You Can’t Compare NEMRA to California’s Top-Two

Nevada is not California. Because California does it is not a valid reason for Nevada to do anything. I know of very few Nevadans who would not agree with these two sentiments.

The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) is not like California’s Top-Two system. It is superior! When discussing NEMRA, it is therefore like comparing apples to oranges to compare it to California’s, or for that matter any other state’s Top-Two system.

The key to success of any election system is how it encourages citizens to participate in the election. Does it foster open and honest discussion of the issues? Is there a real opportunity for all candidates to fully and meaningfully participate? Are all voters treated equally? Do all votes have a true impact on determining the outcome?  Does the system create interest and motive voters to go to the polls? Are there benefits to all involved in the political process? Does the system result in a government that is representative of the state as a whole and works towards to best interest of all the residents?  Under NEMRA the answer to all the questions is “yes”. Not the case under Top-Two.

Regardless of one’s opinion of the two-party system, this country’s political system is firmly grounded to it. Recent polls show over 40 percent of voters considers themselves independent. Voters are leaving the two major parties and registering as non-partisan (independent). However, this does not necessarily transfer into votes for non-partisan or minor party candidates. Rather, it usually means the voter will consider both the Republican and Democratic candidate and vote for the one they consider best. They may even vote for candidates from both parties in the same election.

Because only two move forward under Top-Two, the ideas presented by minor party and independent candidates are truly irrelevant. There is little, if any chance they will finish among the top two. Unlike the old system where they appeared on the general election ballot, competing in a two-party system Top-Two primary virtually eliminates them. No need for a totally inclusive discussion of the issues. No chance for major party candidates to voice an opinion on possibly new or innovative ideas presented by minor party or independent candidates. All candidates are not afforded the opportunity to meaningfully participate.  Not so under NEMRA.

Under NEMRA, the top three move forward. Depending on the field of candidates, there is a real possibility a minor party or independent candidate will advance. Their ideas are relevant to the debate and the discussion is broadened. Major party candidates, as I’ve stressed in conversations with legislators, have the opportunity to provide their input on innovative ideas they may not have considered. Voters benefit from this comprehensive discussion. All qualified candidates have full and meaningful participation. Candidates and voters benefit.

All voters, regardless of party affiliation are allowed to vote in the primary and general election under both Top-Two and NEMRA. But when evaluating true equal treatment of all voters, I think you have to include impact on the outcome. Since under Top-Two, the likelihood of a non-major party candidate advancing to the general election is just about nil, voters who prefer such a candidate are marginalized. Their primary vote is no different than a general election vote under standard systems and they have no opportunity to vote for that candidate in the general election. Not so under NEMRA.

Since NEMRA places three candidates on the general election ballot and uses Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff voting (RCV / IRV) all voters have a direct impact on the outcome. In the primary, all voters determine whether the candidates advancing to the general election will include a minor party or independent candidate. In the general election RCV / IRV requires voters to mark a second choice that is counted if one candidate does not get a majority; at least 50 percent plus one of first choice votes. No voter is marginalized.

Top-Two is meant to increase voter interest and motivate voters to turnout for the primary. Statistics show turnout in states that use Top-Two surpass Nevada in primary election turnout.

But what is possible if voters are not marginalized as I point out above? Under Top-Two, if one of the top two finishers receives a majority of the vote, at least 50 percent plus one in the primary, they still must run in the general election where they could lose. This means increased expense for candidates and reduces the importance of a primary vote. Voters are faced with a valid question; why vote in the primary, why not just wait for the general election? Not so under NEMRA.

NEMRA specifically states that if a candidate receives at least 50 percent plus one of the votes in the primary, they are elected. The office is not contested in the general election. Current Nevada law includes this provision. However, as I have pointed out previously, such a win is only representative of a small plurality of a plurality of voters; 20 percent of voters registered to a particular party. Since NEMRA allows all voters, regardless of party affiliation or registration as a non-partisan, to vote, a win in the primary under NEMRA is representative of a much larger share of the voters. Knowing a winner could be declared in the primary is motivation to vote. Another motivation under NEMRA is the use of RCV / IRV in the general election. Second-choice votes could determine the winner. Every vote counts in both the primary and general elections. This is not the case under Top-Two.

Does Top-Two benefit all those involved in the political process? Do the resulting legislative bodies more represent the state as a whole? Given available studies, the answer is yes.

I have to be subjective here, but I can’t help believing that NEMRA will do a better job restoring confidence in our electoral process, that NEMRA will be a greater help to the major political parties in regaining lost membership and attracting new members. Why? Because NEMRA does not marginalize any voter. Under NEMRA, the discussion of issues and solutions will be broader. Under NEMRA, every voter matters.

Some I’ve spoken with say “Let’s see what happens in California”. The Top-Two system in California is not the same as NEMRA. Legislators need to evaluate NEMRA on its own merits. It is superior to the Top-Two system being used in California or any other state at this time. Once NEMRA is signed into law, Nevada will have the most inclusive voting system in the nation. According to the leaders of both the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada (EDAWN) and the Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance (LVGEA) this could be a positive discriminator to companies looking to locate in the state.

We need to have the discussion on how NEMRA will benefit Nevada and all Nevadans during the upcoming legislative session. By filing a Bill Draft Request (BDR), a legislator is agreeing to start the conversation.