DOCSLIB.ORG

Report for Phase I: Alternative Governance Options For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report for Phase I: Alternative Governance Options For Report for Phase I: Alternative Governance Options for Consideration, Future Village of Port Chester Board of Trustee Elections Dr. Lisa Handley Executive Summary My assessment of governance alternatives that are likely to provide Hispanics with an opportunity to elect candidates of choice is preliminary at this stage and will require additional research to draw more definitive conclusions. In this first phase of the project, I have simply compared the percentage Hispanic of the electorate to the thresholds of exclusion associated with each of the possible alternatives. (The threshold of exclusion is a mathematical calculation indicating the percentage of the electorate that a minority group must exceed to be guaranteed a seat on a governing board). My tentative conclusions regarding various options are as follows: At-large electoral system: While a traditional at-large electoral system would not provide Hispanics with an opportunity to elect candidates of choice, modifying the at-large system with cumulative voting (as is currently the case), as well as limited voting (with the vote limited to one) or ranked choice voting, would offer Hispanics an opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. The number of seats in the modified at-large system could increase, remain the same, or decrease to five seats, and possibly even to four seats and still provide Hispanics with an opportunity to elect candidates of choice. Districted or mixed electoral system: The impact of a districted or mixed electoral system is difficult to determine without actually drawing some illustrative districts. It was possible to draw one solidly Hispanic district in a six-district map when this was attempted ten years ago. With the increase in Hispanic population, it will certainly be possible to draw at least one such district now as well. If a mixed system were to be adopted and the number of districts to be drawn were fewer than six, it would require a drawing exercise to determine how many districts would have to be incorporated into the system in order to ensure that at least one district would provide Hispanic voters with an opportunity to elect their preferred candidate. Staggered terms: Staggering trustee terms in a manner that would mean that less than four seats were up for election (for example, staggering the terms so that two members were up every year, as was the case prior to 2010) would mean that Hispanic voters would no longer meet the threshold of exclusion, at least not without moving to a districted or mixed electoral system. However, if the number of trustees were increased from six to eight, it is possible that terms could be staggered, but only by electing four members each across two cycles. 1 Election date: Moving the trustee elections to November would only increase the Hispanic proportion of the electorate if the elections were held in presidential election years and this would require extending trustee terms of office from three years to four years. This is because, in elections held in even years when federal and state offices other than the president were on the ticket, Hispanic turnout is lower (and about comparable to what it is currently in trustee elections). Hispanic turnout in elections held in November during odd-years is lower still. This tentative assessment of governance alternatives will be elaborated upon once additional research has been completed. I will be conducting an analysis of voting patterns by race/ethnicity in phase II of the project which will provide me with more information on the level of Hispanic cohesiveness and the degree of white crossover voting for Hispanic-preferred candidates that might generally be expected. In phase III, I will be drawing illustrative minority districts to determine what districted and mixed system configurations are likely to provide Hispanics with an opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. I. Introduction As part of a consent agreement signed in 2009, the Village of Port Chester maintained its at-large system for electing its six-member Board of Trustees but modified it with cumulative voting. Prior to the decree, the Village elected the six trustees in staggered three-year terms, with two members running every two years in a traditional at-large system. In order to provide Hispanics with the opportunity to elect their preferred candidate (or candidates), the staggered terms were eliminated and voters were given six votes that they could spread over six candidates or cumulate on a smaller number of candidates, or even “plump” all six votes on a single candidate. This change was accompanied by a voter education program that, based on an exit poll conducted during the first election to use cumulative voting, was successful. As a result of this change in the voting rules, the first Latino member of the Board, Luis Marino, was elected in the June 2010 contest and re-elected in March 2013 and March 2016. The consent decree expired in June 2016 and the Board is now faced with the decision of whether to retain the current voting system – an at-large electoral system modified with cumulative voting – or adopt another electoral system. In at least some respects, the relevant conditions have changed since the court approved the cumulative voting system as an appropriate remedy for the Voting Rights Act violation it held existed. The Hispanic population has grown markedly. In 2000, Hispanics constituted 46.2 percent of the total population, 43.4 percent of the voting age population and 21.9 percent of the citizen voting age population.1 According to the 2010 census, Hispanics comprised slightly over 59 percent of the total population and 56.7 percent of the voting age population. The American Community Survey, the 1 United States v. Village of Port Chester, 704 F. Supp. 2d 411, 419-420. Plaintiff’s expert demographer estimated the Hispanic citizen voting age population to be 27.5 percent in 2006. 2 only source of citizenship data now produced by the U.S. Census, estimates that as of about 2015, 40.7 percent of the citizen voting age population of the Village of Port Chester was Hispanic (and 63.8 percent of the total population and 60.9 of the voting age population was Hispanic). Table 1 reports the results of the 2010 decennial census as well as the most recent ACS estimates.2 Table 1: Total and Hispanic population figures for Village of Port Chester 2010 census American Community Survey (2011-15) Total Voting age Total Voting age Citizen voting population population population population age population # % # % # % # % # % Total 8967 22422 29405 22865 13705 Non-Hispanic 9155 31.6 7733 34.5 8560 29.1 7200 31.5 6645 48.5 white Non-Hispanic 1541 5.3 1189 5.3 1480 5.0 1300 5.7 1180 8.6 black Hispanic 17193 59.4 12705 56.7 18750 63.8 13925 60.9 5580 40.7 Hispanic voter registration has also increased, albeit not to the extent that the Hispanic population has increased.3 Our analysis indicates that Hispanics now comprise nearly 29 percent of the registered voters in the Village Port Chester. (The comparable percentage in 2006 was 20.0 percent, according to the author’s calculation as presented to the court in United States v. Village of Port Chester.) Table 2 shows the gradual increase in Hispanic registration since 2008. 2 Because the decennial census does not collect data on citizenship, Hispanic citizen voting age population was derived from the American Community Survey (ACS), an annual Census Bureau survey that collects racial/ethnic data, citizenship information and a host of other demographic, social and economic data. The most recent five-year ACS CVAP data for the Village of Port Chester, ACS11-15, was used. (The ACS estimates for race, ethnicity and citizenship are reported for pooled five-year time periods for smaller jurisdictions such as the Village of Port Chester rather than for a specific year.) 3 Hispanic registration and turnout percentages are based on a Spanish surname analysis of the voter registration and sign-in lists. The turnout data for 2010 and 2011 is still in the process of being verified and should be considered preliminary at this stage. 3 When recent registration is considered, the percentage is much higher: slightly over 43 percent of those who have registered to vote in the last five years have been Hispanics. Table 2: Percentage of registered voters that were Hispanic, 2008-2017 Percentage of registered voters Election Date of that were year election Hispanic 2008 5-Feb 22.1% 2010 16-Mar 24.4% 2010 2-Nov 24.6% 2011 15-Mar 24.7% 2011 13-Sep 25.1% 2011 8-Nov 25.2% 2012 24-Apr 25.6% 2012 26-Jun 25.7% 2012 6-Nov 26.1% 2013 19-Mar 26.4% 2013 10-Sep 26.6% 2013 5-Nov 26.6% 2014 9-Sep 26.9% 2014 4-Nov 27.0% 2015 18-Mar 27.0% 2015 10-Sep 27.1% 2015 3-Nov 27.2% 2016 15-Mar 27.5% 2016 19-Apr 27.6% 2016 8-Nov 28.6% 2017 21-Mar 28.8% 2017 12-Sep 28.8% 2017 7-Nov 28.8% Hispanic turnout in recent elections has also grown, but the percentage of the electorate that is Hispanic varies considerably depending on when in the cycle the election is held and what offices are on the ballot. Hispanic turnout in Trustee elections since cumulative voting was introduced has increased considerably: Hispanics comprised 17.2 percent of the voters in March 2010, 16.9 percent in March 2013, and 23.8 percent in March 2016. (This author calculated the percentage Hispanic of the electorate to be 9.7 percent in 2004, 10.4 percent in 2005 and 11.3 percent in 2006 as presented to the court in United States v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4 Comparative Law and Constitutional Interpretation in Singapore: Insights from Constitutional Theory 114 ARUN K THIRUVENGADAM
    Evolution of a Revolution Between 1965 and 2005, changes to Singapore’s Constitution were so tremendous as to amount to a revolution. These developments are comprehensively discussed and critically examined for the first time in this edited volume. With its momentous secession from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965, Singapore had the perfect opportunity to craft a popularly-endorsed constitution. Instead, it retained the 1958 State Constitution and augmented it with provisions from the Malaysian Federal Constitution. The decision in favour of stability and gradual change belied the revolutionary changes to Singapore’s Constitution over the next 40 years, transforming its erstwhile Westminster-style constitution into something quite unique. The Government’s overriding concern with ensuring stability, public order, Asian values and communitarian politics, are not without their setbacks or critics. This collection strives to enrich our understanding of the historical antecedents of the current Constitution and offers a timely retrospective assessment of how history, politics and economics have shaped the Constitution. It is the first collaborative effort by a group of Singapore constitutional law scholars and will be of interest to students and academics from a range of disciplines, including comparative constitutional law, political science, government and Asian studies. Dr Li-ann Thio is Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore where she teaches public international law, constitutional law and human rights law. She is a Nominated Member of Parliament (11th Session). Dr Kevin YL Tan is Director of Equilibrium Consulting Pte Ltd and Adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore where he teaches public law and media law.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Electoral Rules
    Appendix A: Electoral Rules Table A.1 Electoral Rules for Italy’s Lower House, 1948–present Time Period 1948–1993 1993–2005 2005–present Plurality PR with seat Valle d’Aosta “Overseas” Tier PR Tier bonus national tier SMD Constituencies No. of seats / 6301 / 32 475/475 155/26 617/1 1/1 12/4 districts Election rule PR2 Plurality PR3 PR with seat Plurality PR (FPTP) bonus4 (FPTP) District Size 1–54 1 1–11 617 1 1–6 (mean = 20) (mean = 6) (mean = 4) Note that the acronym FPTP refers to First Past the Post plurality electoral system. 1The number of seats became 630 after the 1962 constitutional reform. Note the period of office is always 5 years or less if the parliament is dissolved. 2Imperiali quota and LR; preferential vote; threshold: one quota and 300,000 votes at national level. 3Hare Quota and LR; closed list; threshold: 4% of valid votes at national level. 4Hare Quota and LR; closed list; thresholds: 4% for lists running independently; 10% for coalitions; 2% for lists joining a pre-electoral coalition, except for the best loser. Ballot structure • Under the PR system (1948–1993), each voter cast one vote for a party list and could express a variable number of preferential votes among candidates of that list. • Under the MMM system (1993–2005), each voter received two separate ballots (the plurality ballot and the PR one) and cast two votes: one for an individual candidate in a single-member district; one for a party in a multi-member PR district. • Under the PR-with-seat-bonus system (2005–present), each voter cast one vote for a party list.
    [Show full text]
  • Another Consideration in Minority Vote Dilution Remedies: Rent
    Another C onsideration in Minority Vote Dilution Remedies : Rent -Seeking ALAN LOCKARD St. Lawrence University In some areas of the United States, racial and ethnic minorities have been effectively excluded from the democratic process by a variety of means, including electoral laws. In some instances, the Courts have sought to remedy this problem by imposing alternative voting methods, such as cumulative voting. I examine several voting methods with regard to their sensitivity to rent-seeking. Methods which are less sensitive to rent-seeking are preferred because they involve less social waste, and are less likely to be co- opted by special interest groups. I find that proportional representation methods, rather than semi- proportional ones, such as cumulative voting, are relatively insensitive to rent-seeking efforts, and thus preferable. I also suggest that an even less sensitive method, the proportional lottery, may be appropriate for use within deliberative bodies, where proportional representation is inapplicable and minority vote dilution otherwise remains an intractable problem. 1. INTRODUCTION When President Clinton nominated Lani Guinier to serve in the Justice Department as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, an opportunity was created for an extremely valuable public debate on the merits of alternative voting methods as solutions to vote dilution problems in the United States. After Prof. Guinier’s positions were grossly mischaracterized in the press,1 the President withdrew her nomination without permitting such a public debate to take place.2 These issues have been discussed in academic circles,3 however, 1 Bolick (1993) charges Guinier with advocating “a complex racial spoils system.” 2 Guinier (1998) recounts her experiences in this process.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Voting in Alabama
    1 Alternative Voting in Alabama Alternative voting ( also called ‘modified at-large voting’ ) was first used as an election procedure in Alabama during the 1980s. When the procedure was introduced, it was as novel and as questionable as the first Caesarians used to deliver babies. Today, after several election cycles, alternative voting systems in Alabama are as politically acceptable as C-sections are in delivery rooms. In Alabama today, thirty-two different governing bodies use some form of alternative voting. Three are county governments, one is a county Democratic Committee, and twenty-eight are municipalities. Of these governing bodies, twenty- three use limited voting, five use cumulative voting, and four replaced numbered posts with pure at-large [see glossary.] With the exception of the Conecuh County Democratic Executive Committee and the city of Fort Payne, all of the alternative voting systems in Alabama were first used in 1988 as a result of settlement agreements in the landmark, omnibus redistricting lawsuit, Dillard v. Crenshaw County, et. al. In that case, the Alabama Democratic Conference sued 180 jurisdictions in the state, challenging at-large elections. First Run: Conecuh County, Alabama The first known application of an alternative voting system in Alabama was in the election of members to the Conecuh County Democratic Executive Committee in the September 1982 primary election. It came as a result of a federal lawsuit filed by blacks challenging the discriminatory manner by which members were being elected to the committee. Prior to the court challenge, the Conecuh County Democratic Executive Committee elected members by a strange system which divided the county into two separate malapportioned districts, with each district electing 15 members at-large from numbered places [see glossary] and with a majority vote requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chamberlin-Courant Rule and the K-Scoring Rules: Agreement and Condorcet Committee Consistency Mostapha Diss, Eric Kamwa, Abdelmonaim Tlidi
    The Chamberlin-Courant Rule and the k-Scoring Rules: Agreement and Condorcet Committee Consistency Mostapha Diss, Eric Kamwa, Abdelmonaim Tlidi To cite this version: Mostapha Diss, Eric Kamwa, Abdelmonaim Tlidi. The Chamberlin-Courant Rule and the k-Scoring Rules: Agreement and Condorcet Committee Consistency. 2018. halshs-01817943 HAL Id: halshs-01817943 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01817943 Preprint submitted on 18 Jun 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. WP 1812 – June 2018 The Chamberlin-Courant Rule and the k-Scoring Rules: Agreement and Condorcet Committee Consistency Mostapha Diss, Eric Kamwa, Abdelmonaim Tlidi Abstract: For committee or multiwinner elections, the Chamberlin-Courant rule (CCR), which combines the Borda rule and the proportional representation, aims to pick the most representative committee (Chamberlin and Courant, 1983). Chamberlin and Courant (1983) have shown that if the size of the committee to be elected is k = 1 among m ≥ 3 candidates, the CCR is equivalent to the Borda rule; Kamwa and Merlin (2014) claimed that if k = m − 1, the CCR is equivalent to the k-Plurality rule. In this paper, we explore what happens for 1 < k < m − 1 by computing the probability of agreement between the CCR and four k- scoring rules: k-Plurality, k-Borda, k-Negative Plurality and Bloc.
    [Show full text]
  • Barriers to Voting in Alabama (2020)
    Barriers to Voting in Alabama A Report by the Alabama Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights February 2020 i Advisory Committees to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights By law, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has established an advisory committee in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The committees are composed of state citizens who serve without compensation. The committees advise the Commission of civil rights issues in their states that are within the Commission’s jurisdiction. More specifically, they are authorized to advise the Commission in writing of any knowledge or information they have of any alleged deprivation of voting rights and alleged discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, national origin, or in the administration of justice; advise the Commission on matters of their state’s concern in the preparation of Commission reports to the President and the Congress; receive reports, suggestions, and recommendations from individuals, public officials, and representatives of public and private organizations to committee inquiries; forward advice and recommendations to the Commission, as requested; and observe any open hearing or conference conducted by the Commission in their states. ii Letter of Transmittal To: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Catherine E. Lhamon (Chair) Debo P. Adegbile David Kladney Gail Heriot Michael Yaki Peter N. Kirsanow Stephen Gilchrist From: The Alabama Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights The Alabama State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (hereafter “the Committee”) submits this report, “Barriers to Voting” as part of its responsibility to examine and report on civil rights issues in Alabama under the jurisdiction of the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • On Some K-Scoring Rules for Committee Elections: Agreement and Condorcet Principle Mostapha Diss, Eric Kamwa, Abdelmonaim Tlidi
    On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle Mostapha Diss, Eric Kamwa, Abdelmonaim Tlidi To cite this version: Mostapha Diss, Eric Kamwa, Abdelmonaim Tlidi. On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle. Revue d’Economie Politique, Dalloz, 2020, 130 (5), pp.699-726. hal-02147735 HAL Id: hal-02147735 https://hal.univ-antilles.fr/hal-02147735 Submitted on 4 Jun 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle Mostapha Diss · Eric Kamwa · Abdelmonaim Tlidi 17 May 2019 Abstract Given a collection of individual preferences on a set of candidates and a desired number of winners, a multi-winner voting rule outputs groups of winners, which we call committees. In this paper, we consider five multi-winner voting rules widely studied in the literature of social choice theory: the k-Plurality rule, the k-Borda rule, the k-Negative Plurality rule, the Bloc rule, and the Chamberlin-Courant rule. The objective of this paper is to provide a comparison of these multi-winner voting rules according to many principles by taking into account a probabilistic approach using the well-known Impartial Anonymous Culture (IAC) assumption.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Voting Systems”
    Fair Division in Theory and Practice Ron Cytron (Computer Science) Maggie Penn (Political Science) Lecture 5b: “Alternative Voting Systems” 1 Increasing minority representation • Public bodies (juries, legislatures, police forces) more legitimate if they include more than one segment of society • Three principal approaches to bringing about minority representation in elected political bodies – “Wishful thinking” – Majority-minority (territorial) districting – Alternative (“semi-proportional”) voting systems: Cumulative voting, limited voting, and transferable voting 2 “Wishful Thinking” • Based on argument that problems of minority representation are working themselves out • Empirically, “safe” black districts (with > 50% black voting age populations) almost universally necessary to elect black candidates • (In 1995 at least) probability of a majority white district electing a minority congressperson was less than 1% 3 Race-conscious districting • The main tool for ensuring minority representation in Congress • Limited in its potential scope because of geographic constraints – More aggressive gerrymandering for racial purposes legitimizes practice for other purposes • Institutionalizes race as the primary dimension of conflict between voters • Necessarily puts “filler people” into safe districts, as vote packing is illegal 4 “Semi-proportional” systems • These systems use a larger district magnitude (2 or more seats) and a candidate-based ballot to attain proportional outcomes with a non-PR formula • Goal is to fragment voting power of electoral majorities to enable minorities to gain one or more seats • They don’t subdivide electorate along racial lines, or concentrate voters into “safe” districts • They enable many minority viewpoints to gain representation (race, gender, geographic) 5 Potential pitfalls • Could facilitate the election of extremist of marginal political groups (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Technological Change, Voting Rights, and Strict Scrutiny
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2019 Technological Change, Voting Rights, and Strict Scrutiny Henry L. Chambers, Jr. University of Richmond - School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications Recommended Citation Henry L. Chambers Jr., Technological Change, Voting Rights, and Strict Scrutiny, 79 Md. L. Rev. 191 (2019) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE, VOTING RIGHTS, AND STRICT SCRUTINY ∗ HENRY L. CHAMBERS, JR. ABSTRACT When technology obviates the need for an election law that prevents some otherwise eligible voters from casting a ballot, a jurisdiction’s reten- tion of that law and refusal to adopt the technology should be deemed a se- rious infringement of the right to vote that triggers strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. INTRODUCTION When technological change and voting rights are mentioned together, the discussion often revolves around how ever more sophisticated software can be used to draw gerrymandered districts.1 That use of technology harms and dilutes voting rights by grouping voters into districts where one party’s candidates have little to no chance of winning (or losing) an election, 2 leaving the other party’s voters virtually no chance of exercising the political power their numbers would suggest.3 Given our recent history regarding technol- ogy and redistricting, the public could be excused for believing the primary use of technology in elections is to degrade voting rights and harm democ- racy.4 However, contrary to its use to gerrymander, technology—including systems that help allow voters to register and vote on the Election Day—can © 2019 Henry L.
    [Show full text]
  • Election Administration Reforms: a Matter of Faith
    ELECTION ADMINISTRATION REFORMS: A MATTER OF FAITH WHAT’S THE MATTER? The United States has one of the lowest voter turnout rates among developed nations, nearly a quarter of all eligible voters are not even registered.1 We are the only major democracy in the world that requires individual citizens to bear the full responsibility of registering and then re-registering to vote.2 Our elections take place within a patchwork system of rules that can create unequal access to the ballot. What’s worse, states and local jurisdictions often depend on outdated election administration systems and rules that perpetuate unjust voting access (like limited voting hours, restrictions on ballot drop offs and limiting use of absentee ballots). Outdated systems also expose our elections to security vulnerabilities and create unnecessary barriers to voting. Even with all of these identified areas of improvement, there has been no clear unified strategy to strengthen and improve our nation’s election administration. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 (after the chaos of the 2001 election) was a first step in federal guidance to states, but the law failed to set standards and did not mandate compliance. This means many jurisdictions continue to have chronically under-resourced and challenging election systems. Despite these challenges, the 2020 election saw the highest voter turn-out in a century and was found time-and-again to be free, fair, and accurate. This success was largely due to the determination and tireless work of committed civil servants, volunteers, and voters. THE VALUES OF THE FAITH COMMUNITY As people of faith, we hold shared values of equity, fairness and inclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • VOTING and DEMOCRACY REVIEW the Newsletter of the Center for Voting and Democracy
    VOTING AND DEMOCRACY REVIEW The Newsletter of The Center for Voting and Democracy Volume II, Number 3 "Making Your Vote Count" July-August 1994 Cumulative Voting Thrust Into National Spotlight Judge's Order, Lani Guinier Draw Attention to Semi-PR System A federal judge's ruling, a new book individuals, and more votes for a Cumulative Voting's Benefits by Lani Guinier and The Center for candidate can do no more than elect that Cumulative voting (CV) has its Voting and Democracy's plan for North one candidate. And unlike preference benefits. Perhaps most importantly, CV Carolina's congressional districts have voting -- where voters have another can be described more simply than better drawn remarkable media attention to chance if their first choice doesn't help systems like mixed member proportional cumulative voting. Expressing his elect someone -- with CV "extra" votes representation and preference voting. personal view, CV&D's Rob Richie sees and split votes are wasted. With CV, voters have as many votes benefits in this semi-proportional system, (continued on page 4) as seats and can distribute their votes but not as a general reform. however they wish -- with the option of giving a candidate more than one vote. The American media have paid more The top vote-getters win; the more seats attention to proportional voting systems South Africa Shows PR to be filled, the smaller the group of in recent months than at any time in our Means Inclusion for All voters that can help elect a candidate. history. It all began when University of In South Africa's all-race elections Easy to describe, CV also is easy to Pennsylvania law professor Lani Guinier in April, over 99% of voters helped use.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizens' Initiative Bill Regulations on Public
    Strasbourg, 12 May 2015 CDL-REF(2015)017 Opinion No. 797 / 2014 Engl. only EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE BILL REGULATIONS ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE, REFERENDUMS AND POPULAR INITIATIVE AND AMENDMENTS TO THE PROVINCIAL ELECTORAL LAW OF THE AUTONOMOUS PROVINCE OF TRENTO (ITALY) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-REF(2015)017 2 I. Explanatory Memorandum (Pages 2 to 5) II. Bill 19th July 2012, n. 1-328/XIV/XV (Pages 6 to 24) I. Explanatory Memorandum Citizens’ initiative bill for the Autonomous Province of Trento “Citizens’ initiative bill. Regulations on public participation, citizens’ initiative, referendums and popular initiative and amendments to the provincial electoral law.” Today we assist to two seemingly contradictory phenomena taking place in the realm of democracy. First, the ever-increasing level of abstention at elections, peaked in the elections for the valley communities (comunità di valle) when less than 50% of the voters turned out to cast their vote. Second, the ever-greater number of citizen committees created to deal with various issues of general and particular interest. Therefore, on the one hand the involvement in the typical institution of representative democracy is constantly decreasing; on the other, there is a remarkable interest in participating directly on decisions concerning questions of political relevance. An interest actualised in the creation of committees or advocacy groups aiming to produce an impact on specific matters, which are often successful in influencing political choices by preventing or facilitating the implementation of certain outcomes.
    [Show full text]