Re: [EL] At-large districts op-ed

The average sports fan is capable of understanding not just how the AP Poll works, but also how the BCS formula works. Explaining preference, cumulative, limited, and list voting is no more difficult.

I'd hope (and expect) that the average sports fan is less sophisticated than the average voter.

Ronald Keith Gaddie

Professor of Political Science

Editor, Social Science Quarterly

The University of Oklahoma
455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222
Norman, OK 73019-2001
Phone 405-325-4989
Fax 405-325-0718

E-mail: rkgaddie@ou.edu
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1
http://socialsciencequarterly.org

From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] on behalf of George Pillsbury [gpbury@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 4:16 PM
To: 'Rob Richie'; 'Election Law'
Subject: Re: [EL] At-large districts op-ed

It's also about providing opportunity for minority candidates to run and win, not a guarantee. Preference, cumulative or limited voting - or single member districts - all do a much better job than at-large systems. The data is pretty strong that whenever all at large systems change to districts or choice voting systems, opportunities for minority candidates and others to run competitive campaigns increases.

From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rob Richie
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 2:29 PM
To: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] At-large districts op-ed

I agree with John that voter education is good to do and am proud of our organization's role in Port Chester, but he overstates lack of racial minority success with these systems. Indeed I don't know of any instances where voters have had trouble with the balloting itself in any alternative voting system in practice, and going to an alternative voting system in the large majority of cases (including more than 50 uses of cumulative voting in Texas) and a number of uses of limited voting in North Carolina has resulted in wins for racial minorities.

There have been three clear reasons that I've seen such systems not work -- none relating to voter understanding of the ballot:

1) the threshold of exclusion was too high, given use of staggered elections (some Texas school districts might have a staggered elections with no more than 2 seats up at one time, for example).

2) there was no particular effort to mobilize racial minorities or no racial minority ran -- speaking to the value of having the kind of organization that Jerome Gray and the Alabama Democratic Conference provided in Alabama and the most important value of the voter education effort in Port Chester

3) splitting of the vote in a non-transferable ballot system, as has happened a handful of times in Alabama and South Dakota jurisdictions with Native American voters -- analogous to a majority-minority district not electing a minority candidate because two minorities split the vote in a plurality voting election

Bob Brischetto did a good piece on cumulative voting in Texas and when it "worked" and didnt' work back in the 1990s. See:

http://archive.fairvote.org/reports/1995/chp4/brischetto.html

As an example of how racial minorities can make effective use of an alternative system without understanding the in's and out's of how a system work, note that 32 New York Community School Boards used the choice voting (single transferable vote) form of proportional voting for years, and repeatedly it resulted in like-minded racial minority voters electing candidates of choice -- to the point that DOJ denied preclearance of an effort to go to a less proportional system in 1999. (Then NYC just got rid of elected schools boards, but that's another point...).

John, do you know of any preclearance objection to an alternative system that lasted? I don't know of any.

Rob

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM, John Tanner <john.k.tanner@gmail.com> wrote:

I'll add a sour note. The alternative systems frequently fail to offer minorities any representation at all. The successes are mainly in Alabama where the ADC gave black voters an extraordinary level of organization. The election systems that seem so clear to those of us on the listserve are easily misunderstood by ordinary voters, and the Justice Departmetn actually has interposed section 5 objections where jurisdictions have failed to explain the system adequately. I recall a law professor's blog about his difficulty explaining cumulative voting to his class (he finally got through to them with M&Ms). To be effective, the new system must be thoroughly explained to voters. The hghly detailed publicity program ordered for Portchester NY is a good model.

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Rob Richie <rr@fairvote.org> wrote:

To add to Justin's good point (and good linked resource, three Section 2 cases brought by the Dept. of Justice in recent years ended up with enactment of an alternative to winner-take-all elections. Relating to California specifically, FairVote joined with California Common Cause for an amicus making this point in the Modesto amicus case that is posted here:

http://www.fairvote.org/fairvote-and-california-common-cause-file-amicus-defending-state-voting-rights-act

Given that many California communities experience significant demographic shifts during the course of a decade and often have more than one racial minority group living in the same communities, such alternatives can make particular sense to consider -- with one nice result being that voters then can determine their representation with their votes in every election rather than relying on the munificence of mapmakers every ten years.

Rob Richie, FairVote

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Justin Levitt <Justin.Levitt@lls.edu> wrote:

If at-large elections are unlawfully denying minorities the opportunity to elect candidates of choice, moving to districts is certainly one common option. But at a conference of municipal attorneys just over one year ago, I mentioned some other potential options -- different voting systems -- for jurisdictions seeking to keep at-large elections while still ensuring a fair and lawful opportunity for minorities to elect candidates of choice. For local jurisdictions looking to adjust to new census numbers, it's good to keep in mind that there may be more than one answer on the menu.
-- 
Justin Levitt
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA  90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt@lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321
On 3/5/2011 8:44 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:

"Eliminate at-large districts -- or lose costly lawsuits"

Rod Pacheco has written this oped in the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 10:47 AM
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"

Rob Richie
Executive Director

FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org rr@fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616

Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider a gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's CFC number is 10132.) Thank you!

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law