Subject: Re: [EL] Perhaps Gov. McDonnell wants a fair plan for all
From: Paul Gronke
Date: 4/18/2011, 9:29 AM
To: Rob Richie
CC: Doug Hess <douglasrhess@gmail.com>, "election-law@mailman.lls.edu" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>

I just got back from a great conference and am in an argumentative mood, so in that spirit with my good friend Rob:

On Apr 18, 2011, at 8:18, Rob Richie <rr@fairvote.org> wrote:

There seem to be several reasons to keep counties intact when possible. Among them:

1.  Counties conduct their elections differently from one another, so keeping those practices grouped makes sense -- less stress on election officials and reduced potential for confusion when pursing practices like countywide vote centers. 

An empirical question, and points to a separate concern--why precisely do different counties in a single state conduct their elections differently?  I agree that reducing ballot styles reduces stress and costs, though I'm not sure voters know the difference.


2. Voter turnout is affected by the "cost of information." Danny Hayes of American University last week did a presentation on his findings on how US House election rolloff (voters at the poll for a statewide race skipping US House races) increases in a statistically significant way when redistricting changes who your incumbent is (with voters either ready to like or dislike their incumbent based on experience). That affect would be minimized by multi-seat districts that keep more voters matched with incumbents they know, but speaks more generally to the value of coherence for voters in being districted together in logical ways that are consistent over time. 

I have long endorsed the idea of multimember districts as a way to address minority and other subgroup representation without the need to draw obscenely complex districts.  I hadn't thought of the informational advantage.  I'm not sure in a single member setup the equation is so simple; what you gain in stability you may lose in increased turnover and competitiveness.



3. Political parties also organize themselves by county, typically, which lends itself to a more coherent experience for voters over time 

Empirical question.  Do they in a significant way any more and does this have any impact on the coherence of voter experience?  


4. If we take representation of geography seriously (and we better, as we generally enforce a geographically defined quota system to make sure equally populated geographic areas all get equal representation regardless of turnout), counties and their leaders often believe their interests are more influential if county voters are all kept in one district rather than divided.

An odd argument coming from an advocate for IRV and other ranked choice methods!


Doug's thought that jurisdictions might benefit from having more than one representative is another argument for why a multi-seat districts with an alternative voting method would be better for voters -- it would give them access to more than one representative and, additionally, nearly always someone with the governing party and the opposition party.

Absolutely.

Rob Richie

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Doug Hess <douglasrhess@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Just thinking outloud regarding the division of existing jurisdictions by lines for higher offices: if I were a city or county official (especially at-large or the executive/manager), I might want my jurisdiction to be split into two congressional or state legislative districts as it would give me more office holders to pressure when I had an issue to raise. Does that make sense (in the abstract or practically)?
 
In any event, who is it then that prefers, or why prefer, that counties not be divided in these plans? Or is it just an example of people wanting maps to be "tidy" (something too many pundits worry about it seams to me).
 
-Doug
 
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 07:19:07 -0400
From: Rob Richie <rr@fairvote.org>
Subject: [EL] Perhaps Gov. McDonnell wants a fair plan for all
       Virginians
To: Michael McDonald <mmcdon@gmu.edu>
Cc: Election Law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimOWRseoCSs3NDGeXdDvBWcOQKCEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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
by Rob Richie <http://www.fairvote.org/list/author/Rob_Richie>, Matt
Morris<http://www.fairvote.org/list/author/Matt_Morris>
 // Published April 13, 2011

_______________________________________________
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