Fair Elections Update
March 4, 2004
To: Friends of Fair Elections
Fr: Rob Richie, Executive Director
The Center for Voting
and Democracy (CVD)
Re: - New release on win for IRV in Berkeley and
support
for IRV in new Illinois poll
- John Anderson commentary
on opening up elections
- Reforms for
presidential primaries
- Highlights of recent
webpage postings
The 2004 election season became clearer yesterday, with Sen.
John Kerry effectively locking up the Democratic presidential
nomination and congressional incumbents rolling on to mostly easy
elections.
It also was a good day for advocates of fair elections. In
Berkeley, voters supported by an overwhelming 72%-28% margin a
ballot measure authorizing the city to use instant runoff voting
elections --overcoming some vigorous opposition in the local paper
and by three councilmembers opposing the measure.
* Our news release today about the Berkeley victory and the
results of a telephone survey of 1,100 likely primary voters in
Illinois who expressed support for IRV
* Our chairman John Anderson's recently widely published
commentary on instant runoff voting and Ralph Nader's independent
presidential candidacy
* Excerpts from on of several recent commentaries on
presidential primaries that I co-authored with our senior analyst
Steven Hill
* Highlights of recent webpostings, including: powerful
advocacy of full representation by Katrina Vanden Heuvel and John
Burbank; cumulative voting and voting rights; ongoing legal battles
over redistricting; on-line IRV surveys; more movement toward full
representation in Canada; and good links for tracking the debate
over how best to have fair and secure voting equipment
In addition, I want to thank the many among you who must have
voted for us in Working Assets' customer voting in 2003 on which
non-profit groups to support. We recently received nearly $49,000
based on those votes -- much more than we anticipated. Thanks so
much, and please consider a donation this year to help us pursue
fair elections. And our best wishes to the many outstanding
organizations and individuals working for a strong, vibrant
democracy.
- Rob Richie
##########
NEWS RELEASE: March 3, 2004
'Instant Runoffs': A Convincing Win and Strong Survey Support
Voters in Berkeley Support Instant Runoff Voting by 72-28%,
while Majority of Illinois Voters Agree with John B. Anderson on
"IRV for President"
Instant runoff voting, the ranked-choice method of voting
favored by Robert's Rules of Order and used to assure majority
winners in a single election, received a strong boost yesterday when
voters in Berkeley, California overwhelmingly supported a ballot
measure to authorize the city to enact the innovative voting method.
The victory comes on the heels of a telephone survey of likely
voters in the upcoming Illinois primary in which a majority of
respondents expressed support for instant runoff voting in
presidential elections.
John B. Anderson, the former Congressman and presidential
candidate who is chairman of the Center for Voting and Democracy,
applauded the win. "Berkeley's victory is the latest indication that
voters want to say more about their choices -- and to have better
choices." Anderson recently wrote a commentary about instant runoff
voting and Ralph Nader's presidential candidacy that has appeared in
the leading dailies in Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Sacramento and
Charlotte (NC).
According to a Metro Chicago Information Center telephone
survey commissioned last month by the Center for Voting and
Democracy, a clear majority of 1,100 likely voters in the state's
March 16 primary would like to use instant runoff voting in
presidential elections in November, and a plurality would like to
use it in primary elections. More than 50% of voters answered yes
when asked "Would you like a 'second-choice option' to better ensure
that the winner of Illinois'
Electoral College votes has the majority support of Illinois
voters?"
The Illinois poll also asked respondents for their full
preferences in the state's U.S. Senate primary contests and the
presidential race. This information about voters' second and third
choices provides revealing information. For example, Massachusetts
Senator John Kerry not only was the big frontrunner among first
choices. He also was the second choice of four out of five of
supporters of Sen. John Edwards and the second choice of 70% of
supporters of the remaining presidential candidates. Poll results
are available at www.PrimaryPoll.com.
With instant runoff voting, voters rank their favorite
candidate first, and then can indicate which candidates are their
second and third choices. A candidate wins with a majority of first
choices, but if there is no initial
majority winner, the weak candidates are eliminated. Ballots
for these candidates are then counted for their top-ranked
choice who has advanced to the second round -- simulating a
traditional two-round runoff, but without added costs. Two dozen
states have considered legislation on "IRV." Backers include Sen.
John McCain and Gov. Howard Dean.
The Center for Voting and Democracy is a nonpartisan,
non-profit organization that studies American elections and
advocates reforms designed to increase voter participation,
competitive elections, accountable elected officials and fair
representation. For more information visit www.fairvote.org.
######################
JOHN ANDERSON COMMENTARY
Creating an Open Electoral Process
By John B. Anderson
February 29, 2004, Philadelphia Inquirer (commentary also
in publications such as the Charlotte News and Observer, Sacramento
Bee and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
Ralph Nader's announcement of his independent candidacy brings
back memories. In 1980, I ran for president as an independent after
abandoning the Republican primaries. Even though polling near 25
percent when declaring my candidacy, I was labeled a spoiler. My
candidacy was said to deprive voters of the clear choice between
incumbent Jimmy Carter and his Republican challenger Ronald Reagan.
Never mind that my platform clearly attracted many people
uncomfortable with this choice.
Ever since then I have grappled with how we can structure our
electoral system to accommodate an increase in choices and the
better dialogue and greater voter participation coming with those
choices. Having an election between two candidates is obviously
better than a one-party dictatorship, but having an election among
more than two candidates is better than a two-party duopoly.
The American people know this. When Ross Perot ran for
president in 1992, viewership of the presidential debates soared,
and voter turnout rose sharply in nearly every state. When he was
shut out of the 1996 debates, polls showed that Americans
wanted him in the debates by a margin of three to one. In 2000, a
majority of Americans wanted to include the Green Party's Nader and
Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan in the debates.
But there is a fundamental, if easily correctable, problem with
our electoral process. We use a plurality voting system where voting
for your favorite candidate can contribute directly to the election
of your least favorite.
Unlike most democracies, our states have set up presidential
elections so that the candidate with the most votes wins all
electoral votes, even if opposed by a majority of voters. That makes
third-party or independent candidates "spoilers" if they split a
major party candidate's vote. It's this concern that drives the
major parties to exclude other voices from the debates, and for the
current condemnation of Ralph Nader for entering the presidential
race.
Fortunately, there's a solution, one already practiced for top
offices in London, Ireland and Australia and in Utah and California
for key elections: instant runoff voting. Any state could adopt this
simple reform immediately for all federal elections, including the
presidential race. There has been legislation backing instant runoff
voting in nearly two dozen states, and former presidential
candidates Howard Dean and John McCain advocate the system.
In instant runoff voting, people vote for their favorite
candidate, but also can indicate subsequent choices by ranking their
preferences as 1, 2, 3. If a candidate receives a majority of first
choices, that candidate wins. If not, the candidate with the fewest
votes is eliminated, and a second round of counting occurs. In this
round, your ballot counts for your top-ranked candidate still in the
race. Rounds of counting continue until there is a majority
winner.
With instant runoff voting, we would determine a true majority
winner in one election and banish the spoiler concept. Voters would
not have to calculate possible perverse consequences of voting for
their favorite candidate. They could vote their hopes, not their
fears.
Under this system, progressives who like Nader but worry about
George Bush could rank Nader first and the Democrat second.
Similarly, libertarian-minded conservatives upset with the
Republican party's positions on government spending could rank the
Libertarian nominee first and Bush second. Rather than contributing
to a major party candidates' defeat, these candidates instead could
stimulate debate and mobilize new voters.
Our primitive voting system is this year's biggest spoiler.
Instant runoff voting would give us a more participatory, vital
democracy, where candidates could be judged on their merits and the
will of the majority would more certainly prevail.
[John B. Anderson served in Congress from 1961 to 1981 and was
an independent presidential candidate in 1980. He is chairman of the
Center for Voting and Democracy ( www.fairvote.org).]
########################
EXCERPTFROM COMMENTARY BY RICHIE AND HILL
(The Center for Voting and Democracy's Rob Richie and Steven
Hill generally write and circulate two commentaries a month. These
are posted on our website. Below is an excerpt from a commentary
that appeared in numerous publications, including the Christian
Science Monitor, Baltimore Sun and Cleveland Plain Dealer.)
Reforming Presidential Primaries
.....Reform should enhance what already works. In contrast to
most general elections, contested presidential primaries offer a
meaningful range of views with real diversity of opinion. The
intense focus on Iowa and New Hampshire encourages candidates to
have sustained contact with ordinary voters rather than wage
campaigns solely from TV studios. Potential nominees must withstand
challenges that test their mettle.
But parties could strengthen themselves -- and democracy --
with new approaches:
- Rotate opening states. A lottery among small and mid-size
states should determine the first to hold primaries. Iowa and New
Hampshire should not be the sole focus of candidates' grass-roots
campaigning. Different states have different concerns, particularly
those with bigger cities and more racial diversity.
- Create an inclusive, sensible schedule. To avoid a
eight-month general election campaign of sniping and personal
attacks -- and yes, it's already started -- primaries should return
to running from March to June. After the opening primaries, small
states would vote in a "mini-Super Tuesday," followed by a break
that would allow voters to give front-runners a second look. Bigger
states would then vote, followed by more breaks, until the biggest
states would vote in a decisive final round.
- Require full representation. In Democratic primaries and
caucuses, candidates win a fair share of convention delegates
through full representation, in which 25 percent of the vote earns a
proportional 25 percent of delegates. Republicans, however, mostly
use a winner-take-all system in which the first-place finisher
receives all delegates. This distorts results and can allow an
unrepresentative candidate to win big when the opposition vote is
split among several candidates. Both parties should consider
lowering the 15 percent threshold required by Democrats to win
delegates.
- Adopt Iowa's "second choice" system. Voting in a public
meeting, Iowa's caucus participants can vote for stronger candidates
if it's clear that their first choice can't win delegates. Primary
voters would gain this enhanced power if they could indicate their
second and third choice candidates rather than just vote for one.
More voters would help elect delegates (in this year's early
primaries, more than a quarter of voters supported candidates who
didn't win delegates), and candidates would be more likely to reach
out to supporters of other candidates and run positive campaigns.
- Remember young voters. They are most likely to be
unregistered and are disproportionately registered as independents
and would benefit from being able to register on the day of the
primary and vote even if registered as an independent. New
Hampshire's primary rules allow these provisions, but Maryland's do
not. And, while youth turnout remained low this year, young voters
participated in bigger numbers than in 2000 -- 400 percent more in
Iowa and 50 percent more in New Hampshire.
- Fix the financing. When leading candidates like Mr. Kerry,
Dr. Dean and Mr. Bush opt out of public financing, the system is
broken. A 4-to-1 public match for small donations should be provided
and participating candidates given additional funds when opponents
opt out.
We deserve elections in which more of us make a difference,
choices are meaningful and our votes count. Parties can adopt most
of these changes without congressional legislation. Let's
reform in 2008 voters have a better choice.
########################
HIGHLIGHTS FROM RECENT WEB POSTINGS
*Cumulative voting and minority voting rights: North Carolina
judge orders jurisdiction to consider cumulative voting. Demographic
shifts in Alabama counties spur calls for cumulative voting.
* State legislative redistricting plans tossed in Georgia and
North Carolina: Federal courts this month have ordered new districts
for Georgia because of an equal protection claim and new districts
in the Boston area of Massachusetts because of a voting rights
claim. Keep up with redistricting news in our public interest
guide to redistricting.
* IRV used in Altie awards: Alternet once again used
instantrunoff voting for its "Alties" awards on movies in 2003.
* California Democratic Party takes action on IRV: On Jan.
17-18, 2004, the California Democratic Party adopted a political
reform plank that suggests alternative voting methods like instant
runoff voting be explored more frequently.
* Canadian commission recommends full representation: Canada's
leading newspaper reports that the National Law Commission
will recommend that Canada replace winner-take-all elections. The
Center has compiled information on this and other moves toward
change in Canada. A leading electoral reform group, FairVote Canada,
summarizes Canadian progress for full representation.
* Fair and secure voting equipment: The Center has
collected links to a number of sites that address the fairness
and security of modern voting equipment. We urge readers to get
involved in this timely issue.
In addition, there are a number of excellent new articles and
commentaries posted in our media coverage area -- see
Our website also provides ongoing coverage of:
- news on redistricting in the
United States at:
- presidential primary results
at:
###################
SUBSCRIBING/UNSUBSCRIBING
We send out newsletters about once a month. If you do not want
to receive them, 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 Ave., Suite 610, Takoma Park MD 20910) or on-line
at http://www.fairvote.org/donate.htm
Thank you! |