Tongue firmly in cheek, let me highlight rumors that Gov. McDonnell became a passionate reader of the FairVote blog on electoral reform after we rightly praised him for policies on voting rights for citizens with felony convictions.The governor this week would have seen our blogpost below with alternative maps for Virginia. Our plans for the House of Delegates and state senate would:* divide fewer counties than proposed plans* put every voter in every election in a contested election with competitive choice* increase representation of racial minorities, including providing for the first time opportunities for Latino voters to elect candidates of choice* likely boost representation of women candidates, who have more success in multi-seat district elections* keep the two party system largely -- if not perfectly -- intact;* provide all voters with representatives of both major parties, meaning members of each party's legislative caucuses would represent every single Virginian when debating what is best for the future of the state.No alternative proposal based on winner-take-all voting comes even close to such outcomes. Note further that Republican Bill Brady, who narrowly lost the general election for governor last year, including in his platform the goal of restoring such a system of non-winner-take-all voting to his state. And as a final point, nearly __every__ new democracy emerging from dictatorship rejects winner-take-all voting-- every eastern European democracy went to a form of proportional voting, for example, and pro-democracy advocates in Arab nations such as Tunisia, Libya, Jordan, Lebanon and Yemen overwhelmingly back forms of proportional voting in their counties,So as Virginia's elected officials fight over which plan to adopt, keep in mind that every single proposed plan would put most voters in one-sided districts in which their representation has been largely determined by mapmakers, not how they vote. We'll be doing similar alternative voting plans as other states release plans. For instance, look on Monday for a simple congressional district plan for Louisiana based on drawing two three-seat US House districts: each new district would likely result in shared representation of the major parties and create clear opportunities for African Americans to elect candidates of choice.But back within the blinkers of the winner-take-all world, kudos to Michael McDonald's Public Mapping Project that may have contributed to an understanding of better winner-take-all alternatives.- Rob Richie, FairVote#############
http://www.fairvote.org/virginia-redistricting-part-ii
Virginia Redistricting: Part II
As explained in Matt Morris' previous blog post on redistricting and Dean Searcy's blog on New Jersey legislative districts, FairVote proposes a better way to provide voters with real choices and fair representation than the highly problematic process of legislative redistricting. We prefer multi-member "super districts" with a proportional voting system rather than winner-take-all elections that give so much power to those crafting district lines.
As in his first example with Virginia's congressional districts, Matt used maps and data from the Virginia Redistricting Competition to construct alternative plans for the Virginia's State Legislature. Given that the University of Richmond team received first place in the Governor's Commission category, we decided to use its map. We simply combined five adjoining House of Delegates seats to create one super district, and then combined two of these super-districts to form he State Senate super districts. Each of our 20 super districts for the House of Delegates is designed to elect five seats, and each of our ten State Senate super districts has four seats.
Using a proportional voting system like choice voting in elections for the House of Delegates, a candidate could one seat with the strong support of about 17% of the vote, with a majority of three seats being won with 51%. In the four-seat super districts for the state senate, each seat could be won with about 20% of the vote. Based on the partisanship numbers, every single super districts would be highly likely to have shared representation -- meaning that every voter in the state would have representatives of both major parties and potentially more independents and some small parties. In addition, most, if not all super districts, would be competitive in every election for partisan control of at least one seat, putting every voter in a competitive race. No winner-take-all system comes remotely close to such elections. In contrast, the prize-winning plan from the University of Richmond created only 28 delegate districts that were competitive.
As for representation of racial minorities, African American voters would be well-positioned to elect 15 candidates of choice in a total of 11 of the House of Delegates super districts and four candidates in the 10 state senate super districts, with additional chances in every single district to elect or directly influence the election of representatives. The prize-winning plan created only 12 African American majority delegate districts, leaving a a far greater number of African American in districts with little chance even to influence the election of a representative of choice.
Furthermore, the voting-age population of Latinos would be in double digits in five delegate super districts and two state senate super districts -- and more than the 17% threshold of representation in two delegate districts. Latino voters do not make up a majority of the vote in any winner-take-all district plan.
Below are our plans:
Terminology: "Black VAP" refers to the share of voting age population that is African American. "Partisan (Dem.)" refers to the percentage of voters who are projected to vote Democratic in a close statewide races, based on a determination used in the Virginia Redistricting Competition. Note that the partisanship provided can just as easily define the Republican partisanship, which is simply the "mirror" percentage -- meaning a 40.1% partisan district is 59.9% Republican.
House of Delegates
Districts
(Five seats)(Prev. Numbers)
Pop.
Partisan (Dem.)
Black VAP
1
1,2,3,4,5
404,421
37.45%
2.80%
2
6,7,8,9,10
402,359
49.40%
14.10%
3
14,16,23,22,60
399,606
42.09%
26.71%
4
61,75,63,66,62
402,337
48.31%
37.43%
5
11,12,17,19,25
405,457
45.38%
10.74%
6
56,56,58,57,24
399,152
49.71%
16.06%
7
65,27,70,69,68
405,331
56.04%
31.72%
8
55,72,73,71,74
399,483
55.98%
27.05%
9
76,78,80,77,79
406,329
55.58%
38.63%
10
81,84,21,83,82
407,932
45.97%
20.38%
11
89,90,87,95,92
397,619
67.34%
45.19%
12
94,91,96,64,100
398,057
47.46%
23.88%
13
97,98,99,54,28
400,522
41.75%
18.69%
14
30,88,31,13,85
394,096
44.58%
17.83%
15
52,51,42,44,43
395,413
58.27%
20.56%
16
40,50,41,39,37
393,127
53.37%
7.84%
17
46,45,49,38,47
400,492
71.81%
14.79%
18
35,53,48,34,36
394,289
61.64%
5.26%
19
93,67,33,86,32
395,722
49.19%
8.33%
20
26,29,15,18,20
398,613
38.78%
4.82%
State Senate
Districts
(Four seats)(Prev. Numbers)
Pop.
Partisan (Dem.)
Black VAP
1
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
806,780
43.43%
8.45%
2
14,16,23,22,60,61,75,63,66,62
801,943
45.20%
32.07%
3
11,12,17,19,25,59,56,58,57,24
804,609
47.55%
13.40%
4
65,27,70,69,68,55,72,73,71,74
804,814
56.01%
29.39%
5
76,78,80,77,79,81,84,21,83,82
814,261
50.78%
29.51%
6
89,90,87,95,92,94,91,96,64,100
795,676
57.40%
34.54%
7
97,98,99,54,28,30,88,31,13,85
794,618
43.17%
18.26%
8
52,51,42,44,43,40,50,41,39,37
788,540
55.82%
14.20%
9
46,45,49,38,47,35,53,48,34,36
794,781
66.73%
10.03%
10
93,67,33,86,32,26,29,15,18,20
794,335
43.99%
6.58%
As the data shows, there are more opportunities for minorities to elect representatives, as well as a fairly even distribution of partisanship so that one party does clearly dominate.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Michael McDonald <mmcdon@gmu.edu> wrote:
Gov. McDonnell vetoed the state legislative redistricting plans. The two
chambers' plans were packaged into one bill. You can read Gov. McDonnell's
veto statement here:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B0bHdAFS4
MgqYjEzMzgyOWYtNTY3NC00NjhjLTg5ZDktOWRiOTI2ZTE3YmVh&hl=en
============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor, George Mason University
Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191 George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399 Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon@gmu.edu 4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
_______________________________________________
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
