|
Fair Elections
Update
November 14, 2002
To: Friend of Fair Elections
Fr: Rob Richie, Executive Director
The Center for
Voting and Democracy
www.fairvote.org, [email protected]
Re:
- Election 2002 Index: Starkly Revealing
Statistics
- Monopoly Politics: Predictions in 359 House Races for
2004
- Editorial Consensus to Take on Political Gerrymandering
- Ongoing Rise in Support for Instant Runoff
Voting
(For more information about any
issues discussed here or about how to become a member of our Center,
visit www.fairvote.org or email us at [email protected]
. To
subscribe/unsubscribe from these updates, which are sent on a
monthly basis in non- election seasons, please see message's
end.)
* * * * * * * * * * *
This November elections may well have a momentous
impact on federal policy in the next two years, with Republicans
having gained secure control of both branches of Congress and the
White House for the first time in half a century. But they also
underscore the need for fundamental reform of our political system.
Voter turnout rose, but again was
abysmally low in most states, falling below 40% of all voting
age Americans despite national congressional elections and numerous competitive gubernatorial races.
Most legislative races lacked any meaningful
competition. Only four U.S. House incumbents lost to
non-incumbent challengers in their severely gerrymandered districts, the average
House races was won by a victory margin
of more than 40% and more than four out of every five U.S. House races
was won by landslide margins of 20% or more and more than nine
out of every ten races was won by a margin of more than 10%. In state
legislative elections from 1998-2002, two of every five winners faced
no major party opposition, including 37% of this year's winners.
Women and minorities remain severely
under-represented, with this year's status quo election standing in
stark contrast to the 1992 surge in women and racial minorities
after the last round of legislative redistricting. Compared to 1993,
there are two fewer African-Americans in Congress and fewer states
with women in their U.S. House delegations. Minor parties tried
harder than ever, but again made no significant gains, and the major
parties will control all 50 governor's mansions for the first time
in more than a decade even as a growing number of Americans,
especially youth, express interest in viable alternatives outside
the major parties. To read the Center's post-election analysis, see
http://fairvote.org/e_news/election2002.htm
.
Below are revealing statistics
that I hope you will consider sharing with others on your email
lists. After the statistics are items about our 359 projected
winners in the November 2004 U.S. House elections, the rising tide
of opposition to political gerrymandering, an update on rising
interest in instant runoff voting and a review of major media
coverage received by our Center, including commentaries and articles
in the Los Angeles Times, USA Today and New
York Times .
THE CENTER FOR
VOTING AND DEMOCRACY'S ELECTION 2002 INDEX
Increase of women in U.S. House in 2002 elections
after the 2001-2 round of redistricting: 0
Increase of women in U.S. House in 1992 elections
after the 1991-2 round of redistricting: 19
Increase of racial minorities in U.S. House in 2002
elections after the 2001-2 round of redistricting: 3
Increase of racial minorities in U.S. House in 1992
elections after the 1991-2 round of redistricting: 22
Number of African-Americans in Congress in 2003:
37
Number of African-Americans in Congress in 1993:
39
Number of U.S. House races won by less than 20% in the
2002 House elections, after 2001-2 redistricting: 76
Number of U.S. House races won by less than 20% in the
1992 House elections, after 1991-2 redistricting: 169
Number of U.S. House races won by candidates facing no
major party competition in 2002: 78
Number of U.S. House races won by candidates facing no
major party competition in 1992: 8
Percent of U.S. House incumbents who defeated non-
incumbent challengers in 2002 elections: 99%
Voter turnout among adult Americans in 2002 elections:
39%
Voter turnout among adult Germans in 2002 elections:
75%
MONOPOLY POLITICS: PREDICTIONS IN 2004 RACES
In 1997 we started predicting winners in U.S. House
races based only on information from previous elections and whether
an incumbent was seeking re-election. This year, we developed a
simple, one-size-fits-all projection model that made our projections
entirely objective. When applied to the 1996-2000 House elections,
our model was correct in identifying which party would win in all
but one of 930 projections. It also correctly projected the minimum
victory margin in more than 97% of races without factoring in
anything about incumbent voting behavior, challenger quality or
campaign finance.
Our model projected 333 winners for the November 2002 elections. Every single
projection was accurate, and 98% accurately projected the minimum
margin of victory. For a full report, see http://fairvote.org/2002/accuracy.htm.
As an indicator of why the partisanship of districts
can be such a determining factor in who wins and loses, open seats
races (those races without incumbents) in 2002 were very revealing.
In this year's 49 open seat U.S. House races, only five were won by
a party whose presidential candidate in 2000 didn't carry the
district -- and three of those remaining five were in districts
where the 2000 presidential margin was extremely close, one still
could be reversed (Colorado-7) and the fifth was impacted by the
race of the Democratic nominee (Georgia-12, where a black Democrat
lost in a white-majority district).
Now our model projects 359
winners for 2004, the most our model has ever projected. That number
will decrease as some incumbents decide to give up their seats, but
only marginally so. Every indication is that this historically
non-competitive election may be the most competitive election of the
decade unless there is a seismic shift in voting patterns or states
decide to change their voting system or redraw their district lines.
You can read more about our November 2004
projections and download our spreadsheet to just see who's safe
and is who might face meaningful competition.
For those interested in money in
politics, we have a suggestion: follow where the money came from after you see
where it's going. Nearly all of our projected winners will
end up with a good deal more money than their challengers -- probably
the only projected winners who won't will face doomed self-financed
candidates. Given that any wise special interest donor also knows
who is sure to win, following the money provides opportunities to
analyze just why certain incumbents end up receiving so much money
from certain interests.
Finally, we should note that we don't make projections
in those relatively few races that are close. This year, both
parties split the close U.S. House races nearly evenly in every
grouping -- those races won by less than 5%, those won by less than
10% and those won by less than 20%. This indicates that the
on-ground campaigns of both parties cumulatively fought to a draw
and means that neither party has an edge in targeting seats for
gains until we learn where there will be open seats.
EDITORIAL CONSENSUS: END
GERRYMANDERING
In recent days, the Washington Post, New York Times,
Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times have all
published powerful editorial calling on states and/or Congress to
reform how we draw districts in order to promote more competition.
These writers generally tout Iowa's non- partisan approach to
redistricting. See these editorials in the "what's new" part of our
website .
We applaud this sentiment, but however beneficial
Iowa's process of nonpartisan redistricting might be, it can't go
far enough. Iowa is one of the relatively few states that is highly
competitive in presidential elections. Most states have clear tilts
toward one party, however, and even clearer tilts within their
borders. Those inherent partisan majorities will result in numerous
one-party districts in the fairest of redistricting plans. To give
all voters meaningful choices and provide fairer representation for
racial minorities, we must reform winner-take-all elections. As a
modest step, we can adopt full representation plans in districts
with three seats. Illinois used such a system for more than a
century, and many state leaders of both parties support restoring
it. One major reason is the value they place on cumulative voting
resulting in nearly every district electing representatives of both
major parties. The smaller party could win representation with the
support of 25% of voters, the bigger party would generally elect two
representatives from two different parts of its internal spectrum
and voters ended up with better choices and more accurate
representation of their district's views and interests.
INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING: INTEREST KEEPS
RISING
The elections provided several examples of how instant
runoff voting (IRV) would improve our politics. With a system
requiring majority rule, we might have different governors and U.S.
Senators in several states. With IRV -- a system the state already
uses for some overseas election ballots -- Louisiana would already
have elected its U.S. Senator rather to have to wait for a whole new
election in the December holiday season. Everywhere independents and
third party candidates could have been considered without being
tagged necessarily as "spoilers."
The Minneapolis Star Tribune is the latest major paper
to provide a strong endorsement for IRV . The paper's November 12th editorial ends:
"Rather than trying to stifle third parties, the Legislature would
do well to adjust state election law so that multiparty politics can
be practiced without sacrificing the benefits of majority rule.
Instant runoff voting would nicely serve that goal."
IRV received a great boost this election in
Massachusetts. Voters in two legislative districts gave a strong
endorsement to IRV. Advisory questions in support of IRV won 67% in
the 1st Hampshire District and 71% in the 3rd Hampshire District.
Interest in IRV is growing rapidly in the state legislature, and
some towns are seriously debating its use for town elections. In a
Hampshire Gazette news story, state Sen. Stanley Rosenberg said that
he "fully expects instant runoff proponents to eventually mount a
statewide ballot question on it." For more on Massachusetts IRV
activism, see the webpage of FairVote Massachusetts and the Center's
report on the ballot measure successes.
MAJOR MEDIA COVERAGE
The Center received a great deal of media coverage in
the weeks around the election. News articles featuring quotes from
the Center's staff ran on most major wire services, and commentaries
appeared in major newspapers across the nation, including the Los
Angeles Times on election day. The Center's staff and its president
John B. Anderson also appeared on more than forty radio programs in
this period, including several that are syndicated programs in
cities across the nation.
To peruse these articles and more, please see our
media coverage and items posted in "what's new"
SUBSCRIBING/UNSUBSCRIBING
We send out updates about once a month that generally
highlight one or two developments about voting system reform and
findings from our reports. If you do not want to receive these
updates, 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 [email protected].
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 Avenue, Suite 610, Takoma Park MD 20910) or on-line at
www.fairvote.org/donate.htm
E-mail updates from prior months
are archived
|
