Voting and Democracy Review October 1999
In this issue:
Instant Runoff: Past,
Future... and Now!
Congress Debates
PR!
Notable Quotes
Voting System Reform Update
Notes from the Director
Glossary
Expect Big Breakthroughs on Reform to Energize
Campaigns
The Center for Voting and Democracy advocates
representation of the full spectrum of political opinion in
the United States through adoption of forms of proportional
representation (PR) for legislative elections.
But "PR" is not our only interest, particularly given that
such important offices as governor and president are
inherently "winner-take-all" -- one can't have PR when only
one candidate wins. Two of PR's chief virtues, majority rule
and expanded participation, are well addressed by instant
runoff voting (IRV), a majority vote system that dramatically
improves winner-take-all elections.
Advances for PR and fairer methods of redistricting in the
U.S. have been steady and important, as detailed in this
newsletter. But IRV is bursting onto our political landscape,
with exponentially growing interest and action.
In 1997, Texas became the first state in decades to
consider IRV. Now three states are positioned to adopt IRV for
their most powerful offices, and several cities and counties
are conducting or planning IRV campaigns. The Reform Party has
adopted IRV for its national presidential primary in 2000.
Caleb Kleppner directs the Center's Majority Rule project.
Working with other staff members and Vermont consultant
Terrill Bouricius, Kleppner is addressing the full range of
political, technical, historical and administrative issues
involving IRV. The Center's web site (www.fairvote.org) has
more details.
� The IRV System: Instant runoff voting (IRV) is a
majority voting system, as opposed to the plurality system
used in most American elections. In plurality voting, voters
can indicate only one preference, and the candidate with the
most votes wins -- even with less than a majority of votes cast.
In contrast, IRV increases voters' options by allowing them
to rank candidates in order of choice: 1, 2, 3 and so on. If a
candidate has a majority of first choices, that candidate
wins. If not, ballots for the last-place candidate are added
to the vote totals of the candidate listed next on each
ballot. The process continues until a candidate wins with a
majority of votes. IRV simulates a series of traditional
runoff elections.
[A HAND-VOTING GRAPHIC]
Used to elect Australia's parliament, Ireland's president
and, starting in 2000, London's mayor, IRV is a
winner-take-all system that alone is unlikely to end two-party
domination of representation. But it expands the spectrum of
choice in campaigns and has clear benefits for our politics.
Among them are:
- IRV
preserves majority rule even if minor party and
independent "spoiler" candidates run and split the vote.
- IRV
boosts participation by allowing more diverse candidates
to run, deepen campaign debate and mobilize currently
disaffected voters.
- In
comparison to two-round runoffs, IRV shortens the
campaign season, saves tax dollars and maximizes
turnout.
IRV's Past: IRV was devised by W.R. Ware, an MIT
professor, in 1870. Its first known use in a governmental
election was in 1893 in Australia, which in 1918 adopted IRV
for national elections. Great Britain has twice nearly adopted
IRV, and it remains popular there. Just last year, a
high-profile commission led by Lord Roy Jenkins recommended a
version of IRV, combined with an element of proportional
representation, be put to a national referendum.
The most recent use of IRV for a governmental election in
the United States was in Ann Arbor (MI). Adopted by voters in
1974, IRV was used to elect the mayor in 1975. It produced a
majority winner in a three-way race where no candidate won a
majority of first choices. But the candidate who would have
won under plurality rules spearheaded a repeal campaign. IRV
withstood a court challenge, but lost in a low-turnout special
election that focused on problems with counting ballots by
hand -- problems that are easy to address with modern
technology.
IRV's Present: Voters in Vancouver (WA) will vote this
November to amend their charter to make IRV an option, as
voters did in Santa Clara County (CA) in 1998. In 2000,
measures to adopt IRV for all statewide and federal
elections may be on the ballot in at least three states.
Prominent Republicans in Alaska are backing an initiative;
signatures will be turned in by January. With the backing of
former Democratic and Republican governors, the New Mexico
state senate approved IRV legislation in 1999; supporters will
try again in 2000. Legislation to enact IRV in Vermont has
support from the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and top
legislators, parked by concern about the vote-splitting impact
of more candidates seeking office under the new public
financing law.
The North Carolina state legislature this year created an
election laws commission that will consider IRV. Other states
likely to debate IRV legislation in 2000 include California,
Hawaii, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Among several cities looking seriously at IRV, San Francisco
is the most likely to vote on it in 2000 -- perhaps by as soon
as March, with implementation in November 2000 city races.
These efforts are all the more promising due to recent
advances in the technology of ballot-counting. Given that IRV
has no ideological bias and so clearly is superior to
plurality voting -- if only as an efficient means to produce
majority winners -- the capacities of voting systems may be
the biggest barrier to its swift enactment. Fortunately, new
machines are being adopted in more states and localities that
are compatible with IRV (see www.fairvote.org for more
details).
� IRV's Future: Growing use of IRV will create a new
opportunity for Americans to debate the electoral college. The
United States presidency is the most powerful office in the
nation -- yet also the only office of any significance
in which a candidate can be elected with fewer votes than an
opponent. The electoral college remains an accident waiting to
happen.
Nearly all proposed constitutional amendments for direct
election of the president provide for two-round runoffs. Yet
such runoffs would be a logistical and expensive nightmare in
a nation as large as the United States. IRV is a simpler
solution, as may become clear once more states exercise their
right to enact IRV to allocate their state's electoral college
votes.
In the short term, prospects for increased adoption of IRV
are so strong because it solves problems that officials often
face. In partisan races, IRV's solution to the "spoiler"
problem has spurred political leaders in Alaska and New Mexico
to action. In non-partisan races, IRV saves the cost of runoff
elections and ensures a majority winner in one decisive
election; cost-saving is prompting campaigns for IRV in
several cities.
IRV is a powerful reform in itself, but also may pave the
way for future efforts for proportional representation. IRV
introduces voters to ranked ballots (as used in the choice
voting method of PR) and likely will introduce them to
thoughtful minor party and independent candidates who people
may come to believe deserve a voice in government. Stay tuned
for IRV victories -- coming soon to an election near
you!
(Please contact the Center for educational materials on
IRV, including a persuasive video narrated by actress Kelly
Lynch.)
On September 23, 1999 the House Judiciary Subcommittee on
the Constitution held a dignified hearing on the States'
Choice of Voting Systems Act (HR 1173), a bill which would
allow states to elect their House members by proportional
representation (PR).
PR was discussed more than had occurred in Congress for
years -- it isn't every day that House members solemnly ask
witnesses to explain their five favorite voting methods.
The most powerful testimony (see below) was provided
by Rep. Tom Campbell (R-CA), Theodore Arrington
(UNC-Charlotte), Nathaniel Persily (Brennan Center for
Justice) and Anita Hodgkiss (on behalf of the Department of
Justice, which provided critically important support for the
legislation).
Rep. Campbell's endorsement was instructive. Growing up in
Illinois, Campbell experienced cumulative voting directly --
an experience with a proportional system that is exactly what
we expect many Americans to share in the new century.
Notable Quotes
From
Hearing on HR 1173, 9/23/99
"The Dept. of Justice supports this legislation
as a valuable way to give state legislatures additional
flexibility in the redistricting process...
"The bill
appears to contemplate the use of alternative voting systems
for multi-member districts. These systems would replace the
traditional "winner-take-all" method of vote counting with
other means, such as cumulative voting, limited voting, and
[choice voting]. These methods are designed to allow fuller
expression of the votes of cohesive numerical minorities of
every kind, whether racial or otherwise."
Anita
Hodgkiss (Deputy Attorney General, Civil Rights
Division
of the Department of Justice)
"I am honored that you have invited me to testify before
this Committee concerning what might be the most important
piece of election-related legislation considered by this
body in 25 years. The importance of the bill, however, is
matched only by its brevity and simplicity. After all, [it]
would merely give back to the states a power... to craft
congressional electoral systems with multi-member districts
that are tailored to the unique political cultures of each
state."
Nathaniel Persily (staff attorney, Brennan
Center for Justice)
"My concern is to further the process of representative
government, to make the election system more effective in
translating votes into seats on governmental bodies.
Single-member district systems may be less reliable in
performing this task because of the increase in diversity
within this country and the decrease in geographically
defined communities of interest... State legislatures should
be given the freedom to experiment with [proportional
election systems]."
Theodore Arrington (professor of
political science,
UNC-Charlotte)
Voting System Reform Update
-
Amarillo (TX) now biggest city with cumulative
voting:
This spring the Amarillo school district
adopted cumulative voting for May 2000 elections to
settle a voting rights suit brought by the NAACP and
LULAC. More than 50 Texas jurisdictions use cumulative
voting to boost minority representation; in 1995, Gov.
George W. Bush signed legislation to allow school
districts to enact PR voting methods.
-
DOJ upholds PR in New York City:
In February, the
U.S. Justice Department raised its first-ever lasting
objection (under the Voting Rights Act) to a PR or
semi-PR system. It rejected New York City's plan to
adopt limited voting for community school board
elections because the City already has choice voting --
a fully proportional system that in May once again
elected the most representative assemblies in New
York.
-
Governor supports cumulative voting in
Illinois:
Illinois Governor George Ryan (R) is
the latest public advocate of restoring cumulative
voting for state assembly elections in Illinois. He
joins a remarkable, bi-partisan group of supporters of a
"drive to revive" that includes the Democratic leader of
the senate Emil Jones, Republican Congress-man John
Porter, former comptroller Dawn Clark Netsch and former
federal judge and Congressman Abner Mikva. The Center
soon will release a video on cumulative voting in
Illinois, produced with the Midwest Democracy
Center.
-
International News:
Joining all other nations in
Europe, the United Kingdom this year finally used
a PR system to elect its representatives to the European
Parliament. Assemblies in Scotland and
Wales also were elected by PR.
In
South Africa, PR was used in national elections
in June. More than 99% of voters elected representatives
from a wide spectrum of choices. That, combined with
high turnout, meant that more than four of five South
African adults cast a vote that directly won
representation. In contrast, fewer than one in four
American adults elected anyone to the U.S. House
in 1998.
In general, pro-democracy forces
sought more proportional systems, and authoritarian
regimes sought winner-take-all elections -- the trend
spanned from South Korea to Serbia, Zimbabwe,
Mexico, the Philippines and
Indonesia.
-
Major organizations act on PR:
In September, the
National Organization for Women endorsed PR. The
ACLU at its national biennial conference voted to
study PR. The League of Women Voters at biennial
conferences in California, Georgia and Washington
launched formal, two-year studies into the full range of
voting systems; the LWV in Illinois will study
cumulative voting.
-
Essay Contest: "Why Don't We Vote?"
$1000 for 1000
words on Empowering Youth:
A new essay contest
sponsored by the Center for Voting and Democracy and
Midwest Democracy Center challenges America's youth to
answer the vexing question: "Why don't we vote?" Short
essays are due in February 2000; the impressive array of
judges includes former Congressmen John Anderson and
Abner Mikva and authors Jane Byrant Quinn, Hendrik
Hertzberg and Arianna Huffington. For full details,
please see www.fairvote.org or call 312-587-7060.
The past year has proven to be a momentous one for the
Center. At its start, western region director Steven Hill and
I had the pleasure of seeing our book Reflecting All of Us:
The Case for Proportional Representation (Beacon Press)
appear in major bookstores. We also continued our work with
many reformers, legislators and scholars -- helping to spark a
near-win for instant runoff voting in New Mexico and the
introduction of Congressman Mel Watt's bill to allow states to
use different voting systems for U.S. House elections.
In May, we began a heady transition, increasing the size of
our staff from two members to eight. Eric Olson and Fred
McBride were the first on board. Our deputy director, Eric is
a city councilor (in College Park, Md.) who came to us from
Capitol Hill. He is coordinating outreach to city officials
about instant runoff voting (IRV), proportional representation
(PR) and redistricting reform and preparing our upcoming
release of Monopoly Politics 2000 -- a report
highlighting our predictions in U.S. House races in November
2000 and the reasons so few voters have real choices. His
writings on reform already have run twice in the Washington
Post.
Our southern regional director, Fred soon should receive
his doctorate in political science from Clark-Atlanta. He has
good connections throughout the south, a strong understanding
of voting systems (he wrote his dissertation on cumulative
voting) and stints as both a grade school teacher and college
professor. Among many presentations this fall, he will address
the NAACP board, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights'
voting rights conference and the National Civic League's
conference.
In June, we moved into new, larger offices just outside
Washington, D.C. Our two summer interns started, and Robert
Loring began managing our library of resources and web site.
To witness Rob's excellent work, I urge you to browse
www.fairvote.org. We also helped found the Midwest Democracy
Center in Illinois and hired Hortencia Quinonez Wrampelmeier,
who has done excellent outreach work in Amarillo (TX) and
numerous nearby communities that have adopted cumulative
voting in recent years.
In July, we hired Caleb Kleppner to direct our Majority
Rule Project. Formerly director of Voice of the Environment,
Kleppner brings great energy, skill and focus to the job; he
is based in the Bay Area, where he helped spur the current
effort for IRV in San Francisco. State legislator Terrill
Bouricius also began a six-month stint as a consultant on
voting system reform in New England; his efforts are creating
serious momentum for IRV there.
Finally, in August we hired Caryl-Sue Micalizio to be our
special projects manager. A former public school teacher in
California, Micalizio is pursuing outreach to women's
organizations and editing a state-by-state guide to
redistricting in 2001, future issues of Voting and
Democracy Review and our new Perspectives on
Democracy series.
CVD's fine new team has a great deal of concrete work to
pursue. In the coming months we will produce a rush of new
educational materials, ranging from short factsheets to
stylish brochures, provocative pamphlets, thoughtful videos
and substantial reports.
Our growth is largely due to a leap in foundation support:
a two-year grant in 1998 from the Ford Foundation, generous
support since 1997 from the Open Society Institute, grants in
1998-99 from the Arca Foundation for work on IRV and grants in
1999 from the HKH Foundation and Solidago Foundation.
But foundation support ebbs and flows. Membership support
remains critical. We have expanded based on a belief that our
increased level of activity and the clear importance of that
activity will generate new sources of funds. If not, we will
need to scale back, even as the demand for our services will
be greater than ever. For that reason, please consider
supporting us with volunteer time or a contribution. Many
thanks!
Rob Richie
Proportional representation (PR): Voting systems in which
groupings of voters win representation in proportion to their
voting strength: 20% of votes wins two (20%) of 10 seats, 50%
of votes wins five (50%) of 10 seats.
- Multi-seat
districts: An electoral constituency with more than one
representative, in contrast to single-seat districts,
where one winner "represents" all. If the size of a
legislature remains constant, conversion to a PR system
leads to fewer, but bigger districts.
- Choice
voting: A proportional system also known as "single
transferable vote" and "preference voting." Voters rank
the candidates they like in order. Ballots are allocated
to first choices, but may go to next choices in order to
elect someone. Because all seats are weighted equally,
candidates win by reaching a "threshold" that is roughly
equal to the number of votes cast divided by the number
of seats elected.
- Cumulative
voting: A semi-proportional system in which voters have
as many votes as there are seats in a multi-seat
district and can give all their votes to one or more
candidates. The candidates with the most votes win..
|
