Partisanship Has Reached A New Level And It’s Not Good

A Pew Research Center study released June 22, 2016, “Partisanship and Political Animosity in 2016” needs to be taken very seriously by all who are concerned with our future. Unless this trend can be reversed, the political landscape will not be pleasant. Will the ability of lawmakers at all levels of government to effectively legislate come to a complete halt?

For the first time in almost 25 years, a majority of party members view the other party very unfavorably. With 70% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans who are politically active saying they fear the other party, how can the necessary dialog and collaboration take place? Answer, it can’t.

A summary of the study can be read here, the full report here. Some highlights:

·         With minor exception results are over 50 percent and in some cases close to two-thirds or three-quarters negative towards the other party and positive towards one’s own party

•         Those who identify as Democratic are more partisan than Republicans
•          Party membership is based on fear of the other party’s policies
•          Those more active are more partisan
•          Political discussion with the opposite side is stressful
•          Political views are an indicator of a person’s character
•          Words such as lazy, immoral, and closed minded describe the other party
•          Words such as hard working, moral, and open minded describe my party
•          Political views determine personal relationships
•          The other party has no good ideas
•          No compromise if my side doesn’t get more (this is why I prefer the idea of collaboration)

 I have highlighted the extent to which partisanship is impacting our political system in other articles on this blog. This trend is not new. However, as this most recent study finds, the problem is getting worse and shows no signs of getting better.

This is not how it has to be. It will take political will and determination to implement systems that have the potential to reduce the partisanship to a level where the needs and interests of the general constituency can be met. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) is such a system. Will the legislators of the 2017 Nevada state legislative session have the political will and determination to act?

Making Low Voter Turnout Primary Elections A Thing Of The Past

Fact: Most voters do not vote in primary elections. In Nevada the average turnout for a primary election is approximately 20 percent. Conversely, turnout for general elections in November averages 60 percent in non-presidential election years and 75 percent in presidential election years.  

Fact: Voter turnout rates can be at the general election level for all elections. Voters participate in greater numbers in November for several reasons:

•         We are conditioned to equate elections with November
•         General elections are perceived as more competitive
•         Voters consider their votes more important in November
•         Candidates and issues are more visible leading up to the November election
•         Voter interest is higher for the general election
•          Ballot initiatives and referendum normally appear on the general election ballot

 Capitalizing on the elements that produce greater voter participation, exploiting them to the advantage of candidates, political parties, and most importantly to voters, will produce elections that result in elected officials who represent the views of a wider range of their constituents. This in turn will lead to more collaborative legislating at all levels of government.

The path to reach this point is detailed in the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017).  NEMRA – 2017 will achieve general election turnout while:

•          Increasing voter interest and information
•          Not affecting the political parties’ right of association
•          Not affecting a political party’s right to select nominees
•          Maintaining general election ballot access of minor party and independent candidates
•          Eliminating strategic voting; voters changing registration for the primary to vote for the weakest candidate to strengthen the electability of their preferred candidate in another political party 
•          Saving tax payers $3 – 4 million per election cycle. 

NEMRA – 2017 benefits candidates and political parties by: 

•          Encouraging them to reach out to more voters sooner in the election cycle
•          Allowing them to better utilize resources
•          Creating a climate where voters who have left the party are enticed to return

 The process is simple. Instead of two elections, a low turnout primary and a higher turnout general election, a single election is held in November using a system called Ranked Choice or Instant Run-off Voting (RCV / IRV). As with any general election, all candidates are listed on the ballot and all voters cast their vote.

Run-off elections are typically a second election between two candidates held on a different day than the general election if no candidate received a majority of the votes in the general election. RCV / IRV is a run-off election built in to the general election. It is a method used to count the votes of the general election if no candidate receives a majority of the votes. Voters do not return to the polls on a different day.

RCV / IRV is currently used mostly in cities. Bills are pending in 13 states to either study or implement RCV / IRV. Voters in Maine will decide this November whether to implement RCV / IRV for all state elections. Many private organizations to include some political parties use RCV / IRV. The Oscars of awarded using RCV / IRV. In places where it is used, voted acceptance and understanding is rated at over 85 percent.

Political parties, as private organizations, have the right to determine the number of candidates on the ballot under their party label. NEMRA – 2017 does not change this except for prohibiting the use of public funds for such purpose. Under NEMRA – 2017 party options range from allowing an unlimited number of candidates to selecting specific nominees through a caucus or other election.  They may also choose to simply endorse one candidate. Political parties’ right of association is not compromised or violated.

RCV / IRV is simple. Voters mark their ballots for their first choice as they currently do. However, under RCV / IRV, voters also select a second choice, but only if there are more than twice the number of candidates to be elected. Normally this is two. If no candidate receives more 50 percent of first-choice votes, the candidate with the lowest number of first-choice votes is eliminated and the second choice votes of those voters who selected the eliminated candidate as their first choice are awarded to the appropriate remaining candidate. This is the run-off . If there are three candidates this tabulation will happen once as one candidate will end up with a majority. If there are four candidates, there could be a second round of tabulation if no candidate has 50 percent plus one after the first round. Under NEMRA – 2017, if there are more than four candidates, only the top four will advance to the instant run-off tabulation.

Positive results:

•          Maximum voter interest and participation
•          Winning candidates with a true mandate
•          Potentially more in-depth discussion of the issues
•          Political parties appeal  to a broader base
•          Tax savings

Negative results:

•          Campaign donors may be more selective (this may or may not be a negative depending on one’s point of view)
•          May result in a longer ballot if more people decide to run

What it takes to implement:

•          Legislator submits bill draft request (BDR)
•          Bill is drafted and introduced
•          Bill is giving committee hearing and passed by both chambers
•          Governor signs

 Nevada can continue to struggle with low turnout primary elections. Candidates can struggle with having to shift their views between the primary and general election. The major political parties can continue to deal with declining membership. Or, Nevada can reverse these trends and move forward adopting a system that serves the best interest of the state, the voters, elected officials, and the political parties. 

Majority Of Voters Have No Say In Who Represents Them In Carson City

The primary election is finished and we’re headed to what should be a heated general election campaign. Given we are choosing a president, a replacement for U.S. Senator Harry Reid, and deciding to require background checks for firearm purchases and legalize marijuana, turnout for the general election should have no problem reaching the presidential year average 75 percent. The turnout for the just completed primary election was 18.51 percent or four times less. 

The purpose of the general election is for all voters to have a chance to select who will represent them in the Nevada legislature as well as the U.S. Congress, and local government. Depending on the number of candidates running for a particular office, the winner can be elected with less than a majority of the votes cast. The problem faced this year is that due to a change in state law, only the voters of one of the major political parties had a voice in who represents all voters in three state assembly districts, one state senate district, and 17 county commission wards. As many as 61 percent of voters had no say. Based on turnout, an average of 15 percent of the voters made the decision and the winner received an average of just under nine percent support. Even support within the party averaged less than 17 percent. Far from a mandate.  

District	Party	% Party	% Not Eligible	Party % T/O	% T/O Total Reg Voters	% Party Rcvd by Winner	% Total Reg Voters Rcvd by Winner
SD 4	D	60.69	39.31	17.94	10.89	12.60	7.64
AD 13	R	41.06	58.94	19.61	8.05	12.19	5.01
AD 19	R	38.89	61.11	26.35	10.25	16.12	6.27
AD 26	R	45.73	54.27	30.66	14.02	16.97	7.76
Washoe Cty 4	R	42.72	57.28	26.78	11.44	14.72	6.29
Churchill Cty 3	R	59.33	40.67	30.19	18.42	16.66	9.88
Douglas Cty 1	R	53.42	46.58	43.30	24.73	24.29	13.87
Douglas Cty 3	R	53.42	46.58	43.24	24.69	25.26	14.42
Elko Cty 3	R	56.74	43.26	23.62	13.40	9.62	5.46
Esmeralda Cty 2	R	57.59	42.41	8.38	4.83	4.49	2.59
Humbolt Cty A	R	55.04	44.96	33.65	18.52	21.51	11.84
Humbolt Cty B	R	55.04	44.96	33.72	18.56	21.99	12.10
Lander Cty 3	R	59.45	40.55	40.68	24.18	21.46	12.76
Lincoln Cty A	R	56.86	43.14	32.85	18.68	21.62	12.29
Lincoln Cty E	R	56.86	43.14	32.64	18.56	17.22	9.79
Lyon Cty 1	R	49.16	50.84	25.17	12.38	13.69	6.73
Lyon Cty 3	R	49.16	50.84	25.45	12.51	11.98	5.89
Nye Cty 1	R	46.61	53.39	4.77	2.22	2.71	1.26
Nye Cty 3	R	46.61	53.39	6.31	2.94	2.17	1.01
Pershing Cty A	R	50.21	49.79	43.12	21.67	31.33	15.74
Pershing Cty B	R	50.21	49.79	43.32	21.75	28.42	14.27

  

Based on these results, instead of making it easier on the parties and their candidates, it will be extremely difficult for the winners to claim they represent their constituents in the state legislature or county commission.

The solution is simple. At the very least, the change to state law enacted in 2015 should be repealed with races where only one party has candidates reverting back to being voted on by the entire electorate in the general election. An even better solution would be for the 2017 session of the Nevada legislature to enact the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017). Allowing all races to be decided with maximum general election turnout would ensure results such as those above never happen again.