April 30, 2004
To: Friends of Fair Elections
Fr: Rob Richie, Executive Director
The Center for Voting and Democracy (CVD)
www.fairvote.org, rr@fairvote.org
Re: - Supreme Court okays political gerrymandering
- Utah Republicans gear up for IRV election on May 8
- Highlights of recent webpage postings
- Right-to-vote amendment gathers support
- More universities adopt instant runoff voting
- New/updated CVD reports on non-majority winners,
Monopoly Politics projections, voter turnout
- Key gains for full representation in Canada and UK
- South Africa's third full representation election
- Featured op-ed: Richie/Hill on presidential battlegrounds
- News shorts from all over
- Stay tuned: Looking ahead
The 2004 elections already are controversial. Witness the bitterness
and accusations of unfair voting in.....the voting to narrow the field
in the American Idol television program. We trust Fox TV soon will
take a look at full representation, instant runoff voting and fair
procedures to head off future controversies.
Turning to the real world, the case for reforming how we elect our
representatives only gets stronger. Onto a review of recent developments:
SUPREME COURT OKAYS POLITICAL GERRYMANDERING
On April 28, the Supreme Court upheld Pennsylvania's congressional
redistricting map -- one that all observers acknowledge was a partisan
gerrymander in favor of Republicans as well as a plan that shields most
incumbents from competition. In a 5-4 ruling with a whopping five
separate opinions, four justices say they will dismiss all political
gerrymandering claims, one joined them in upholding the map but is
open to the potential of an as-yet-unarticulated political gerrymandering
\claim and four detailed standards they would support for evaluating
political gerrymanders. All nine justices indicated that gerrymandering
is a problem; where they differ is on whether the federal courts can do
something about it without new legislation from Congress.
The justices' difficulty with redistricting and the majority's opinion in
this case suggest that we need political solutions to gerrymandering
-- a problem that, in concert with winner-take-all elections, denies most
Americans with any realistic opportunity to change their representation
in the U.S. House and consistently under-represents political and racial
minorities in a given state.
What should be done? Of course the process for drawing lines must change.
It's simply wrong to let elected officials help their friends and hurt their
enemies in redistricting -- just as it would be wrong and foolish to allow
elected officials to do their own ballot-counting behind closed doors. But
reforming the way line are drawn itself is only a partial answer. Most of
the lack of electoral competition and distortions in fair representation in
our current politics does not come from redistricting: it comes from
winner-take-all elections and how voters in most areas tilt toward one
party (the idea of "red America" and "blue America) or race no matter
how you draw the district lines. To truly meet all the goals of those
seeking fair redistricting, there is only real solution: full representation
in multi-seat districts.
Many active supporters of our Center would like to see a full-scale
proportional representation system like one of those used in most
well-established democracies -- a system where 51% of voters win
a majority of seats, but not all, and 10% of like-minded voters can win
one out of ten seats. We'd like to see debate and action on proportional
representation, but in the short-term, we believe a consensus could
develop around what we call the Illinois model based on its history in
state legislative elections there: three-seat legislative districts with a
candidate-based full representation system that allows about a quarter
of like-minded voters to win one of those three seats.
Such a system is legal (it could be done by mere statute for any state's
congressional delegation with has at least three members and could be
done in many state legislatures by statute) and consistent with American
political traditions (it would be candidate-based, and the two major
parties like would dominate representation even while broadening their
appeal and facing more third party competition). It also would be
directly responsive to the most important problems with our current
system. Namely:
* Choice: More than 98% of incumbents have won reelection in U.S.
House elections since 1996, and primary defeats are even rarer. Two
in five state legislators races are typically not even contested by both
major parties. Third party candidates almost never come close to winning
and typically are dismissed as "spoilers." A full representation system
like choice voting typically would present seven or eight credible choices
among candidates appealing to all parts of the political spectrum.
* Accountability: Without more electoral competition -- both from the
other major party and from smaller parties that might compete directly
for a major party's base of support -- it is hard for voters to hold their
representatives accountable. Full representation would ensure
representatives are not just coasting to reelection.
* Representation: A basic demand of representative democracy is that
citizens have a reasonable chance to elect someone to represent their
interests. In our current system of depressed voter turnout and high
numbers of wasted votes, only one in four American adults elected
__anyone__ to the House of Representatives in 2002. Substantial
numbers of "orphaned" voters have no chance to elect a candidate of
their choice where they live. Full representation would result in far
more people electing a representative -- one byproduct would almost
certainly see more representative results for women and racial minorities.
* Polarization: Winner-take-all elections have left most of the country
solidly safe for one major party or the other. This has consequences
for fair policy-making. With full representation, nearly every American
would have at least one representative with the majority party and
with the opposition party. The major parties would have more incentives
to address problems throughout a state, not just in "their" areas, and to
reach across the aisle to develop policy.
For more on the Pennsylvania redistricting case, including links to the
opinions and briefs, see: http://www.fairvote.org/redistricting/vieth.htm
########################
UTAH REPUBLICANS GEAR UP FOR MAY 8 IRV ELECTION
Instant runoff voting keeps building momentum, with the controversy
over Ralph Nader's independent candidacy only adding to the understanding
of how capricious election results can be with our plurality voting system.
One important example of IRV in action is in Utah. Starting in 2002, Utah
Republicans have used instant runoff voting at their state party conventions
to elect officers and nominate candidates for federal and statewide offices.
As in several other states (including Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota
and Virginia), party conventions can play a significant role in deciding
party nominations.
The traditional process in such conventions is to hold a series of votes to
nominate candidates, with the voting dragging on for hours and the number
of attenders dwindling before the decisive vote. Utah Republicans saw IRV
as a means to accomplish the goal of selecting a candidate more quickly and
efficiently. Once the field at the convention is narrowed by IRV to two
candidates, any candidate winning at least 60% becomes the nominee
without a primary election; if no candidate wins 60%, the top two advance
to a primary.
Republicans dominate the state, making their nominations critically important.
On May 8, some 3,500 Republicans will gather. The greatest attention this
year is on the gubernatorial race. Former governor Mike Leavitt was named
to run the Environmental Protection Agency, and eight Republican candidates
are aggressively seeking votes in what is tantamount to an open seat election.
In addition to ensuring a higher rate of participation in the decisive round of
voting, IRV is having a positive impact on party unity and the tenor of the
campaign. Here are comments from one long-time political reporter in his
column in the Deseret News:
<< In any case, preferential balloting is changing how candidates in big races,
with a lot of challengers, campaign, several campaign managers tell me. "It
leads to a kindlier, gentler campaigning," said one manager. "That's because
it's important that you are No. 2 on a ballot, because the guy listed as No. 1
could be eliminated before you and you then pick up his vote" in subsequent
rounds of balloting, he said.
. ...So, in a preferential voting convention you talk about yourself, how
you can thump that Democrat in the final election, and so on. You stay positive.
You save any negative campaigning for the primary. There it's one-vote takes
all. And you can bloody a fellow Republican as much as you think the
public can take it.>>
To read more about developments in Utah and an illuminating analysis of the
12-person race for one of the congressional nominations in 2002, visit our
webpage on IRV in Utah at: http://fairvote.org/irv/utahindex.html
########################
HIGHLIGHTS FROM RECENT WEB POSTINGS
Following are highlights from recent postings at http://fairvote.org/whatsnew.htm.
* Right To Vote Amendment, http://fairvote.org/righttovote/index.htm
The Center has collected information about the powerful case for an
affirmative right to vote in the Constitution, including new commentaries
from Jamin Raskin and Rev. Jesse Jackson Congressman Jesse Jackson,
Jr. (IL) has introduced H.J. Res. 28 to put a right to vote in the Constitution.
The 29 co-sponsors include John Lewis (GA) , John Conyers (MI), James
Clyburn (SC), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX) and Dennis Kucinich (OH). For
more on voting problems in the United States, see the website of the Right
to Vote Campaign that focuses on the nearly five million American citizens
disenfranchised due to felony convictions (http://www.righttovote.org), a
recent report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that helps explain
how we once again may have four to six million fewer valid votes in this
year's presidential election than we would with better election administration
( http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2004/ready/ready04.pdf ) and the website
of D.C. Vote that focuses on voting rights for the people of the District of
Columbia (http://www.dcvote.org).
* South Africa ( http://fairvote.org/pr/global/southafricamain.htm ) held
its third national election with full representation -- a critically important
example of the value of representing the full array of views and interests
in a multi-racial, complex nation. The number of women in parliament is
set to increase from 120 to 131, to 33% of the parliament overall. The
United States Congress is 14% women. The Electoral Reform Society
Fair Vote Canada had good news to report about full representation in
Canada ( http://fairvote.org/pr/global/canadapressrelease0304.htm ) and
the United Kingdom ( http://fairvote.org/pr/global/britainerspressrelease0304.htm --
including near-certain adoption of choice voting for all city elections in Scotland
and a recommendation by a high-profile commission in Canada that calls for
full representation. Russia corporations in March were required to adopt
the cumulative voting method of full representation for better shareholder
representation. http://fairvote.org/cumulative/russiancompany.htm
* On the instant runoff voting front, 75% of University of Minnesota
students ( http://fairvote.org/schools/umnirv.htm ) voted for IRV for future
student elections -- the most recent among adoptions this year at schools
like the University of Virginia, University of Massachusetts, and Sonoma
State University. The Venice neighborhood council in Los Angeles adopted
IRV in April, and Instant Runoff Washington ( http://www.irvwa.org/ )
has formed to collect signatures for a statewide ballot measure. San Francisco
is preparing for its November elections with IRV, with modifications to its
voting equipment finally gaining certification ( http://fairvote.org/sf/irvtesting.htm ).
AccuPoll ( http://fairvote.org/administration/accupoll.htm ), a major new voting
equipment company with a touchscreen system with a voter verified paper
trail, has announced that it will be able to run ranked-choice voting elections
like IRV at no extra cost in 2005. The Minneapolis Star Tribune and New
Jersey Law Journal recently editorialized in favor of IRV.
* A Burlington, Vermont blue ribbon committee
http://fairvote.org/library/burlingtonvermont.htm had several backers of
adopting the choice voting method of full representation. Task forces in
other cities like Cincinnati and Seattle also vigorously debated choice voting.
Good sites with information on choice voting elections in Cambridge,
Massachusetts include
http://www.cambridgema.gov/alert.cfm?alert_id=7
http://www.cambridgema.gov/~Election/prop-voting.html
* The Center has collected a range of data on non-majority winners in
American elections, including new numbers on non-majority governors.
http://fairvote.org/plurality/gubernatorialindex.htm Since 1948, 80
governors have been elected with less than 50% of the vote, including
20 with less than 45% of the vote. Most plurality winners were from
the non-incumbent party, showing that voters with the "out" party are
more disciplined than more restless supporters of the "in" party.
We also have new data on voter turnout for the 2004 presidential
primary season http://fairvote.org/turnout/primaryturnout2004.htm --
turnout which plunged to historic lows in most states after John Kerry's
opening wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. We also have a new, user-
friendly edition of our Monopoly Politics 2004 report
( http://www.fairvote.org/2004/index.html ) showing how our near-perfect
projection model has projected more winners than ever before in 2004.
* The Center's Rob Richie spoke on April 12 at a news conference covered
by CSPAN about running debates in the public interest organized by
Open Debates (www.opendebates.org). Richie's other recent speaking
engagements included lectures at Georgetown Law School, Washington
College of Law, Harvard Law School, George Mason University, Washington
and Lee University and presentations to a National Asian Pacific Legal
Consortium conference, Washington, D.C.-area judges and delegations from
Moldova and Latin America.
Our website also provides ongoing coverage of:
- pending legislation on voting system reform, http://fairvote.org/action/index.html
- international news on full representation, http://www.fairvote.org/pr/global/country.htm
- redistricting news in the U.S., http://fairvote.org/redistricting/reports/remanual/frames.htm
- media coverage of voting system reform, http://fairvote.org/media/index.htm
###################
FEATURED COMMENTARY: RICHIE/HILL ON PRESIDENTIAL BATTLEGROUNDS
Ensuring a Fair Presidential Election
By Steven Hill and Rob Richie
Versions of this commentary have appeared in several publications, including
TomPaine.com, OpEdNews.com and Alternet.
Many pundits and activists have finally figured out what political insiders always
knew: our presidential election is not a national election at all. The battle for chief
executive will be fought in 15 battleground states, none either solidly Republican
red or Democratic blue, each fought as individual contests that will be too close to
call. This political geography presents important lessons for partisans and
reformers alike.
In a likely replay of the 2000 election, the battleground states are Florida (of course),
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas,
West Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and Arizona.
Some add Louisiana, Tennessee and Nevada, making 18 states.
These states' concerns will drive much of the campaign debate. Those in the Midwest's
/rust belt have been hit hard by job losses, particularly in well-paying manufacturing
jobs, making states like Ohio competitive. More Latino voters in New Mexico,
Arizona and Nevada create dilemmas for Republicans on issues like immigration.
With the prominence of Florida and its senior citizens, we'll hear a lot about
Medicare and Social Security. And don't expect John Kerry to highlight gun
control or other pet liberal issues when the almighty swing voters in battleground
states mostly oppose them.
Key issues of concern to those in other states -- even large states like Texas, New
York, Illinois and California -- will get short shrift because they are not in play.
Just as in our largely non-competitive congressional races, most Americans
effectively will be on the political sidelines.
But that doesn't mean those voters can't be involved. They can make sure friends
and relatives in the battleground states are registered to vote. They can hold house
parties to raise campaign cash for the close states. Some might even be able to travel
to a nearby battleground state and volunteer.
Most immediately, voters everywhere can highlight the need for fair elections.
With the two sides so close, we could be looking at another "Florida" happening
in any number of battleground states, perhaps in several of them. The political
geography of battleground states allows the presidential candidates to target not
only their resources and campaigning - but also their attempts to steal the election.
Changing the results in one battleground state, particularly a large state like Ohio
or Pennsylvania, will make a difference in the outcome.
So advocates of fair elections similarly must target our efforts to lessen the chance
of another Florida happening. That means working in the 15 battleground states
with civic groups like People for the American Way, the League of Women
Voters and Advancement Project to:
* Establish high-profile 1-800 numbers where voters can report incidents of
fraud or disenfranchisement, with "hot spot" legal teams ready to be dispatched
to problem areas.
* Ensure voter registration lists are handled fairly, unlike in Florida where
tens of thousands of likely Democratic voters were wrongly tagged as
ex-felons and removed.
* Educate voters and pollworkers that voters now have a federal right to cast
a "provisional ballot" if they barred from voting because aren't on the voter list
in their precinct. Election officials must research each provisional ballot and
either validate or deny it before certifying any winners. This new right won't
be much use if barred voters don't know to ask for a provisional ballot, or
precinct poll workers aren't trained to handle them.
* Demand greater public scrutiny of both old and new voting equipment,
ensuring that antiquated punchcards and more modern optical scan machines
and "touchscreens" count voters' ballots as intended.
* Protect the rights of overseas voters, both civilians and those in the military,
by sending them ballots in a timely manner.
Longer term, we need to challenge how the Electoral College marginalizes
most voters because they live in noncompetitive states. We should push
states to require majority winners through instant runoff voting, and debate
ideas like an Election Day holiday and universal voter registration. But this
year it all comes down to the battleground states. The Florida debacle pretty
much revealed the template for the types of goof ups, manipulations and
fraud that must be avoided in 2004. We must organize in the 15 battleground
states to ensure that, this time, all votes are counted and all votes count. The
stakes for our country couldn't be higher.
#####################
NEWS SHORTS FROM ALL OVER
* European Parliament / Choice voting on electronic voting
The European Parliament will be elected this year, with every nation
using a form of full representation. The Republic of Ireland will hold its
European and Local Elections on June 11, using the choice voting method
of full representation -- a voting method in multi-seat districts in which
voters ranks candidates as they do with instant runoff voting. Electronic
voting will be used throughout the entire country for the first time, with
the voter experience demonstrated in a Flash animation at:
http://www.electronicvoting.ie
* Representation of Women:
The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs has
launched the Win With Women Initiative, which advocates for increased
women's representation in political leadership and decision-making positions
around the world. For more information, see www.winwithwomen.ndi.org
* Presidential candidates on IRV and full representation
The two frontrunners for the Green Party nomination, David Cobb
and Peter Camejo, both regularly promote instant runoff voting and full
representation on the campaign trail. The 2000 Green Party nominee
Ralph Nader, this year running as an independent, also has been advocating
these reforms, as does Democratic Party candidate Dennis Kucinich. Before
bowing out of the Democratic race, Vermont governor Howard Dean
frequently proposed IRV. Presumptive major party nominees George W.
Bush and John Kerry do not have positions on these reforms.
* Citizen deliberation on voting systems in British Columbia:
CVD senior analyst Terry Bouricius writes: "I spent a few hours
watching a sample from two months of meetings of the British Columbia
Citizens' Assembly (BCCA) on the Internet. It was heart-warming. It
appears to be an absolute certainty that they will recommend some form
of full representation. In reports back from 12 small group discussions,
nearly every single group strongly favored both proportionality and
having local members of parliament (some geographic element). This
could lead to either some Mixed system or choice voting recommendation -
but not a province-wide list system. People can go to their web site and
view or download large amounts of presentation material (including lots
of presentations, powerpoints, videos and audios of presentations by
experts, etc.) at: http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/learning_resources
* Summer Institute on Democracy and Elections
The Center for Democracy and Election Management at American
University is holding a Summer Institute on Democracy and Elections
in Washington, D.C from June 1-11, 2004. The Summer Institute will
prepare election professionals to seize new opportunities and meet new
challenges in conducting free and fair elections, and it will provide a roadmap
for journalists and election monitors to be able to focus on the impediments
to free and fair elections. For further details and registration information,
see http://www.american.edu/ia/cdem/summer04/
* Hendrix College student leader writes about adopting IRV
We received a note from Brad Howard, vice-president of the Hendrix
College student senate in Arkansas. He wrote: "In 2003, my election, we
were bogged down with four different runoffs (divided by our Spring Break).
It was burdensome on the candidates and annoyed the student body. With
a campus of 1,000 students, we were lucky to get 300 students out to vote.
"One of my first initiatives as a new Senator was to change our voting
processes in hopes of increasing voter turnout and eliminating student apathy
with elections. We passed the "IRV Bill of 2003" unanimously. We recently
had our annual campus-wide elections and had a turnout of over 500 students.
Also, we had the results of the election two hours after the polls closed (we
had to have broken a record). Instead of waiting a couple weeks to know who
was President or your Senator, we knew for certain in just two hours
"I highly recommend this process to any school, especially small
schools. Thank you for your website and supplemental materials. It made
my presentation much more easy and convincing!"
* Pukelsheim's Proportional Representation Literature List is an extensive
bibliography of scholarly writings about full representation. See
http://www.math.uni-augsburg.de/stochastik/bazi/pprll.html
* Colon Cancer Awareness Month
This spring my father David Richie, the man who introduced me
to fair election methods and was a steadfast ally from the Center's founding,
would have turned 72. Full of vigor and reform energy, he died of colorectal
cancer in 2002. Like all too many of us, his doctors had not suggested been
screened for colon cancer. Caught early, colon cancer has a very cure rate,
but many doctors will not suggest it to their patients. For more on what
you can do to prevent colon cancer and to make sure you get tested if
over 50 years old, see http://www.colorectal-cancer.net/prevention.htm
#####################
STAY TUNED: LOOKING AHEAD
* At the Center for Voting and Democracy (CVD), look for releases in the
coming weeks on: the IRV elections at the Utah Republican Party state
convention on May 8; another round of cumulative voting elections in
Texas on May 15, including the school board in Amarillo; new insights
from our Monopoly Politics report on congressional elections; and
important changes in CVD's program division, board of directors and
(naturally!) the value of your financial support.
* The Center's staff and board should have commentaries in upcoming
editions of Legal Times, New York Times, Christian Science Monitor
and Nation magazine. Senior analyst Steven Hill will be on a speaking
tour of Europe this month. Director Rob Richie will be addressing
conferences and groups in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the D.C. area.
* We expect to take a lead role in organizing a mini-conference on the
importance of the right to vote in Boston on July 26 -- more details soon.
* There is a range of important pro-democracy activity taking place in
the United States. This summer we plan to establish a comprehensive
set of links to pro-democracy groups. In the meantime, keep updated
on daily news at election sites like electionline.org and therestofus.org
and visit the webpages of such organizations as Demos
(www.demos-usa.org), Common Cause (www.commoncause.org),
Initiative and Referendum Institute (http://www.iandrinstitute.org)
and Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (www.civilrights.org).
#####################
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 20912) or on-line at
http://www.fairvote.org/donate.htm
Thank you!