December 12, 2003
To: Friends of Fair Elections
Fr: Rob Richie, Executive Director
Center for Voting and Democracy (CVD)
www.fairvote.org, info@fairvote.org
Re: - Gerrymandering, the Supreme Court and the media
- Securing the vote in the Constitution /
No more "democracy on the cheap"
- "Claim Democracy" conference a big success
- Howard Dean and instant runoff voting
- Elections in Northern Ireland and Russia
- Good reading: Recent media coverage
(For more information about issues discussed here or to support
our Center, visit www.fairvote.org or email us at info@fairvote.org.
To subscribe/unsubscribe from these occasional newsletters,
please see the end of this edition. Please feel encouraged to
share this message with friends.)
GERRYMANDERING, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE MEDIA
Three years ago, on December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court
intervened in the 2000 presidential election in its Bush v. Gore ruling --
stopping Florida's recount and in effect electing George Bush.
Democracy returned to the Court this week. On December 10, a
5-4 majority of Justices upheld all major provisions of the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), the McCain-Feingold campaign finance
reform legislation that prohibits national political parties from collecting
large "soft money" campaign contributions, among other provisions
designed to root out corruption in the electoral process. Many reformers
applauded the ruling, others suggested the ruling stopped short
by allowing a sharp increase in "hard money" contributions that
individuals can make and others argued the Court went too
far in limiting free speech. For more on the ruling, see
www.commoncause.org, www.aclu.org, www.bettercampaigns.org,
www.nvri.org, www.cato.org and www.publicampaign.org.
On December 10 the Court also heard arguments in Vieth v.
Jubelirer, the first case it has taken on political gerrymandering
since the Davis v. Bandemer case in 1986. In the Bandemer case,
the Court opened the door to federal courts finding partisan
gerrymanders unconstitutional if designed to systematically
undercut the votes of backers of one political party, but lower
courts have since slammed the door closed by making the
standards impossible to prove -- in turn making redistricting
a vicious free-for-all that reached new heights this year with
"re-gerrymandering" in Texas and Colorado.
In the Vieth case Democrats are challenging a Republican
gerrymander in congressional districting. Everyone accepts
the fact of the gerrymander, with several tortuous districts and
Republicans holding a 12-7 edge in U.S. House districts in a
state Democrats have carried in the presidential race since
1988. But the plaintiffs must show that such gerrymandering
violates the Constitution and that courts can easily remedy the
violation. Listening to the oral arguments this week, it seems
unlikely that a five-justice majority will step in on behalf of
Pennsylvania Democrats.
What hovers over this case is that the best argument
on behalf of like-minded groupings of voters is that they
should have an equally fair chance to elect candidates
of choice to represent their interests and political views no
matter where they live -- and that without doubt the best and
fairest way to provide such opportunity is through changes
to winner-take-all elections. Unfair election results are
grounded in the fact that in winner-take-all elections, up to
49% of voters can have their votes relegated to the trashbin. It
is this effective disfranchisement that can allow one party to
take advantage of another by designing districts to
"waste" their votes by packing some of them in a few
districts and spreading the rest around the remaining
districts so they are always in the minority.
The sensible alternative is the family of full representation
voting methods that are used in the great majority of well-
established democracies and are increasingly used in local
elections in the United States. With these systems, 51% of the
vote still wins a majority of seats -- but not more. 40% of the vote
wins 40% of seats. 10% of the vote wins 10% of seats and so
on (with a minimum threshold of support easily established).
Candidate-based systems like choice voting and cumulative
voting are already used in some city elections in the United
States and would be the obvious way out -- but most players
in these legal challenges back away from this remedy, leaving
them stuck in the mud of trying to figure out fair redistricting.
Redistricting can be made fairer, of course -- just ask the people
of Iowa, who have a criteria-driven process like that used in nearly
all nations that draw single-member districts. And given the
courts' cautiousness, the people who should be doing it are our
elected leaders. Any elected official who accepts the status
quo with political gerrymandering should be looked upon with
great suspicion if professing to be a reformer. That status quo
not only has produced partisan gerrymanders in some states,
but a nearly unbroken parade of incumbent protection gerrymanders
that make most legislative and congressional elections little
more competitive than elections in the former Soviet Union.
Yet there is just one minor bill in Congress that even mentions
the word "redistricting." (That happens to be one piece of
legislation more than any mentioning the phrase "Electoral College.")
At least editorial writers and political writers are now focused
on gerrymandering. We've posted a great set of resources and
links on our website (see www.fairvote.org/whatsnew.htm),
including; the friend-of-the-court briefs filed in the Vieth case by
our Center and several other reform groups; a wide collection of
editorials and articles, including a new lengthy article from last week's
New Yorker magazine; and examples of fairer maps drawn by
Washington and Lee college students. Our Center's staff and
board members write regularly on this topic, including the
recent featured piece in the "Washington Spectator" and a long
piece by Steven Hill and me in TomPaine.com this week.
TIME FOR A RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE CONSTITUTION
The Bush v. Gore ruling was notorious in some quarters for
declaring that Americans have no constitutional right to vote
for president. In fact, the United States is one of the few nations
that lacks a clear affirmation of the right to vote in its constitution.
That lack explains why the nation can look the other way when
a half million citizens in Washington, D.C. can be denied a voting
representative in Congress even thought the body that directly
oversees it, why it can allow states to disfranchise more than four
million citizens convicted of a felony and why so many states and
counties can have such inefficient, ineffective procedures for
registering voters and counting votes.
Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) has introduced HJR 28 to
ensure the right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. The amendment has
13 co-sponsors, as of Dec. 3, 2003. On Nov. 22, Rep. Jackson gave
a stirring keynote speech at CVD's "Claim Democracy" conference
in which he announced a lifelong commitment to putting the right
to vote in the Constitution. We soon will have tapes available; a
summary of his key points can be found on our website at:
http://www.fairvote.org/articles/jessejr.htm
In the spirit of a national right to vote, my colleague Steven Hill and
I this week blasted Congress and the White House for trying to
do "Democracy on the Cheap." Here's an excerpt:
"....There's a simple reason the United States is playing catch up to Brazil
-- and most other nations -- when it comes to modernizing election
administration. Under our decentralized election administration regime,
we have a shockingly weak national commitment to fair and secure
elections. In fact the main players in running elections are the more
than 3,000 county election administrators scattered across the country.
"With the 2002 Help America Vote Act, the federal government for the
first time established some national election standards and provided
some funds to states. But standards are weak, and funds available for
only three years. There's little training for election administrators,
and too often county election chiefs are selected based more on whom
they know than training and experience. There's limited guidance to
assist counties when they bargain with the equipment vendors.
"The vendors themselves spark questions. Three companies dominate
the field: Elections Systems and Software, Sequoia Pacific, and Diebold.
They are relatively small profit-making corporations, often cutting
corners to make a buck, stretched beyond their capacities, strained by
the myriad of state bodies certifying equipment, and all to quick to put
aside public interest concerns if not spelled out in contracts. Their
equipment isn't nearly as good as it could or should be....
"The manufacture and selling of voting equipment shouldn't be just
another business. There indeed is something special about our electoral
infrastructure that cries out for a federal system with national
standards and regulations. After September 11 we moved to have federal
workers monitoring airport security. But after election 2000, we did
nothing comparable for our elections.
"Imagine an alternative reality, in which the federal government used its
immense resources to invest in developing voting technologies that were
truly cutting edge and secure, with open source software, voter verified
paper trails, national standards and the public interest incorporated
without resistance. Imagine national voter registration lists that
better assured clean lists and a big increase in the barely two-thirds
of American adults now registered to vote.
"But no, instead we are stuck with the current shadowy vendors and
decentralized hodge-podge that lately have made U.S. democracy a
laughingstock around the world. Call it democracy on the cheap. The
debate over voter-verified paper trails is a window into a far bigger
problem of decentralized elections that inevitably will lead to future
debacles until corrected. We can no longer passively accept an election
administration regime gone deeply awry. "
Our Center has taken one concrete step toward a more open vote-counting
processes. It has supported Voting Solutions, LLC, in releasing ChoicePlus
Pro(TM) under an open source license and development agreement.
ChoicePlus Pro processes ballot data for instant runoff voting and choice
voting. For more, see fairvote.org/articles/businesswire_nov03.htm
CLAIM DEMOCRACY CONFERENCE A BIG SUCCESS
Our thanks to the more than five hundred people --representing more
than 30 states and more than 80 organizations -- who took part in the
November 21-23 conference on "Claim Democracy: Securing,
Enhancing and Exercising the Vote" in Washington, D.C. Nearly
140 presenters covered a full range of issues. A full conference
report will be provided on our conference website (www.democracyusa.org)
in January. To build on the connections made at the conference, we have
formed a moderated "Claim Democracy" listserv, designed in particular
for state and local reformers who want to share "best practices" and pose
strategic questions about ways to advance democracy in the United States.
Sign onto the listserv at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/claim_democracy
HOWARD DEAN AND INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING
Instant runoff voting is one of those good ideas that has an air
of inevitability about it. Opponents' arguments are so weak
that once the idea's novelty in the United States wears off,
we expect to see rapid spread of its use.
The concept is simple. When two candidates run, the winner
will have a majority of the vote -- let's say 55% - 45%. But if
a third candidate runs, the top vote-getter might have fewer
votes. Let's say the result now is 40%-45%-15% -- the same
set of voters get a different result due to a splitting of the vote.
With instant runoff voting, voters can heal this split of they
so choose. Voter are given the chance to express a choice
for more than just their top choice -- they can indicate their second
choice (and third, if they want to). If no candidate has a majority of
first choices, the weak candidates are eliminated, and
ballots recounted without those candidates. If some voters'
top choice was the candidate with 15%, their ballots would
then count for their second choice -- in the case above,
the 55%-45% result would be restored, as is only fair.
Former Vermont governor Howard Dean has backed IRV
for several years. Vermont has one of the nation's strongest
movements for IRV, with backing for adopting IRV for
statewide office from the Democratic-leaning AFL CIO,
the Republican-leaning Grange and good government
groups like the League of Women Voters. On CNN on
November 12, Dr. Dean expressed support for IRV, as he
has frequently on the campaign trail. The transcript and audio
are posted at: http://www.fairvote.org/articles/deancnn.htm
Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Congressman also running for
the Democratic presidential nomination, has an even stronger
pro-IRV position posted on his campaign website. See:
http://www.fairvote.org/articles/kucinichirv.htm
Instant runoff voting will get some high-level use in the United
States in 2004. San Francisco will use IRV to elect members of
its Board of Supervisors (its city council) in November, while
Utah Republicans will use it at their convention to elect party
officers and to nominate candidates for high office. The
City of Berkeley will vote in March about whether to allow
the city council to be able to adopt IRV.
You can track IRV by joined a moderated listserv; its homepage
is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/instantrunoff
ELECTIONS IN NORTHERN IRELAND AND RUSSIA
Nearly all well-established, major democracies use some
kind of full representation, non-winner-take-all system for at
least one of their national elections Recent elections in Northern
Ireland (which is part of the United Kingdom) and Russia provide
examples. In Northern Ireland, voters use the choice voting
method. a candidate-based system that shares some of the
principles of instant runoff voting, but also reduces the share of
votes necessary to win a seat, which allows full representation of
the spectrum of opinion in proportion to like-minded voters'
share of the vote. Russia uses a "mixed member" system, where
half of its parliament is elected from U.S.-style single-member
districts and half from a national "party list", where political
parties win a proportional share of seats if they win at least
5% of the national vote. For articles about these elections and
many other nations around the world, see
http://www.fairvote.org/pr/global
GOOD READING: RECENT MEDIA COVERAGE
The "media coverage" page of our website keeps up-to-date
with articles about voting system reform and the Center. To see
recent articles, visit: http://www.fairvote.org/media/index.htm
Highlights include our last update include:
* Christian Science Monitor: "Rigging election boundaries: When
does it go too far?" CVD's Rob Richie among those quoted in
article on the Pennsylvania case on political gerrymandering.
* Tompaine.com: "The Gerrymander Moment." CVD's Rob Richie
and Steven Hill explain the importance of redistricting and the
Vieth v. Juelirer Supreme Court case.
* Progressive Populist: "Democracy on the Cheap." CVD leaders
suggest that the key lesson from voting equipment controversies
is the need to have a strong national commitment to fair and
secure elections.
* Asian Week: "Washington Journal: Claiming Democracy." Phil Nash
covers the recent Claim Democracy Conference.
* SF Weekly: "Making Nice: City and state elections officials finally
strike a harmonious note in their erratic efforts to roll out IRV."
Fox News: "Officials Vow to Fix Voter Problems Before 2004." CVD's
field director Rashad Robinson is a featured analyst. .
California Aggie: "Choice Voting increases meaning of votes."
UC-Davis student touts the university's new choice voting system.
The New Yorker: "Uncrazy California." Commentary by Hendrik
Hertzberg advocates IRV in the wake of the California recall.
"To the Best of Our Knowledge", National Public Radio. National radio
program interviews CVD's Rob Richie about instant runoff voting.
Washington Post: "Virginia Ranks Low for Election Rivalry:" CVD's
analysis is featured in coverage of Virginia state legislative elections.
SUBSCRIBING / UNSUBSCRIBING / DONATING
We send out newsletters about once a month. If you do not want to
receive them, let us know by replying to this message with the word
"remove" in the subject or your message. If you would like to
subscribe, please send an email to address@fairvote.org
The Center for Voting and Democracy is a non-profit organization
based in Washington D.C. It is headed by former Congressman a
nd presidential candidate John B. Anderson. We are devoted to
increasing public understanding of American politics and how to
reform its rules to provide better choices and fairer representation.
Our website (www.fairvote.org) has information on voting methods,
redistricting and voter turnout. As we rely heavily on individual
donations, please consider a contribution by mail (6930 Carroll
Avenue, Suite 610, Takoma Park MD 20910) or on-line at
www.fairvote.org/donate.htm If you are are a customer of
Working Assets, you still have time to vote for us - see our
donation page for more information.
Thank you!