those on the right and 35% of
those on the left also are more likely to say it is important to them to live
in a place where most people share their political views.
Could political divisiveness impact who we select as a
marriage partner similar to religion and race? According to the Pew Poll, “yes”. 30% of consistent conservatives and 23% of
consistent liberals say they would be unhappy if an immediate family member
married a member of the opposing political party.
Approval
ratings for governing bodies are at an all-time low. Yet, as we see from
election results, voters do not quite realize they have direct control over who
is elected to represent them. The increasing divide and decreasing
participation reduces the risk politicians are exposed to by not working
towards consensus. By enacting election practices such as specified in NEMRA,
states can reverse this trend that infects our government and our society in
general. By increasing participation, the risk of not governing effectively and
efficiently is increased. In politics as in mostly everything, the more risk accepted
the greater the chance of failure. Conversely,
the more effective and efficient our government becomes, the benefits extend to
our private lives, raising the quality of life and enjoyment of our personal
interactions.
The
BPC report recommends that both major political parties take strides to broaden
their base of support. Other articles on this blog address how NEMRA does just
that and how broadening that base benefits the party both in membership and
financially. In addressing polarization, BPC further recommends the political
parties try to engage a larger piece of the electorate rather than
concentrating on being 100% ideologically pure. They see this resulting in a
more engaged electorate. A more engaged electorate will turn out to vote. In a
primary election this means those voting represent a more accurate picture of
the population at large and hence, those advancing to the general election and
being elected would reflect those wider views. This broader appeal increases
the likelihood of election. These points are all accomplished under NEMRA.
A nonpartisan reform that is 61% of the way to go into effect is The National Popular Vote bill.
ReplyDeleteA survey of Nevada voters showed 72% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 80% for a national popular vote among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, and 68% among Others.
By age, support for a national popular vote was 75% among 18-29 year olds, 61% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 73% for those older than 65.
By gender, support for a national popular vote was 80% among women and 63% among men.
Now minority party voters in each state are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.
In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.
If presidential campaigns polled, organized, visited, and appealed to more than the current 100,000,000 of 300,000,000 Americans, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80% of the country that is currently ignored by presidential campaigns.
National Popular Vote would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws.
The bill changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but later enacted by states).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.
When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.
The bill uses the power given to each state in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have been by state legislative action.
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls: AK – 70%, AR – 80%, AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CO – 68%, CT – 74%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, ID – 77%, KY- 80%, MA – 73%, ME – 77%, MI – 73%, MN – 75%, MO – 70%, MS – 77%, MT – 72%, NC – 74%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NM– 76%, NV – 72%, NY – 79%, OH – 70%, OK – 81%, OR – 76%, PA – 78%, RI – 74%, SC – 71%, SD – 71%, TN – 83%, UT – 70%, VA – 74%, VT – 75%, WA – 77%, WI – 71%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Republican, Democratic, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote