E-mail Archives

1/22/98

To: CV&D Key List
From: Rob Richie, Executive Director, Center for Voting and Democracy

1998 is off to an eventful start for supporters of proportional
representation and electoral system reform. Here's a quick
summary of today's update:

- Northern Ireland Peace Plan (of course) calls for PR
- Commission in UK to issue recommendation quickly
- Instant runoff voting bills in several state legislatures
- Update on Voters' Choice Act in Congress / Action request
- Richie-Hill commentary in Wall Street Journal, 1/19/98
- California and voting by numbers / Power of redistricting
- Good pro-PR letter in New York Times on 1/21/98
- Recent and upcoming writings on PR and IRV
- New exit poll study on PR referendum in San Francisco
- New book on use of PR in New Zealand
- "PR for a second grader" -- First submissions
- New League of Women Voters e-mail list
- Correction in last update / Parting statistic

NORTHERN IRELAND PEACE PLAN CALLS FOR PR

One of the least controversial aspects of the current peace plan
for Northern Ireland is that the proposed new assembly would
be elected by an unspecified method of proportional
representation. The peace plan was announced shortly after a
London Times article reported that "[British prime minister]
Tony Blair has intervened in the Northern Ireland peace
process by advocating a power-sharing assembly to be elected
by proportional representation."

The choice voting method of PR already is used in Northern
Ireland for elections to the European Parliament and in local
elections. It is seen as essential for allowing different factions
of the Protestant majority and Catholic minority in Northern
Ireland to win a fair share of seats at the table. As the
Washington Post editorialized on January 13 in the wake of the
plan, "The trick of the negotiation will be to ensure that the
result is not seen as a zero sum game of winners and losers but
as an arrangement of mutual advance."

If the assembly is created, the Northern Ireland would join
Scotland and Wales in using proportional representation --
further evidence of how the principle of PR is winning out
over the outmoded and less democratic logic of winner-take-all
elections nearly everywhere where people want real democracy,
not only in places of great conflict like Northern Ireland. To
follow progress in the talks, note that the Irish Times has a
very good web site at: http://www.irish-times.com

(As an addendum, we will be interested to see if former US
Senate majority leader George Mitchell -- chair of the peace
talks -- returns to the United States fired up about the
possibilities of PR in the United States!)

QUICK RECOMMENDATION BY UK COMMISSION

Late last year, the Labor government in the United Kingdom
established the Commission on Electoral Reform. The
commission was formed to choose a proportional voting system
to be placed before the voters in a national referendum on
elections to the House of Commons to be held in 2000 or 2001
-- before the next general elections for parliament in the UK.
Initial reports were that the Commission would make its
recommendation within a year, but the latest indications are
that the recommendation might be made as soon as this April --
submissions to the commission are due by March 1st.

Although the commission is mandated to observe "the
requirement for broad proportionality," many expect that the
commission will propose "instant runoff voting" -- the
American name for the "alternative vote." Instant runoff voting
(IRV) is a winner-take-all system, but at least is not an "all-or-
nothing" system -- voters can express a range of choices and
are freed from calculations about the likely electoral chances of
their most preferred candidates. (See more on IRV in next item
below.) Although IRV would likely result in even more
disproportional representation (an exit poll showed that the
Labor party would have won more seats with IRV than with
current plurality rules), it is seen as the leading candidate
because of the Labor Party's dominance in the current
parliament. There is a chance that the commission may make
the system more proportional by including some number of
"compensatory" seats, to be allocated -- as in Germany's mixed
member PR system -- to parties that are under-represented
based on the winner-take-all vote.

Confused? We'll have to see, as at this point it is all
speculation. Stay tuned.

INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING BILLS IN SEVERAL STATES

A national referendum on instant runoff voting (IRV) would be
a disappointment in the United Kingdom, given popular support
for proportional representation there , but it would be a strong
step toward a more democratic electoral system in the United
States, where PR is still unknown to most people. The Center
for Voting and Democracy is particularly interested in seeing
IRV used for executive offices, which by definition must be
elected according to the winner-take-all principle.

This week, Rep. Terry Bouricius -- one of three minor party
representatives out of some 7,500 state legislators around the
nation -- introduced legislation to adopt IRV for statewide
offices and presidential elections in Vermont. He has six
original co-sponsors -- a full reflection of Vermont's political
spectrum, including three Democrats and three Republicans.
The bill is H. 665 and can be downloaded from the Legislative
Web Page, http://www.leg.state.vt.us/ (Note that it includes
some provisions for ballot-counting that speak to Vermont's
political realities, but are not generally recommended.)

New Mexico has a strong campaign for IRV, with a group
called New Mexicans for Instant Runoff Voting gaining
support from prominent political leaders in the state, which has
experienced several high-profile races won by plurality. Among
those advocating for the state constitutional amendment on IRV
will be Common Cause New Mexico, which was cleared to
work on the issue by the national office of Common Cause.
Other states expected to consider IRV legislation soon are
Pennsylvania and Texas.

UPDATE ON VOTERS' CHOICE ACT IN CONGRESS

Congress goes back into session on January 27th. The Voters'
Choice Act -- Rep. Cynthia McKinney's legislation (HR 3068)
to restore states with the option of using PR for House
elections -- has been assigned to the House Judiciary
Committee. The bill would lift the 1967 mandate that states use
one-seat districts if a state uses a proportional or semi-
proportional system (the only conditions are that the system be
constitutional and have a maximum victory threshold of one-
third of the vote -- lower thresholds of course would be
possible). This is a very good time to call your member of
congress -- the House switchboard is 202-224-3121. For
more information on HR 3068, see our web site at
http://www.igc.org/cvd -- we plan to update the section on the
Act regularly during the year.

For those willing to write to your Member, following is a
short, sample letter:

Dear Rep. _____:

I urge you to co-sponsor the Voters' Choice Act, H.R.
3068, a bill introduced by Rep. Cynthia McKinney in
November 1997. The bill would restore states with the option
of adopting a proportional or semi-proportional voting system
to elect their congressional delegations. Such systems, like
proportional representation and cumulative voting, would help
states elect more politically representative delegations, thereby
promoting fair representation and greater public participation.
Note that the bill only would allow a state to use a
system that meets the constitutional standard of one person, one
vote. Given our declining voter turnout and states' difficulties
in complying with the Voting Rights Act, we hope that you
will give states more flexibility in choosing how their voters
choose representatatives.

Sincerely,
Your name

RICHIE/HILL OP-ED IN WALL STREET JOURNAL

Steven Hill and I had the following commentary in the Wall
Street Journal on January 19th (Steve is our west coast
coordinator). Note that the Journal's editors chose the headline
and that we may have over-stated legal difficulties that the
McCain-Feingold legislation might face, if passed. But the
heart of the article is our argument about the power of
redistricting in determining representation.

In Politics, Money Isn't the Root of All Evil
By Rob Richie and Steven Hill

Congress reconvenes next week, and once again it
seems likely to consider and reject the McCain-Feingold
campaign finance reform bill. Even if such legislation did make
it through Congress, it would likely run into trouble in the
courts. Just two weeks ago, a federal judge struck down as
unconstitutional most provisions of California's Proposition
208, a 1996 initiative governing state campaigns.
But amid the debate, one of the most important
questions seldom gets asked: Just what difference does money
make in congressional elections? At least for general elections
in November, the answer appears to be: Not much.
Our organization recently conducted a comprehensive
analysis of 1996 U.S. House election. In reviewing the contests
for open seats -- perhaps the best measure of money's impact --
we found that how a district voted in that year's presidential
race was a much stronger predictor of its congressional choice
than relative campaign spending was. Nearly one-third of
Republican winners in open-seat races in 1996 were outspent
by Democrats -- but all of them were from districts where Bill
Clinton received less than 50% of the vote.
Where Mr. Clinton ran poorly, Republicans consistently
won easily. Where he ran well, Democrats won easily. In
districts where Mr. Clinton ran close to his national average,
nearly every race was close. These results occurred no matter
how much money candidates spent. And in most districts the
1996 presidential results were very similar to those four years
earlier, suggesting that voters tend to be consistent between
elections as well.
All of which strongly suggests that most elections are
decided during the decennial redistricting process. That is when
Democrats and Republicans, now aided by polling and
sophisticated computer software, carve up the political map to
protect incumbents, creating noncompetitive districts "safe"
from changing parties. In 1996, only two out of 171
incumbents first elected before 1990 were defeated; 162 won
by at least 10%. Politicians are choosing the voters, rather than
the other way around.
Campaign contributors respond to high incumbent re-
election rates more than they cause them. Most big donors seek
to buy influence, not elections. And come this November we
will again have mostly noncompetitive elections in one-party
districts, where voters merely ratify the decisions made by
redistricting committees. A disproportionate amount of money
will continue to be spent on the small number of undecided
swing voters who decide the small number of close races in
swing districts.
Campaign finance reformers should focus more energy
on campaign financing in party primaries, where money indeed
has a major impact because voters lack the guide of partisan
labels -- and where parties have the power to set new internal
rules immediately without blaming each other for the failure of
legislation.
To make general elections truly competitive, it won't be
enough to change campaign finance. We will need to take the
redistricting process out of the hands of the incumbents and
their parties, and give it to an independent, nonpartisan
commission that uses nonpolitical criteria for line drawing. This
has been done in Iowa since 1981, and has resulted in
somewhat more competitive elections.
There may even be a case for considering more drastic
reforms, such as cumulative voting or proportional
representation. But at a bare minimum, any serious attempt at
election reform must address the redistricting process, the least
democratic aspect of our winner-take-all system.

CALIFORNIA AND VOTING BY NUMBERS

Sen. Dianne Feinstein's decision not to run for governor in
California has sent pundits into a tizzy because of the possible
impact of the governor's race on redistricting in 2001 -- experts
say as many as 12 seats may hang in the balance for the first
decade of the new century, depending on which party draws
the district lines. Hmmm, let's see... so voters in 1998 will
have more impact over which party does better in the year
2004 than the voters in 2004? Does that seem fair?

Here's great evidence of why control of the district lines
matters in winner-take-all elections. In 1996, there were 12
House districts in California where Bill Clinton won less than
42% of the vote (i.e., more than 7% below his national 49%
average). Every one of these districts was won by a Republican
with over 60%. Of the remaining 11 Republican winners, only
one gained over 60% -- David Dreier with 61% in a
Republican-leaning district where Clinton won 45%.

On the other side of the spectrum, there were 19 districts where
Clinton won more than 56% of the vote (i.e., more than 7%
above his national average). Every one of these districts was
won by a Democrat with over 60%. Of the remaining 10
Democratic winners, none won by over 60%.

Putting it all together, 32 of 52 races were won by over 60%.
31 of 32 of these races were in districts leaning heavily toward
one party that were won by a candidate of that party. And let's
remember that most voters in these districts display consistency
in their partisan leanings over the course of a decade, not just
within a particular election.

PRO-PR LETTER IN NEW YORK TIMES, 1/21/98

Vernon Mogensen -- an assistant professor of political science
at Kingsborough Community College, CUNY -- had the
following letter published in the New York Times on January
21, 1998. He makes a very good point.

"Political Litmus Tests"

William F. Weld (Op-Ed, Jan. 14) says that to oppose
the resolution to withhold national Republican Party support for
candidates who do not support a ban on partial-birth abortions,
"you just need to be in favor of the two-party system." This
raises more questions about the limits the two-party system
imposes on voters than about the desirability of litmus tests.
Our winner-take-all electoral system is beset by the
paradox that the Democrats and Republicans must
accommodate ever more interests in order to win elections,
which in turn produces nonvoters who are turned off by the
watered-down positions that the two major parties end up
taking.
We should consider reforming the electoral system to
include proportional representation, whereby parties are
awarded legislative seats based on the percentage of votes won.
Proportional representation encourages the creation of parties
with more coherent platforms, thereby making it easier for
voters to evaluate their claims.

RECENT AND UPCOMING WRITINGS ON PR

Steven Hill and I should have a commentary on
gerrymandering in the "Christian Science Monitor" later this
month. We also have written a commentary on gerrymandering
and PR for the upcoming issue of the "National News
Reporter." And the next issue of the "Boston Review" will
feature: a long piece we co-authored on proportional
representation; eight responses to the piece, including one from
Rep. Cynthia McKinney; and our reply to the respondents. The
exchange is part of the Review's "New Democracy Forum."

Other upcoming pieces include: an article by Steve and me in
the "Dissident," a Maine publication and an article next week
in the "The Progress Report" (http://www.progress.org), an on-
line newsletter. I will have a solo piece in the next National
Civic Review -- making the case for using PR in cities -- while
our board member Edward Still and I last fall had an article in
the Federal Election Commission's "Journal of Election
Administration." (The FEC will send this to you for free. Just
call 800-424-9530, press #4 and ask for the Fall 1997 Journal.)
Finally, Bryant College's Marsha Pripstein had an article on
instant runoff voting due out in the newsletter of "Operation
Clean Government," a Rhode Island publication.

EXIT POLL STUDY ON PR VOTE IN SAN FRANCISCO

An important new report on choice voting
(aka preference voting) is now available to the public for
$12.00 from the Public Research Institute at San Francisco
State University. It is called "The 1996 Campaign for
Proportional Representation in San Francisco: Strategies,
Results, and a Simulated Election Using Preference Voting"
and by Richard DeLeon, Lisel Blash, and Steven Hill -- with
73 pages stapled including 9 tables, 7 maps, and 5 graphs.
Here's the write-up from the Institute:

"This groundbreaking report examines two recent ballot
measures in San Francisco on electoral reform, one for district
elections and the other for a proportional representation system
called preference voting [e.g., "choice voting" or "single
transferable vote"]. This report utilizes an exit poll of 1,084
voters to identify and analyze the main reasons voters gave for
supporting the two proposals on the ballot, and to illuminate
the constituency base of the votes for and against them. The
report also uses the exit poll data to conduct a revealing
computer-simulated replay of the 1996 Board of Supervisors
(city council) election under preference voting rules. The
authors explain how preference voting works on real voting
data and why it produced outcomes different from the results
of the actual election.
"San Franciscans voted in November 1996 to determine
what electoral system the city would use to elect its Board of
Supervisors (city council): preference voting, district elections,
or the present system, plurality at-large. District elections won;
however, in spite of the brevity of the campaign to educate the
electorate about the unfamiliar and complex preference voting
system, it nevertheless garnered the support of 44% of those
who voted on it.
"Authors DeLeon, Blash, and Hill were active in
shaping the process, persuading the Election Task Force to
consider PR systems seriously, and actively supporting and
leading the campaign for preference voting. Part One of this
report gives an overview of the PR movement in the U.S.,
historical background on electoral reform in San Francisco, and
an account of the key actors and events that gave rise to the
preference-voting proposal. It also provides an account of the
coalitional politics and strategies used by various groups in the
campaign.
"Part Two presents a detailed analysis of election maps
and precinct voting data. The authors identify the critical swing
group of conservative voters that ensured victory for district
elections and defeat for preference voting. They also argue that
the PR movement has become the cutting edge of
progressivism in San Francisco, displacing district elections as
the traditional centerpiece of liberal institutional reform.
"Part Three analyzes data from an exit poll of 1,084
voters to identify the main reasons voters gave for supporting
the two proposals on the ballot and to illuminate the
constituency base of the votes for and against them.
Part Four uses PRMaster software on the exit poll data to
conduct a computer-simulated replay of the 1996 Board of
Supervisors election under preference voting rules. The authors
explain how preference voting works on real voting data and
why it produced different outcomes from those obtained in the
actual election.

TO ORDER: Send a check for $12.00 (no credit cards) to PRI,
San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San
Francisco CA 94132-4025. Price includes shipping, handling,
and CA sales tax. Telephone: (415) 338-7521. E-mail:
pri@sfsu.edu. Web: http://www.sfsu.edu/~pri

NEW BOOK ON NEW ZEALAND'S CHANGE TO PR

Following is an abstract for "Voters' Victory?
New Zealand's First Election Under Proportional
Representation," edited by Jack Vowles, Peter
Aimer, Susan Banducci, and Jeffrey Karp (Published by
Auckland University Press):

"What happens when a country moves away from
British-style, two-party politics and towards multi-party
politics, adopting a European system of "mixed member"
proportional representation (MMP)? "Voters' Victory?"
explores this question comprehensively and in depth. New
Zealand's historic first MMP election was held on 12 October
1996. This book examines what New Zealanders could expect
from MMP on the basis of international experience and theory,
then focuses on the distinctive features of the election and its
outcome: the party changes; the patterns of voting; how people
used their votes; shifts in support for parties and leaders in the
campaign; the composition of the new Parliament; the capture
of the Maori seats by New Zealand First; and the fateful
National-New Zealand First Coalition outcome.
"New Zealand's switch to proportional representation,
like its economic reforms of the last decade, has attracted
international interest. Scholars from Australia, the United States
and Canada, as well as New Zealand, are among the
contributing authors to this first authoritative analysis of a
landmark election.
"'Voters' Victory?' is the third major study of voters
and electoral choice in New Zealand since 1990, based on the
nationwide, post-election surveys of electors and candidates,
conducted by the New Zealand Election Study programme and
funded by the Foundation for Research, Science, and
Technology (FRST)."

TO ORDER: The table of contents, first chapter of the book
and ordering information are available at
http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/politics/nzes/index.html#Publications
For more information on the New Zealand Election Study and
related publications see:
http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/politics/nzes/index.html

"PR FOR A SECOND GRADER" -- SUBMISSIONS

I had a handful of responses to my request for how to explain
PR for second graders in our last update. I appreciate the
responses, but still think we need to work on it!

From Henry Milner:
What PR does is make sure that Congress (or a given
legislature) is composed of members that accurately reflect the
choices of the people who vote for it.

From Gerald Hebert
If we have five children and three want to play hide and
seek and two want to play tag, which is fairer? To just play
hide and seek? To just play tag? Or to play both hide and seek
and tag, and maybe play hide and seek a little more than tag?
That way everyone gets to play something they like some of
the time! Can you tell I have five children?

Dan Johnson-Weinberger
Proportional representation is a way of voting. It is the
opposite of what we are used to--one person, winner-take-all.
Whoever gets the most votes represents 100% of the people,
even if they only got 51% of the votes. Proportional
representation elects several people from a larger area. That
way, if a party or group of candidates gets 60% of the vote,
they get 60% of the representation, not 100%. And if one
candidate gets 20% of the vote, they get 20% of the
representation.

Feel free to send along your ideas!

NEW LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS EMAIL LIST

Steve Chessin has started an email list for active members of
the League of Women Voters who are interested in
encouraging the League to study and then support PR, at the
local, state and national levels. Only bona fide LWV members
can be on the mailing list. If you are interested, please contact
him at: steve.chessin@eng.sun.com.

Note that the League of Women Voters has an historic interest
in PR -- League chapters were stalwart supporters in many of
the cities adopting PR earlier in the century -- and several local
chapters recently have studied the issue.

CORRECTION IN LAST UPDATE / PARTING STATS

As reported on December 20, the Rainbow Coalition's weekly
fax had an excellent piece on the Voters' Choice Act and
proportional representation. I provided the wrong phone
number for the Rainbow, however; the correct number is: 773-
373-3366.

I'll leave you with a few disturbing statistics. In a January 12,
1998 press release, Rasmussen Research
(www.PortraitofAmerica.com) reported on a survey finding:

* 40% of Americans believe our political system elects a
government that reflects the will of the people; 46% say it
does not, while 13% are not sure

* only one-in-four Americans (27%) believe that Republicans
and Democrats offer voters a clear choice between opposing
political philosophies -- only 14% of Independent voters
believe the major parties offer such a choice.