Runoffs Consume Time and Money for Low Turnout

Alabama Rep. Mike Ball, R-Madison, said the simple fact is people aren’t interested runoff elections. “People don’t take them seriously,” said Ball. “Look at the participation — that tells you what people think of runoffs.”

He referred to the lack of interest in the State’s April 12 Runoff elections. According to the Alabama Secretary of State’s website, there are 1.35 million registered voters, but during Tuesday’s runoff elections just over 65,000 people voted.

“It’s sad that this happens, but people forget about runoff elections,” said Political Science Expert Bill Stewart, Professor Emeritus at the University of Alabama. Stewart said most states don’t have runoff elections anymore because they draw a small percentage of voters.

Out of 108,168 registered voters in Colbert, Franklin and Lauderdale counties, only 5,711 people voted in Tuesday’s runoff election. “I’m disappointed that the turnout was as low as it was,” said Lauderdale County Probate Judge Will Motlow. “There were important races on the ballot. I wish we had more of an interest.” Motlow said candidates work hard, spending money in the primary and then in the runoff. He said you would think “there would be enough interest to get people out and voting.”

Vote totals in the runoffs indicate in Colbert County, out of 36 boxes there were eight that had less than 10 total votes. In two of those, only one person voted, in two others no one voted.

At the box at Leighton City Hall, where there is 419 registered voters, one person voted. At the box at Sheffield’s Michael Center, there are 989 registered voters and there were no votes cast during the runoff.

“Voting is something important to me. So it’s discouraging when you see people not exercise their right to vote,” said Colbert County Probate Judge Daniel Rosser. “Every time I vote I feel I’m honoring the people who suffered for me to provide me freedom and the safety I enjoy.”

Motlow said there were boxes in Lauderdale County that had less than 100 people voting and they normally have several hundred votes cast. He said he visited many polling places where the workers were just sitting there. “They were bored, they didn’t have anything to do.” He commended the voters in Greenhill where more than 500 votes were cast. “It wasn’t as many as usually, but it was more than anywhere else,” Motlow said.

In 2012 a total of 5,557 votes were cast in the runoffs in the three-county region, while 8,675 people voted in the 2014 runoffs in northwest Alabama. “It’s discouraging when you don’t have a good turnout and so few people come to vote,” said Franklin County Probate Judge Barry Moore.

Stewart said one reason runoffs are drawing such a small percentage of voters is because of the long period between the primary and the runoff. “It used to be the runoffs were three weeks after the primary. Now, it’s six weeks, to allow men and woman in the armed forces have a chance to vote,” Stewart said. “That’s too long — people forget about the runoffs.”

Stewart said it can easily be argued that “we don’t need (runoffs).” “So often there are only one or two races in the runoffs and people don’t see a need to get out and vote,” Stewart said. “I remember a time in the 1970s, there were some exciting runoff races and people wanted to vote, but times have changed. The interest just isn’t there anymore.”

Ball tried to pass a bill in the Alabama Legislature in 2013 to eliminate runoff elections. “It didn’t get anywhere, but something needs to be done,” he said. “People don’t get interested in runoffs. They’ve turned out to be a waste of time and money.”

A perfect example why we need to replace runoffs with Ranked-Choice Voting!











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Introducing the Public Primary

FairVote is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, tax-exempt, publicly supported organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code. Board members act in an individual capacity and not as a representation of any political affiliation. Members’ political affiliations do not constitute an endorsement by FairVote. FairVote does not support, endorse, or oppose any political party or candidate. Any comments made by a board member acting in his/her individual capacity are personal and do not reflect FairVote’s views.

Rob Richie, Executive Director of FairVote believes that every vote should matter and be heard in every public election. The fundamental goal of any Primary election system should be to help foster a General election that will include meaningful choices, real competition, and fair representation. That said, a Primary election system funded by the taxpayers ideally will allow voters real choices among an array of candidates, encourage both positive and inclusive Primary campaigns, and elect or advance winners that are reflective of as many voters as possible.

He highlights a new proposal: the “Public Primary”. First proposed last year by Chad Peace of the Independent Voter Project as an “all independent primary,” the idea has taken more shape in the succeeding months. Chad now calls it a Public Primary.

Here’s how it could work:

- Maintain without change all current ways to get onto the General election ballot. If a party holds a closed Primary contest, it could continue to do so. Ballot access for independents and minor parties would be preserved.

- Establish a new “Public Primary” to take place simultaneously with the party primaries that would be open to any candidate, including some who might be seeking a party nomination, and any voter, including some who might be voting in a Party Primary.

- Advance the winner of the Public Primary to the General election. If any candidate won a Party Primary, that candidate would have to accept the Party nomination and be eliminated from the Public Primary before running the ranked choice voting tally.

- Have candidates on the General election ballot list any nomination they received, just as now. The candidate securing a spot on the General election from the Public Primary would also have the option to indicate a preferred party. So the ballot might read “Jill Lopez, Public Primary. Prefers Republican.”

- Use ranked choice voting in both the “Public Primary” and the General election to accommodate the expected increase in voter choice in those contests. A State ideally would use Ranked-Choice Voting within Party Primaries as well.

When evaluating the idea last year as part of their project assessing the impact of 37 structural reforms, both FairVote and participating scholars suggested it would have relatively low impact. At that point, they interpreted its main value as voters always being able to participate in a government-funded Primary even if unaffiliated or registered with a Party not holding a nominating contest. But his broader definition of the Public Primary proposal suggests it could have a far more significant impact.

Consider the U.S. Senate race in Delaware in 2010. That year, Republican U.S. House Member Mike Castle sought his party’s nomination for an open seat and would have been favored in November if winning the nomination. However, Castle was upset by Christine O’Donnell, a strong backer of the Tea Party, who then was handily defeated in November by the Democratic nominee. If a Public Primary had been available, Castle certainly would have contested it, and likely been its winner, giving him an alternate route to the General election ballot. Similarly, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski would not have needed to mount a write-in campaign after being upset by Joe Miller in the Republican Primary in 2010. Former House majority leader Eric Cantor might have had another chance to win in Virginia in 2014 after losing his House Primary.

The Public Primary is not designed to reward one viewpoint over another. If Cantor had won the Republican nomination in 2014, for example, Dave Brat might have secured a spot in November through the Public Primary and presented voters with an additional choice.

He sees the Public Primary as achieving significant pro-democracy goals, including:

- Every voter could vote in a Primary contest, unlike with the status quo in which a growing number of Americans are excluded from Closed Primaries due to their choice of party affiliation.

- Parties would maintain their freedom of association, and no candidate currently securing a place on the November ballot would be denied that opportunity.

- The General election ballot would usually have a significant number of additional candidates for voters to consider in November, when turnout is higher and more representative.

- Ranked-Choice Voting would avoid split votes and “spoiled elections” for all races with more than two candidates, giving voters greater freedom to consider their favorite candidates and encouraging candidates to reach out beyond their base.

Certainly, the Public Primary is much more in keeping with the traditions of our Founders and the first century of our elections than proposals like the Top-Two Primary that address some problems with our status quo at the expense of limiting voter choice to two in November. As FairVote explain in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court last year in cases challenging Closed Primaries in New Jersey and the Top-Two Primary in California, the United States is virtually alone in paying for Party Primaries, which was begun in the early 1900s. For most of the 19th century, we also did not have a government-printed ballot. In other words, for much our nation’s history, the government did not sanction parties, there was very limited voter registration and there was no question of “ballot access” in November. Rather, parties were private associations that brought people together to organize politically to recruit candidates, nominate them and mobilize voters to support them. They typically asked voters in the General election to use the ballots that the party created that only listed the candidates they supported.

Having the government today use its power to limit who runs in November and to deny showing association on the ballot is problematic, and undercuts Representative Democracy when it limits voter choice and weakens the right of political association.

The “Public Primary” avoids those pitfalls.

FairVote will continuing to develop and hone the “Public Primary” proposal this month before formally recommending it to their Board of Directors as an “innovation” alongside other FairVote backed proposals to revamp our Primaries such as the Top-Four Primary and the Open Ticket system.

CLICK HERE for more information about FaiVote and the “Public Primary”.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Using Fair Representation Voting Methods to Produce More Minority Candidate Victories

This year on Election Day in towns, cities, and counties across Pennsylvania and Connecticut, despite the odds being stacked against them, minority parties earned representation thanks to fair representation voting methods.

Many of the jurisdictions use these sorts of non-winner-take-all voting methods had those systems imposed upon them by judges in Voting Rights Act cases, but just as many, including all these uses in Pennsylvania and Connecticut, introduced these reforms through statute.

Pennsylvania has used fair voting methods for over a century and Connecticut for more than half a century, since before the Voting Rights Act even existed. They ensure that minority parties can earn representation in communities where they would be otherwise shut out of government. This reflects structural rules that have been in place for decades to ensure more political diversity than we see in most American cities today.

The key has been the use of a modest form of fair representation voting with the unfortunate label of “limited voting.” Contrary to the moniker, limited voting greatly expands the number of voters who can elect a candidate of choice. It does this by making sure that a single cohesive majority does not have the power to elect every single member of a legislative body. If five are to be elected, voters may only be allowed to vote for three. That way, that cohesive majority will be able to elect three, but not all five. Another group, otherwise shut out, will be able to organize to win the other two seats.

Most places in Pennsylvania and Connecticut couple limited voting with “limited nominations,” which means that no political party can nominate enough candidates to win every seat. The two are a natural fit for each other, but limited nominations is distinct from limited voting. The two do not always go together, and limited nominations raises voter choice concerns that limited voting does not.

Limited voting creates an opportunity for fair representation, but only when political parties limit their nominees, when candidates campaign to emphasize the right strategies, and when voters vote strategically.

That makes limited voting a weak form of fair representation voting: it does break open winner-take-all, but it does not ensure fair results to nearly the degree as Ranked-Choice Voting does. Nevertheless, the fact that these elections took place demonstrates that U.S. elections are not all stuck in the rut of winner-take-all voting rules, and that the U.S. has a rich history of fair representation in at-large elections.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act

Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) - 2017

Ricard Winger of Ballot Access News summarized the Act:

Douglas E. Goodman, a Nevadan who is an advocate of election reform, favors eliminating the Primary and simply holding a General Election. The General Election would use Instant Runoff Voting. Parties would be given the choice to either nominate someone for each office (at their own expense), or else abstain from nominating, thus allowing multiple members of that party to file for the November ballot.

A Bill Draft Request (BDR) was filed and a bill introduced by the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee shows that legislators recognize the growing need for election reform and are willing to seriously consider legislation aimed at improving the election process in Nevada.

NEMRA – 2017 provides the taxpayer savings, of at least $3 - 4 million every two years, while:

- Not affecting the political parties’ right of association.
- Not affecting a political party’s right to select nominees.
- Maintaining General Election ballot access of minor party and independent candidates.
- Solves the problem of low voter turnout Primary elections, maximizing voter turnout and the importance of every vote.
- Eliminating strategic voting; voters changing registration for the primary to vote for the weakest candidate to strengthen the electability of their preferred candidate in another political party.
- The problem of low voter turnout for Primary Elections would be eliminated and turnout would be maximized.
- Voters would have more choices. All voters, not just those often described as the party base, would be courted during the campaign. The debate and discussion will focus on what concerns most voters. This will contribute to larger voter participation and turnout.
- Candidates could focus their time and dollars on one election.

The Nominating Process

- Prior to the filing deadline each political party, whether classified as a major or minor party, determines the number of candidates it desires to represent it on the General Election ballot. This can be anywhere from one (1) to no restriction.
- The parties decide to officially nominate or endorse one or more of their candidates.
- Voters not registered to vote in a particular political party do not participate in the nominating process of a political party in which they are not registered. Voters registered as Non-Partisan do not participate in the process of any political party unless allowed to do so by that party.
- The process of nominating or endorsing may be by any method approved by the individual parties except that no tax dollars may be used.
- Independent candidates for partisan offices and all candidates for non-partisan offices must meet current qualification criteria.

Louisiana has used a similar process since 1997, however, their election in October is followed by a separate run-off election in November for offices where no candidate receives a majority in the October contest.

The Election Process

- This is a General Election. As with any general Election, all candidates are listed and all voters vote the one ballot
- When casting their ballot, voters mark their first and second choice using Ranked-Chose Voting.

MD: Could also use Approval Voting (All Candidates you approve gets a vote).

- If a candidate receives a majority of first choice votes, that candidate is elected.
- If no candidate receives a majority of first choice votes, the top four vote-getters advance to the instant run-off. This is not a separate election. It is a continuation of vote tabulation.
- The system looks at the candidates marked as second choice on the ballots of candidates eliminated based on first choice votes and assigns the votes to the remaining candidates as appropriate.
- The candidate now in fourth place is eliminated and the tabulation process repeated.
- If no candidate has a majority following this tabulation step is repeated.
- If following that tabulation no candidate has a majority, the process is repeated one more time to determine the winner.
- If there are less than four candidates running for any particular office, the tabulation is adjusted for the number of candidates.
- If only two candidates are running for a particular office, voters will be instructed to only mark their first choice.

During the hearing on SB 499, testimony against the bill centered on the perception that voters registered as Non-Partisan would be voting to select a party’s nominees.

NEMRA – 2017 addresses these concerns. Political parties control the selection of their candidates for the General Election. At the same time, NEMRA – 2017 accomplishes the reforms needed to increase voter interest and participation in the election process.

MD: To make this work, political party office voting should be on a separate ballot that only party members can vote on.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Top Two Primaries Discussed at NCSL Legislative Summit

Last week, Open Primaries leaders Al Beninghoff, Jason Olson (CA), Adriana Espinoza (NY), and Patrick McWhortor (AZ) spent four days at the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) talking with elected officials and their staff about the impact of “Top Two” in California.

You might think that the NCSL would be the last place on earth to recruit and educate. After all, primary reform is fundamentally about taking power from the political parties and giving it to the people. Democratic and Republican legislators would be the last people interested in radical structural reform.

You would be wrong.

The response to open primaries from legislators from coast to coast was enthusiastic.

“We most definitely need this in our state!” was a common refrain.

Hundreds of conference participants signed a petition urging NCSL leadership to convene a panel discussion on primary reform in 2016. Several legislators from Washington State, which already has the “Top Two” system in place, offered to “do whatever you need to spread the word that nonpartisan primaries work.”

One veteran lawmaker stood up during a panel discussion on ballot measures and announced to the 200 people in the room, “Top Two is a prime example of the positive, trans-formative effect ballot measures can have, and everyone here absolutely needs to sign the Open Primaries' petition to host a discussion on that game-changing reform.”



It’s not just voters who are frustrated by the partisan system. The men and women we elect arrive in state houses completely controlled by the political parties. Some of them, the partisans—flourish, many do not. They are required to play a game whose rules are written by and for the political parties, not the American people.

That’s why Congressman John Delaney introduced the Open our Democracy Act. That’s why State Representatives in Illinois, New Mexico, Maine, Alaska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Montana, and Utah have introduced legislation for nonpartisan primaries.

When you elect people in a system controlled by the parties, you dis-empower the voters and you hamstring elected representatives. It’s lose-lose.

The movement for primary reform is just that, a movement. Our leaders include progressive activists from inner city communities and conservative legislators from rural America.

What brings us together?

A recognition that for America to move forward, our democracy must evolve to allow the people, not the parties, to set the agenda and define the debate.

I agree we need Open Primaries, where all registered voters get to select their candidates. To close a primary paid for by the state's tax-payers should be unconstitutional. Party officer elections should be on a separate ballot from congressional ballots. Presidential primaries are a separate issue.

Instead of Top Two, I would use the Louisiana system of no primaries, all candidates on a General Election ballot, and use Ranked-Choice Voting, to decide the winner.

It would save the states the cost of running primaries, and the voters from having to vote more then one time per election year.

In New York in 2016, some voters will have to go to the polls four, and possibly six times.

- Presidential Party Primary
- Congressional Party Primary (Closed, Top-Two Run-Off if No Majority)
- State Party Primary (Closed, Top-Two Run-Off if No Majority)
- General Election

This is not how elections should be run!











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Maine Looking to Open Primary to Independent Voters

Maine’s independent voters have long outnumbered voters who declare themselves Republican, Democrat or Green Independent.  But independent voters have little say in primary elections because Maine is one of only 11 states that limit primary voting to party members.

At least two proposals before the Legislature would change that requirement, which has existed since 1954 or earlier.  Supporters told lawmakers on the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee on April 29, 2015 that the efforts are designed to reverse the disenfranchisement of Maine’s largest voting block and, perhaps, lead to the election of moderate candidates less wedded to party ideology and aligned interest groups.

Sen. Roger Katz, R-Augusta, the sponsor of L.D. 744, said that these types of bills had failed in the past because the initiatives are perceived as threats to the two major political parties.  Katz’s bill and another, L.D. 720, from Rep. Mattie Daughtry, D-Brunswick, arrive at a time when many voters appear to want electoral reform.

Rep. Deane Rykerson, D-Kittery, told the committee that his constituents are increasingly unhappy.  “Voters seem to want to elect people, not parties,” he said.  “The biggest political party in Maine is the unenrolled.”

Activists are organizing a 2016 ballot initiative to establish Ranked-Choice voting, a system in which voters rank their preferred candidates to ensure that the winner receives a majority of the vote, not a plurality.

In Maine, independents have accounted for about 37 percent of registered voters since 2007.  The past two gubernatorial elections were contentious contests that some critics say made the campaigns more about appealing to party loyalists than motivating Mainers who don’t fully endorse either side.  “Let’s face it, there is a large block of people out there who do not have a great deal of confidence in either political party and just do not want an R or a D next to their name,” Katz said.  That is really unfortunate, and perhaps not fair, but we must face that as a reality.”

Katz said his proposal is designed to encourage participation by allowing unenrolled voters to cast ballots during primary elections.  He noted the “pathetic” voter turnout in the 2014 primary.  It was 10 percent statewide and 14 percent nationally, according to the Center for Study for the American Electorate.  Last year, Maine’s 58.5 percent turnout led the nation in the general election, when unenrolled voters participated.  Under Katz’s proposal, Maine would join the 24 states that have hybrid primary systems.

Mainers who want to vote in a primary now must enroll in a political party.  Those who do must remain affiliated with the party for three months before unenrolling or joining another party.  Katz’s bill would allow unenrolled voters to show up during a primary election and request either a Republican or Democratic ballot.

Maine is now one of 11 closed primary states, and the only one in New England, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.  However, the definition of a closed primary and semi-closed primary varies.

In New Hampshire and Rhode Island, voters must temporarily choose a party to vote in a primary.  However, they can fill out a form that allows them to unenroll immediately after the primary election.

Vermont is one of 11 open primary states.  Any registered voter can vote in a primary, regardless of party affiliation or enrollment.  For example, a registered Democrat can vote for a Republican candidate or vice versa.

Critics of open primaries say political parties can game the system by “party crashing,” a tactic in which a political party coordinates to vote for the opposite party’s least electable candidate in the primary.

Daughtry’s proposal would create what’s known as a top-two primary system.  California, Nebraska, Louisiana and Washington have adopted some form of that system, which lists all candidates on a single ballot, regardless of party.  Voters pick their favorite candidates and the top two vote-getters move on to the general election.

Neither proposal generated any opposition during Wednesday’s public hearing.  However, support was limited to co-sponsors.  Ann Luther, testifying on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Maine, told lawmakers that the desired result may not come from either proposal.  She noted that the barriers to participating in Maine elections are already low, and that unenrolled voters can already participate in primaries if they enroll in a party.

According to the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, the states with the highest voter turnout in the 2014 primaries were Montana (open primary), Kentucky (closed primary), Nebraska (semi-closed, state top-two), Mississippi (hybrid), Oregon (hybrid) and California (top-two primary).  Arizona, which has a primary system like the one Katz has proposed, had a turnout rate of 10 percent, the same as Maine’s.

Luther also noted that a top-two primary system could make it harder for independent candidates to get elected because it eliminates the current system of gathering signatures to get on the ballot.  The only way to get on the general election ballot, she noted, would be to win the primary.

The top-two system could have other unintended consequences that lead parties to handpick candidates before voters have the chance.  Luther cited a congressional race in California in which a crowded field of Democratic candidates split the district’s liberal vote, resulting in two Republican candidates appearing on the ballot for the general election.

In the 2013 Los Angeles mayoral race, a contest between two liberal Democrats with few policy differences was described by Time magazine as “a vicious negative campaign.”  Nineteen percent of the city’s 1.8 million registered voters participated, according to election results.

The two proposals will face work sessions before going to a full vote by the Legislature.

UPDATE
The two Maine bills to alter primaries failed to make any headway by legislative deadlines, and are therefore unable to pass.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us