March 3, 2004
To: Friends of Fair Elections
Fr: Rob Richie, Executive Director
The Center for Voting and Democracy (CVD)
www.fairvote.org, info@fairvote.org
Re: - New release on win for IRV in Berkeley and
support for IRV in new Illinois poll
- John Anderson commentary on opening up elections
- Reforms for presidential primaries
- Highlights of recent webpage postings
- Rashad Robinson moves on
The 2004 election season became clearer yesterday, with Sen. John.
Kerry effectively locking up the Democratic presidential nomination
and congressional incumbents rolling on to mostly easy elections.
It also was a good day for advocates of fair elections. In Berkeley,
voters supported by an ovewhelming 72%-28% margin a ballot
measure authorizing the city to use instant runoff voting elections --
overcoming some vigorous opposition in the local paper and
by three councilmembers opposing the measure.
The Center has had a busy primary season, as those of you who
track our website -- www.fairvote.org -- or are on the instant runoff
voting national listserv -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/instantrunoff .
I wanted to share with you a few highlights, in the form of:
* Our news release today about the Berkeley victory and the
results of a telephone survey of 1,100 likely primary voters in
Illinois who expressed support for IRV
* Our chairman John Anderson's recently widely published commentary
on instant runoff voting and Ralph Nader's independent presidential
candidacy
* Excerpts from one of several recent commentaries on presidential
primaries that I co-authored with our senior analyst Steven Hill
* Highlights of recent webpostings, including: powerful advocacy
of full representation by Katrina vanden Heuvel and John Burbank;
cumulative voting and voting rights; ongoing legal battles over
redistricting; on-line IRV surveys; more movement toward
full representation in Canada; and good links for tracking the
debate over how best to have fair and secure voting equipment
In addition, I want to thank the many among you who must have voted
for us in Working Assets' customer voting in 2003 on which non-profit
groups to support. We recently received nearly $49,000 based on those
votes -- much more than we anticipated. Thanks so much, and please
consider a donation this year to help us pursue fair elections. And
our best wishes to the many oustanding organizations and individuals
working for a strong, vibrant democracy.
- Rob Richie
##########
NEWS RELEASE: March 3 2004
Instant Runoff Voting: A Convincing Win and Strong Survey Support
Voters in Berkeley Support "IRV" by 72-28%, while Majority of Illinois
Voters Agree with John B. Anderson on "IRV for President"
Instant runoff voting, the ranked-choice method of voting favored
by Robert's Rules of Order and used to assure majority winners in
a single election, received a strong boost yesterday when voters
in Berkeley, California overwhelmingly supported a ballot measure
to authorize the city to enact the innovative voting method. The victory
comes on the heels of a telephone survey of likely voters in the
upcoming Illinois primary in which a majority of respondents
expressed support for instant runoff voting in presidential elections.
John B. Anderson, the former Congressman and presidential candidate
who is chairman of the Center for Voting and Democracy, applauded
the win. "Berkeley's victory is the latest indication that voters want to
say more about their choices -- and to have better choices." Anderson
recently wrote a commentary about instant runoff voting and Ralph
Nader's presidential candidacy that has appeared in the leading
dailies in Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Sacramento and Charlotte (NC).
According to a Metro Chicago Information Center telephone survey
commissioned last month by the Center for Voting and Democracy, a
clear majority of 1,100 likely voters in the state's March 16 primary
would like to use instant runoff voting in presidential elections in
November, and a plurality would like to use it in primary elections.
More than 50% of voters answered yes when asked "Would you
like a 'second-choice option' to better ensure that the winner of Illinois'
Electoral College votes has the majority support of Illinois voters?"
The Illinois poll also asked respondents for their full preferences in
the state's U.S. Senate primary contests and the presidential race.
This information about voters' second and third choices provides
revealing information. For example, Massachusetts Senator John
Kerry not only was the big frontrunner among first choices. He also
was the second choice of four out of five of supporters of Sen. John
Edwards and the second choice of 70% of supporters of the remaining
presidential candidates. Poll results are available at www.PrimaryPoll.com
With instant runoff voting, voters rank their favorite candidate first, and
then can indicate which candidates are their second and third choices.
A candidate wins with a majority of first choices, but if there is no
initial majority winner, the weak candidates are eliminated. Ballots for these
candidates are then counted for their top-ranked choice who has
dvanced to the second round -- simulating a traditional two-round runoff,
but without added costs. Two dozen states have considered legislation
on "IRV." Backers include Sen. John McCain and Gov. Howard Dean.
The Center for Voting and Democracy is a nonpartisan, non-profit
organization that studies American elections and advocates reforms
designed to promote voter participation, competitive elections,
accountable elected officials and fair representation. For more
information visit www.fairvote.org.
######################
JOHN ANDERSON COMMENTARY
Creating an Open Electoral Process
By John B. Anderson
February 29, 2004, Philadelphia Inquirer
(This commentary also in any other publications, includng the Charlotte
News and Observer, Sacramento Bee and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
Ralph Nader's announcement of his independent candidacy brings back
memories. In 1980, I ran for president as an independent after
abandoning the Republican primaries. Even though polling near 25
percent when declaring my candidacy, I was labeled a spoiler. My
candidacy was said to deprive voters of the clear choice between
incumbent Jimmy Carter and his Republican challenger Ronald Reagan.
Never mind that my platform clearly attracted many people
uncomfortable with this choice.
Ever since then I have grappled with how we can structure our
electoral system to accommodate an increase in choices and the
better dialogue and greater voter participation coming with those
choices. Having an election between two candidates is obviously
better than a one-party dictatorship, but having an election among
more than two candidates is better than a two-party duopoly.
The American people know this. When Ross Perot ran for president in
1992, viewership of the presidential debates soared, and voter
turnout rose sharply in nearly every state. When he was shut out of
the 1996 debates, polls showed that Americans wanted him in the
debates by a margin of three to one. In 2000, a majority of
Americans wanted to include the Green Party's Nader and Reform Party
candidate Pat Buchanan in the debates.
But there is a fundamental, if easily correctable, problem with our
electoral process. We use a plurality voting system where voting for
your favorite candidate can contribute directly to the election of
your least favorite.
Unlike most democracies, our states have set up presidential
elections so that the candidate with the most votes wins all
electoral votes, even if opposed by a majority of voters. That makes
third-party or independent candidates "spoilers" if they split a
major party candidate's vote. It's this concern that drives the
major parties to exclude other voices from the debates, and for the
current condemnation of Ralph Nader for entering the presidential
race.
Fortunately, there's a solution, one already practiced for top
offices in London, Ireland and Australia and in Utah and California
for key elections: instant runoff voting. Any state could adopt this
simple reform immediately for all federal elections, including the
presidential race. There has been legislation backing instant runoff
voting in nearly two dozen states, and former presidential
candidates Howard Dean and John McCain advocate the system.
In instant runoff voting, people vote for their favorite candidate,
but also can indicate subsequent choices by ranking their
preferences as 1, 2, 3. If a candidate receives a majority of first
choices, that candidate wins. If not, the candidate with the fewest
votes is eliminated, and a second round of counting occurs. In this
round, your ballot counts for your top-ranked candidate still in the
race. Rounds of counting continue until there is a majority winner.
With instant runoff voting, we would determine a true majority winner
in one election and banish the spoiler concept. Voters would not
have to calculate possible perverse consequences of voting for their
favorite candidate. They could vote their hopes, not their fears.
Under this system, progressives who like Nader but worry about
George Bush could rank Nader first and the Democrat second.
Similarly, libertarian-minded conservatives upset with the
Republican party's positions on government spending could rank the
Libertarian nominee first and Bush second. Rather than contributing
to a major party candidates' defeat, these candidates instead could
stimulate debate and mobilize new voters.
Our primitive voting system is this year's biggest spoiler. Instant
runoff voting would give us a more participatory, vital democracy,
where candidates could be judged on their merits and the will of the
majority would more certainly prevail.
[John B. Anderson served in Congress from 1961 to 1981 and was an
independent presidential candidate in 1980. He is chairman of the
Center for Voting and Democracy (www.fairvote.org).]
########################
EXCERPTFROM COMMENTARY BY RICHIE AND HILL
(The Center for Voting and Democracy's Rob Richie and Steven
Hill write and circulate two commentaries a month. These pieces
are posted on our website and circulated. Below is an excerpt from
a commentary that appeared in numerous publications, including the
Christian Science Monitor, Baltimore Sun and Cleveland Plain Dealer.)
Reforming Presidential Primaries
.....Reform should enhance what already works. In contrast to
most general elections, contested presidential primaries offer
a meaningful range of views with real diversity of opinion. The
intense focus on Iowa and New Hampshire encourages
candidates to have sustained contact with ordinary voters
ather than wage campaigns solely from TV studios. Potential
nominees must withstand challenges that test their mettle.
But parties could strengthen themselves -- and democracy --
with new approaches:
- Rotate opening states. A lottery among small and mid-size
states should determine the first to hold primaries. Iowa and
New Hampshire should not be the sole focus of candidates'
grass-roots campaigning. Different states have different concerns,
particularly those with bigger cities and more racial diversity.
- Create an inclusive, sensible schedule. To avoid a eight-month
general election campaign of sniping and personal attacks -- and
yes, it's already started -- primaries should return to running from
March to June. After the opening primaries, small states would
vote in a "mini-Super Tuesday," followed by a break that would
allow voters to give front-runners a second look. Bigger states
would then vote, followed by more breaks, until the biggest states
would vote in a decisive final round.
- Require full representation. In Democratic primaries and caucuses,
candidates win a fair share of convention delegates through full
representation, in which 25 percent of the vote earns a proportional
25 percent of delegates. Republicans, however, mostly use a
winner-take-all system in which the first-place finisher receives
all delegates. This distorts results and can allow an unrepresentative
candidate to win big when the opposition vote is split among several
candidates. Both parties should consider lowering the 15 percent
threshold required by Democrats to win delegates.
- Adopt Iowa's "second choice" system. Voting in a public meeting,
Iowa's caucus participants can vote for stronger candidates if it's
clear that their first choice can't win delegates. Primary voters would
gain this enhanced power if they could indicate their second and third
choice candidates rather than just vote for one. More voters would
help elect delegates (in this year's early primaries, more than a
quarter of voters supported candidates who didn't win delegates),
and candidates would be more likely to reach out to supporters of
other candidates and run positive campaigns.
- Remember young voters. They are most likely to be unregistered
and are disproportionately registered as independents and would
benefit from being able to register on the day of the primary and
vote even if registered as an independent. New Hampshire's primary
rules allow these provisions, but Maryland's do not. And, while youth
turnout remained low this year, young voters participated in bigger
numbers than in 2000 -- 400 percent more in Iowa and 50 percent
more in New Hampshire.
- Fix the financing. When leading candidates like Mr. Kerry, Dr.
Dean and Mr. Bush opt out of public financing, the system is broken.
A 4-to-1 public match for small donations should be provided and
participating candidates given additional funds when opponents opt
out.
We deserve elections in which more of us make a difference, choices
are meaningful and our votes count. Parties can adopt most of these
changes without congressional legislation. Let's reform in 2008
voters have a better choice.
########################
HIGHLIGHTS FROM RECENT WEB POSTINGS
Following are descriptions of some of our recent
postings at http://fairvote.org/whatsnew.htm
*Cumulative voting and minority voting rights: North Carolina judge
orders jurisdiction to consider cumulative voting. Demographic shifts
in Alabama counties spur calls for cumulative voting.
* State legislative redistricting plans tossed in Georgia and North
Carolina: Federal courts this month have ordered new districts for
Georgia because of an equal protection claim and new districts in
the Boston area of Massachusetts because of a voting rights claim.
Keep up with redistricting news in our public interest guide
to redistricting.
* IRV used in Altie awards: Alternet once again used instant runoff
voting for its "Alties" awards on movies in 2003.
* California Democratic Party takes action on IRV: On Jan. 17-18,
2004, the California Democratic Party adopted a political reform
plank that suggests alternative voting methods like instant runoff
voting be explored more frequently.
* Canadian commission recommends full representation: Canada's
leading newspaper reports that the National Law Commission will
recommend that Canada replace winner-take-all elections. The
Center has compiled information on this and other moves toward
change in Canada. A leading electoral reform group, FairVote
Canada, summarizes Canadian progress for full representation.
* Fair and secure voting equipment: The Center has collected
links to a number of sites that address the fairness and security of
modern voting equipment. We urge readers to get involved in this
timely issue.
In addition, there are a number of excellent new articles and
commentaries posted in our media coverage area -- see
http://fairvote.org/media/index.htm
Highlights include powerful new commentary by John Burbank
and by Katrina vanden Heuvel on forging a better democracy.
Our website also provides ongoing coverage of:
- pending legislation on voting system reform at
http://fairvote.org/action/index.html
- international developments on full representation at
http://www.fairvote.org/pr/global
- news on redistricing in the United States at:
http://fairvote.org/redistricting/reports/remanual/frames.htm
- presidential primary results at:
http://fairvote.org/turnout/dem_results04.htm
We also have recently updated our Monopoly Politics
report on congressional elections to reflect open seats
and changes in Texas district lines. See
http://www.fairvote.org/2004/index.html
###################
RASHAD ROBINSON LEAVES CVD
Rashad Robinson, who had worked with the Center for two
years as our full representation program coordinator and
field director, has taken a new job as communications director
of the Right to Vote Campaign (www.righttovote.org) in
New York City. Rashad has a powerful commitment to fair
representataion and a fairer democracy. He will be missed.
###################
SUBSCRIBING/UNSUBSCRIBING
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
and 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 Ave.,
Suite 610, Takoma Park MD 20910) or on-line at
http://www.fairvote.org/donate.htm
Thank you!
Rob Richie, Executive Director
The Center for Voting & Democracy
info@fairvote.org, www.fairvote.org
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
(301) 270-4616
"Make Your Vote Count!"