The Coalition for a New Colorado Election System

A group of Colorado activists called The Coalition for a New Colorado Election System announced that it has begun collecting signatures for a new approach to election reform.

The Coalition’s proposal weaves together two interdependent changes.  The first is the adoption of the “nonpartisan blanket primary” used in states that elect officeholders under a Top Two model.  That means that there will be a single preliminary election in which all candidates seeking office run against each other irrespective of political party.  Each voter has exactly one vote to help decide which candidates will advance to the general election.

Where this proposal differs from Top Two is that instead of only the two candidates with the most votes advancing to the general election, the general election will feature all candidates who get at least 3% of the vote, and always at least three candidates (provided no candidates wins a majority of the vote in the first round). Because more than two candidates will appear on the general election ballot, the general election always will use ranked choice voting to ensure that a weak candidate does not win election just because two or more stronger candidates split the vote between them.

The Coalition’s proposal does have several unique elements.  For one, it advances more than four candidates any time more than four candidates get at least 3% of the vote each, a fairly common occurrence in high profile races.  While allowing only three rankings in such elections is still much better than a traditional plurality voting elections, it is not ideal.  The Coalition also has only one candidate advance if that candidate receives at least 50% in the preliminary election, a change that may conflicts with federal law, based on the Foster v. Love case involving Louisiana’s prior system.  Finally, the inclusion of presidential elections would have been easier if simply adding RCV to the general election ballot and allowing the nomination process to proceed as it does under current law.

Nonetheless, this campaign represents a real step forward in how reformers think about primary election reform.  Publicly funded primaries should not exclude blocs of voters based on their partisan preferences, but Top Two opens up the primaries at the cost of closing off the general election in many important races.  General elections matter, and it is great to see that Colorado is considering a proposal that will open both the primaries and the general elections.  I hope reformers in that state will get involved in the Coalition’s campaign.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Other Options for the U.S. Primary System

Theses ideas were published on June 11, 2014 by Rob Richie, Drew Spencer, and Anthony Ramicone.

On June 3, California held primaries for nearly all major state and federal offices, including governor and 53 U.S. House seats.  Since the approval of a 2010 ballot measure, the state has used a “top two primary,” versions of which are also used in Washington and Louisiana.  In the top two primary, all candidates for an office run against one another, and voters select a single candidate.  The two candidates with the most votes advance to the November election, regardless of party affiliation.

CLICK HERE to read the article.

Reformers Should Go Forward, Not Back

Many officials in California are talking about repealing Top Two.  But reformers should not go back to California’s old, discredited system that led to mostly lopsided contests in both primaries and general elections.

The authors of the article feel it would be far better to take what’s good about the current system and make it better.  They see fixing top two as easy as 1-2-3.

1. We must banish the idea that general elections provide sufficient choice if they limit voters to two candidates.  We are used to two parties dominating contests, but it should be illegal to ban other options from the November ballot, which the Top Two system effectively does in almost every contest.  Furthermore, while it can be interesting to have two candidates of one party make the general election, that does not make it right to eliminate every other perspective.  Evidence from the 31st congressional district in 2012 shows that about half of the Democratic voters who make up a majority of that district’s electorate just skipped a contest between two Republicans.  California could advance four candidates to the November ballot, rather than two.  Doing so would dramatically increase the number of elections with more than one candidate from the majority party without shutting out the second largest party as long as it ran a candidate.  A “top four” rule also would open up the ballot to far more third parties and independents, including in three statewide contests this year.

2. With four candidates on the November ballot, ranked choice voting should be used to ensure the election of the candidate with the strongest overall support.  Doing so would uphold majority rule and reward candidates who reach out to more voters.  Using ranked choice voting to reduce the field to four in the primary would eliminate “spoilers” in that election as well.

3. Just as candidates are able to indicate their preferred party, parties should be able to indicate their preferred candidates.  More information is good for voters and better upholds first amendment rights of political association.

A Solution: Top Four with Ranked Choice Voting

With ranked choice voting in November, voters would be able to rank three candidates in order of choice.  Those rankings would enable the state to simulate runoff elections, with the last-place finisher eliminated before each round of counting, and everyone’s ballot counted in each round for the advancing candidate they ranked highest.  Using ranked choice voting in both the primary and the general would be ideal, as it would reduce "wasted votes” all the more, but even using it just in the general election would greatly add to the value of general elections with four choices.  Candidates would need to earn their vote to win and would do best by campaigning to voters rather than going negative on their opponents.  They would need to be more inclusive in their campaigns and more representative by reaching out to be the second choice of backers of other candidates.

It is clear that something must be done.  California should reform Top Two, and those interested in imposing the California model of Top Two in other states like Oregon should think again.  Top Two distorts outcomes, too easily resulting in elected officials who do not represent their constituents and too often resulting in general elections that shut out a majority of the electorate from being able to vote for a preferred candidate.  By limiting voter choice and placing the most power in the hands of a small, unrepresentative group of primary voters, the top two system falls short of its promises.  California policymakers should act to reform Top Two by advancing more candidates and using ranked choice voting, while backers of open primaries in other states should expand their vision of what we deserve in a fully representative democracy.

But I think there is a better way.  Blanket Primaries with all register voters participating.

Under this type of primary in California: the major party (Democrat, Republican) candidates, the minor party candidates (American Independent Party, Libertarian Party, Peace and Freedom Party), the independent (No Party Preference) candidates, and the write-in candidates, with the most votes in each contest, goes on to the general election.

To keep the party's right of association, only party members would be able to vote for party position.  I also agree with Ranked Choice Voting and candidates are able to indicate their preferred party and parties should be able to indicate their preferred candidates.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

The Growth of Ranked Choice Voting and Instant Runoff Voting

Ranked Choice Voting and Instant Runoff Voting Bills advancing in Minnesota, Washington, DC and New York City.

This post from Rob Richie, FairVote update.

Ranked choice voting (RCV) has a simple goal: accommodate voter choice.  More choice means more power, and RCV provides a bottom-up solution to problems with our electoral system.  It is another way to vote, besides Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).

CLICK HERE to read FairVote's Monopoly Politics 2014 and the Fair Representation Solution.

Collecting highlights from RCV News in 2014, from its ever-growing use for campus elections to new expressions of support from top political leaders.  Just this week former U.S. Senator David Durenberger (R-MN) had a strong commentary about how RCV has reduced the impact of campaign spending, while Rob was among several presenters of papers on RCV at an important electoral reform conference last week at Stanford.

Ranked choice voting bills have been introduced in numerous state legislatures in 2013-2014, with particularly promising progress reported on by FairVote Minnesota.

FairVote Washington says Washington, DC, may become the next major city to adopt the instant runoff voting (IRV) form of RCV to elect its local officials.  Councilmember David Grosso introduced his IRV legislation to reform all primary and general elections.  With early support from co-sponsors David Catania, Mary Cheh, and Tommy Wells and a large mayoral field drawing attention to the problem of "split votes" and "spoilers," the bill needs just three votes for a council majority.

New York City has a vibrant movement for adoption of IRV in citywide primaries, led by the city council speaker and civic groups like the Citizens Union.  There is legislation to enact IRV in future city elections moving in both the city council and the state legislature.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Washington D.C. Instant Runoff Voting and Open Primary Bills

David Grosso, a city council at-large member in Washington, D.C., has introduced a bill to use Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for both the primary and general city partisan elections.

Instant Runoff Voting Amendment Act of 2014

The bill would cover the election of the Mayor, Attorney General, Chairman and members of the Council using instant runoff voting, and would require that District voting systems be compatible with an instant runoff ballot system, and setting a date and conditions for implementation.

The bill states:

(1) “Instant runoff voting,” also called “ranked choice voting,” means a method of casting and tabulating votes whereby the voters rank candidates according to the order of their choice and counting proceeds in rounds in which candidates are eliminated.  In every round, each ballot is counted as one vote for the highest ranked advancing candidate.

(2) “Continuing candidate” means a candidate who has not been eliminated.

(3) “Continuing ballot” means a ballot that is not deemed an exhausted ballot.

(4) “Exhausted ballot” means a ballot that does not rank any continuing candidate, contains an overvote at the highest continuing ranking or contains two or more sequential skipped rankings before its highest continuing ranking.

Instant runoff voting shall be used for the primary municipal election in 2016 and all subsequent elections.  If the Board of Elections certifies to the Mayor and the Council no later than November 1, 2015 that the Board will not be ready to implement ranked-choice balloting in 2016, then the District shall begin using ranked-choice or “instant runoff” balloting at the immediate next municipal election, including special elections.”

Effect on Rights of Political Parties

For all statutory and charter provisions in the District pertaining to the rights of political parties, the number of votes cast for a party’s candidate for an office elected by a ranked choice or instant runoff method is the number of votes credited to that candidate after the initial round of counting.

This section is confusing. Will have to do more research.

Open Primary Elections Amendment Act of 2014

Letting Voters Change Affiliation Before and on Primary Day

Grosso and Council members David Catania, Mary M. Cheh, and Tommy Wells have also introduced a bill to let independent voters join a party before and on primary day, giving them an opportunity to vote in partisan primaries.  Current law does not permit voters to change from independent status to membership in a party during the 30 days preceding a primary.

It would amend the District of Columbia Election Code of 1955 to provide that a qualified voter voter shall have the right to change his or her party affiliation after the 30th day preceding an election and on election day.

After the election, a voter could use this procedure to reverse their registration:

1 - To make a registration update by mail, simply fill out a voter registration application with all of the required registration information.

2 - If you registered online, you may review and edit your registration form online.  Once you have completed the form, print and sign it, and return it to the Board by mail.

3 - You may also update your registration in person at the Board’s Office.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us