Electoral System Design: Goals and Priorities

Colin Moore Director, Public Policy Center University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Outline

1. Goals of electoral systems 2. District magnitude • Some pros and cons of single-member, multi-member, and at-large districts 3. Voting Systems: Balancing fairness, transparency, and familiarity • First-past-the-post and the two-round system • Alternative voting methods • How an alternative might look in Maui County Electoral Systems: You can’t have it all

Best to think of goals and priorities, rather than a single “right way” to design elections The key question: What do you want the electoral system to do? • There is no system that provides a perfectly neutral way to transform voter preferences into electoral outcomes. • Each electoral system contains a different array of biases from every other electoral system. • Voter preferences themselves are shaped by the electoral system. • Policymakers who decide among such systems choose to prefer one set of biases over another. And to prefer one over another is to make a policy choice (Donald L. Horowitz, 2006).

Source: Donald L. Horowitz (2006) Goal 1: Proportionality of seats to votes

• A majority of voters should receive a majority of representation. • Basic intuition: A political party that receives 40 percent of the vote should receive about 40 percent of the seats in a legislative body. • The one-person-one-vote rule in the is designed to protect against malapportionment (a clear violation of proportionality). • Proportional representation systems or a single district with many seats (as currently exists in Kaua‘i County) should be relatively good at achieving this goal. The problem of rural representation when districts must have the same population

Maui County’s Population: 167,989 Ø 167,989 divided by 9 Districts = 18,665 per district

Under one-person/one-vote, it is not possible to have even a combined council district for Moloka‘i and Lānaʻi. Ø Population of Moloka‘i + Lānaʻi = 10,500 (8,165) Goal 2: Accountability to constituents

• Elected representatives should be accountable to their constituents. • This means their policy positions should roughly reflect the majority preferences of their district. • District-based systems should be good at achieving this goal because the link to a specific population is clear. Goal 3: Durable governments

• No electoral system can represent the opinions of all voters. • Where the legislature is deeply fragmented, it may be difficult to get anything done. • Durable governments are desirable because they promote policy consistency and make it easier to plan for the future. • Some people think that majoritarian systems (as we have in Congressional elections) are good at promoting this goal. Goal 4: Victory of the head-to-head winner

• The candidate who would receive a majority of the vote in a head- to-head contest with each and every other candidate should be the one elected. • Since often there are more than two candidates, it is possible for some systems to produce different results. Sometimes first-past- the-post systems do this in crowded elections when they “split the vote;” e.g., special Congressional elections. An example from CD-1 in 2010

Neil Abercrombie Governor of Hawai‘i 2010 Special Election: Three-Way Race

V. V.

R- D- D- 2010 Special Election Results

Party Candidate Percentage

Republican Charles Djou 39.4% Democrat Colleen Hanabusa 30.8%

Democrat Ed Case 27.6%

Djou Wins But in a two-way race?

V. = ??

V. = ?? District Magnitude District Magnitude

• District Magnitude: The number of representatives elected in a district. • In the Hawai‘i Legislature, district magnitude is one (1 district = 1 Representative or Senator). • Often, the larger the district magnitude, the greater the proportionality; i.e., candidates who might not have enough concentrated geographic support to win a district race, can win a county-wide race. Present System: Nine at-large members with residency requirements (magnitude = 9)

Source: North-Beach West Maui Benefit Fund Benefits and drawbacks of the current system? • Benefits • At-large districts provide more opportunity for a greater variety of interests to be represented. • Candidates have an incentive to represent people and problems throughout the county (rather than a specific district). • Residency requirement ensures representation of Moloka‘i and Lānaʻi. • Drawbacks • Elections are expensive; must campaign throughout the entire county. • Voters are less likely to be familiar with the candidates. • More populated areas of the county may determine election of candidates who seek to represent rural areas. How the other counties elect their councils

City and County of Honolulu and Hawai‘i County: • Nine single-member districts. Two rounds of voting. Candidates elected during first round if they receive 50%+1 of all votes cast. Top two move to second round.

Kaua‘i County: • Seven at-large districts with no residency requirements. Voters cast seven votes. Fourteen candidates with highest votes in first round advance to second round. The seven candidates receiving the highest number of votes are elected. Alternative System: Nine single-member districts

Source: North-Beach West Maui Benefit Fund Benefits of single-member district system?

• It’s simple! This is how State Legislative elections work; it’s the system that is most familiar to most people. • Races can be concentrated in one district. Leads to less expensive elections; voters familiar with the candidates. • Candidates can specialize in the issues important to their district (but may lead them to privilege district interests). • Gives representatives a greater incentive to act as citizen intermediaries when dealing with administrative agencies. Alternative System: Three, 3-Member Districts

Source: North-Beach West Maui Benefit Fund Benefits of multi-member district system?

• Increases likelihood that multiple interests will be represented, but it preserves close-connection of district-based system. • Larger districts often allow for more natural geographic and municipal boundaries. • Elections are less expensive than at-large races; candidates are likely to be more familiar to voters. Alternative System: 6 single-member districts, 3 elected at-large

Source: North-Beach West Maui Benefit Fund Benefits of a mixed system (district and at-large)? • Best of both worlds? Smaller districts allow for closer connection to constituents. The at-large district ensures that some members are thinking about county-wide goals. • Maybe. But many people find mixed systems quite confusing. Can be difficult for voters to understand and for candidates to campaign. Voting Systems Some Familiar and Alternative Voting Systems • First-Past-the-Post: Elections held in a single-member district. Whoever gets the most votes (even if it’s not a majority) wins the election. Simple, familiar, easy to count the ballots. • Two-Round System: If no candidate wins an absolute majority in the first round (50%+1), then a second round is held, usually between the top two candidates from the first round. • Alternative Systems: Instant-runoff and single transferable vote. Often better at aggregating total preferences, but may be confusing; results are possibly less transparent. Alternative Voting System #1: Instant-Runoff Voting • The IRV system (also known as ranked-choice voting), usually practiced in single-member districts, is a “preferential” voting system in which voters rank candidates in order according to their preference. • Eliminates the need for a run-off election (saves money). • Avoids the problem of “spoilers;” i.e., the head-to-head winner does not win. • This is the system used in Oakland, CA and several other cities in the United States. Source: City of Heber City, UT

Alternative Voting System #2: Single Transferable Vote (STV) • A system similar to IRV for multi-member districts • Voters rank all the candidates. • Increases the chance of getting representatives who advocate for the interests of many voters. • No “wasted ballots.” Re-allocates votes for winners and losers. • No need to worry about “spoilers” or splitting the votes of supporters. How STV works • Establish a victory threshold. The goal is to set the threshold as the lowest possible share of the vote that the winners can receive. This allows the most possible voters to have some say in which candidates are elected. • The victory threshold equals: [Total votes cast / (Seats + 1)] + 1 vote • When voters with 2,000 votes elect one seat, winning requires (2,000/2) + 1. This equals 1,001 votes, 50% + 1 • When voters with 10,000 votes elect three seats, winning requires (10,000/4) + 1. This equals 2,501 votes, 25% + 1.

Source: FairVote.org Three seat district in a 10,000 vote election: The threshold to win is 25% + 1 vote (2,501) Cambridge, MA: STV Ballot Alternative System: Three, 3-Member Districts with STV

Source: North-Beach West Maui Benefit Fund How STV might work in Maui County with three, 3-member districts • There were 71,653 votes in 2020 general election • Assume 3 districts – so, total vote per district would be: 23,884 • When voters with 23,884 votes elect three seats, winning requires (23,884/4) + 1. This equals 5,972 votes, 25% + 1. • Allows concentrated support from Moloka‘i, for example, to make it likely that they will have a representative. Thanks for having me. Questions?