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.