DOCSLIB.ORG

VOTING and DEMOCRACY REVIEW the Newsletter of the Center for Voting and Democracy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 4 "Making Your Vote Count" Fall 1994 U.S. House Elections: Dubious Democracy Lack of Choice, Low Participation Undercut Vote for Change Forty years of one-party rule came What of 1994, then? Rushing to call Many defenders of winner-take-all to an end this year, when Republicans the election a major realignment, pundits voting might protest, but very few of gained a majority in the U.S. House of have failed to grasp the impact of the them have any real knowledge of PR or Representatives. Yet the vote for change rules of the game. New polls show that the range of ways it could be adopted. cannot disguise a fundamental truth: two-thirds of Americans expect little House elections are hardly democratic. change in Washington and give a higher Dire warnings about Italy's experience Due to partisan gerrymandering and a favorability rating to a theoretical new with PR obscure PR's record of success. winner-take-all voting system, most party than to the Republican party. (see page four) voters lack real choices, leading directly 1994's vote for "let's-try-the-only-other- to an absurdly low voter turnout. option" is hardly a mandate. CV&D's Rob Richie makes the case for Democracy 2000: How to adoption of proportional representation. Change may happen, but it's a safe Get PR for Congress bet that it won't make most voters any The 1994 elections have resulted in happier. Their frustration with wage Congress in 1967 passed a statute Republicans gaining control of the U. S. stagnation, crime, bureaucracy and other (2 USCS 2c) that requires states to House of Representatives for the first problems demand far more complex use single-member districts. But time since 1954. But the great majority solutions than those in the Republicans' there is a long history of states using of Americans did not help bring about poll-driven "Contract with America." multi-member districts for their this change, either not voting for House delegations: Congress Republicans, voting in barely contested But as the technology for running required single-member districts first House races or simply not voting at all. winner-take-all campaigns becomes in 1842 (to allow for more political more sophisticated -- with focus groups, diversity within states), dropped the 1994 unofficial results show less than polling and opposition research -- requirement in 1852, restored it in 36% of eligible voters voted in House complex messages about truly new ideas 1862 and dropped it again in 1929. elections. Only 12% of seats changed are harder than ever to deliver in the Congress should give states the party, and most elections were won by "zero-sum" world of a two-party system. option to use PR in multi-member landslides (over 60%). The 67% 1994's campaigns were among the worst districts. Such an amendment to the "landslide index" for incumbents actually in history as far as personal attacks, 1967 law would be quite consistent was higher than in 1992, and 91% of all empty sloganeering and mirror-image with its original intent, which was to incumbents won re-election -- not too messages by both parties targeting the protect racial minorities by removing much lower than 1988's 98% rate. same group of "swing" voters. These the possibility of winner-take-all at- problems are all directly connected to large elections after passage of the Consistent for decades, such figures voters having only two credible choices. Voting Rights Act. are not targeted at Republicans. Their victory in fact was long overdue if our PR a Real Alternative Support for PR for Congress is system's defenders have any pretense of growing, with voices as diverse as sincerity in arguing our system promotes It's clearly time to take a hard look at Kevin Phillips, Eleanor Smeal, New regular changes in power. That the GOP our winner-take-all voting system. Its Yorker editors and Clarence Page had not won more than 44% of House survival is due far more to institutional urging its consideration. CV&D seats since 1958 despite often winning inertia than any reasoned support for its strongly recommends formation of the presidency had made such defenses use over proportional representation (PR) high-level, multi-partisan ridiculous: the reality is winner-take-all systems that maximize voters' ability to commissions at national and state easily can mean one-party domination. elect the candidates they like best. levels to review the full range of potential electoral reforms. Voting and Democracy Review Fall 1994 Page 1 "Making your vote count" Note from the Director The Center for Voting and Voting and Democracy Review now voting for its Community School Board Democracy (CV&D) serves as a will be produced four times a year, due to elections, and CV&D has organized two clearinghouse on voting systems that a sensible decision by The Center for meetings among civic and educational foster responsive governance, fair Voting and Democracy's new, highly- leaders to develop an education program representation and voter participation. qualified Board of Directors (see box to on the system before the 1996 elections. Voting and Democracy Review is published quarterly; subscriptions are right) to divert some of our resources to • CV&D members published a range several exciting projects. A survey of $15. All rights reserved; no part may be of books touching on PR, including Sam recent activities indicates how much we Smith's Shadows of Hope, Matthew reproduced or transmitted by any means without prior written permission from seek to do in this time of great Cossolotto's Almanac of European CV&D: 6905 Fifth St. NW, Suite 200, opportunity to pursue electoral fairness: Politics, Douglas Amy's Real Choices, Washington, DC 20012 (202) 882-7378. • Within hours of polls closing, New Voices, David Kairys' With Liberty CV&D Board of Directors CV&D released a report on the 1994 and Justice For Some, Wilma Rule and elections, analyzing the number of votes Joseph Zimmerman's Electoral Systems Matthew Cossolotto (President) Author, Almanac of European Politics cast for losing candidates, representation in Comparative Perspective and Lani Cynthia Terrell (Vice-President) of women, voter turnout and Guinier's Tyranny of the Majority, Campaign consultant (DC) uncompetitive House races. The report • We continue to edit our quarterly Howard Fain (Secreta ry) President, Fair Ballot Alliance of Mass. was cited in USA Today, featured in the column in the National Civic Review and Cleveland Plain Dealer and led to write articles for such publications as David Lampe: (Treasurer) Editor, National Civic Review (CO) several radio interviews. A longer report the newsletters of the Center for Carolyn Campbell will be released in January. Responsive Politics and Poverty and City council aide/Green Party leader (AZ) • The National Civic League has held Race Research and Action Council. Donna Edwards Exec. Director, Center for New Democracy two meetings of a Voting Rights in • Many CV&D members have been George Friday Local Governance Project Advisory active in their home areas. North Development, Piedmont P eace Project (NC) Committee to produce a comprehensive Carolina's Lee Mortimer served on a Lawrence Hansen handbook for communities on city-county merger task force and nearly Vice - President, Joyce Foundation (IL) compliance with the Voting Rights Act. I convinced fellow members to suggest Hendrik Hertzberg was asked to serve on the committee with preference voting. Pro-PR groups with Executive Editor, New Yorker magazine David Leslie leading voting rights experts to provide CV&D members in Washington, Civic leader, Cambridge (MA) expertise on modified at-large voting California and Massachusetts all filed George Pillsbury systems. CV&D Board member Ed Still press releases on the 1994 elections, Founder, Funding Exchange (MA) and I will co-author a chapter on these while CV&D members wrote pro-PR William Redpath Ballot Access Chair, Libertarian Party (VA) systems for the handbook. columns for publication in New York, Theresa Reed • Ed Still and University of Virginia Iowa, Montana, Missouri and more. Exec. Director, Part of the Solution (MA) law professor Pamela Karlan prepared an • On a daily basis we respond to Wilma Rule excellent amicus brief on behalf of information requests from professors, Adjunct professor, U. Nevada-Reno (CA) CV&D to file in a Maryland voting Marian Spencer city managers, state legislators, voting Former Cincinnati vice-mayor (OH) rights case in which a federal judge rights organizations and reformers. Edward Still imposed cumulative voting (see page 3). • Looking ahead to the next few Civil rights attorney (AL) • In Ohio, state leaders led by a months, we shortly will produce our CV&D Advisory Board former Member of Congress, filed an Voting and Democracy Report: 1995, John B. Anderson (National Chair) anti-gerrymandering suit against the release a graphics series explaining Douglas Amy Kathleen Barber state's 1992 redistricting plan. CV&D preference voting, present our Champion Theodore Berry John Brittain Advisory Board Chair John Anderson is of Democracy awards for 1994, hold Martha Burk Eugene Eidenberg co-counsel in the case, and CV&D was events in three cities and write requested James Elwood Jack Gargan consulted on the plaintiffs' suggestion for Dolores Huerta Mel King articles for several publications. Arthur Kinoy Arend Lijphart PR as an alternative approach. Yes, we've got a lot to do! We thank Michael Lind Manning Marable • The City of Cambridge gave you for your volunteer activity and Roxanne Qualls Michael Shuman CV&D a contract to prepare a study on financial assistance that makes our work James Skillen Eleanor Smeal computerizing its preference voting -- still done on a shoestring budget Maureen Smith Sam Smith Bobbie Sterne Velma Veloria system ballot count.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Document Received by the CA 2Nd District Court of Appeal
    No. B295935 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT ______________________________________________________ CITY OF SANTA MONICA, Appellant-Defendant, v. PICO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION; MARIA LOYA, Respondents and Plaintiffs. ____________________________________________________________ BRIEF FOR FAIRVOTE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS AND AFFIRMANCE ___________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles The Hon. Yvette M. Palazuelos, Judge Presiding Superior Court Case No. BC616804 ____________________________________________________________ *IRA M. FEINBERG PATRICK C. HYNDS (Bar No. 64066) (pro hac vice pending) HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP JOSEPH M. CHARLET 390 Madison Avenue (pro hac vice pending) New York, NY 10017 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Telephone: (212) 918-3000 555 Thirteenth Street NW Fax: (212) 918-3100 Washington, DC 20004 [email protected] Telephone: (202) 637-5600 Fax: (202) 637-5910 ZACH MARTINEZ (pro hac vice pending) HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1601 Wewatta Street, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80202 February 4, 2020 Telephone: (303) 899-7300 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Document receivedbytheCA2ndDistrictCourtofAppeal. Fax: (303) 899-7333 FairVote CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITES OR PERSONS FairVote is a non-profit organization headquartered in Takoma Park, Maryland that advocates for fairer political representation through election reform. Since its founding in 1992, FairVote has been committed to advancing ranked-choice voting, also known as a single-transferable-vote (“STV”) method, in both single-member-district and at-large voting systems. It does so by conducting original research and advocating for electoral reforms at the local, state, and national levels. FairVote believes that implementing alternative at-large remedies, including ranked-choice and cumulative voting, will allow voters to elect representatives who better reflect their communities’ and society’s diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Fair Representation Voting – Lessons from Cumulative Voting in Illinois by Rob Richiei Prepared for National Democracy Slam, April 22, 2015
    Fair representation voting – Lessons from cumulative voting in Illinois By Rob Richiei Prepared for National Democracy Slam, April 22, 2015 We have more than 7,000 state legislators in the United States today. The great majority of them are elected in single-winner districts, where each legislator represents a group of people that no one else represents in that legislative chamber. But that’s not true in Maryland, where I and most other Maryland voters have three representatives in the House of Delegates, and it didn’t always used to be that way nationally. As recently as the 1950’s, more than half of state representatives shared constituents with other representatives in multi-winner districts, at a time when voters in several states had more than one U.S. House Member as well. One of those states with multi-winner state legislative districts was Illinois. Every voter had three representatives in the Illinois House of Representatives. But unlike other multi-winner state legislative districts elsewhere Illinois did not have a winner-take-all rule. That is, 51% of voters were not able to control 100% of representation in the way that they can today in my three-seat district in Maryland. Instead, if more than a quarter of like-minded voters wanted a certain kind of representation, they had the voting power to win one of the three seats. A 51% majority would have the power to elect two of three seats, but not all three of them. This “fair representation voting rule” was based on providing voters with cumulative voting rights.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 PRELIMINARY STAFF REPORT Cesar Perales, Chair Rachel Godsil, Vice Chair Carlo Scissura, Secretary Matt Gewolb, Executive Director
    CHARTER 2018 NYC REVISION COMMISSION 2018 PRELIMINARY STAFF REPORT Cesar Perales, Chair Rachel Godsil, Vice Chair Carlo Scissura, Secretary Matt Gewolb, Executive Director LETTER TO THE CHAIR Dear Chair Perales and Commissioners: I am delighted to present this Preliminary Staff Report, which I hope will serve as an informative and useful guide for the ongoing work of the 2018 New York City Charter Revision Commission. As you know, the Commission has been extremely active in engaging with City residents during the initial stages of this revision process. From listening to in-person public testimony to engaging experts at our four Issue Forums to our “Commissioner- in-your-Borough” events, we have engaged the public in a serious—and enlightening— conversation about governance in New York City. We have considered the entire City Charter to identify areas for potential revision. The Commission received hundreds of comments from New Yorkers from across the five boroughs. Advocacy and good government groups, elected officials, academics, and others have made meaningful contributions, and we will continue to consult with stakeholders as this process unfolds. The New York City Law Department, and others within City government, have provided invaluable guidance. We tremendously appreciate their efforts, as well as those of all of the other organizations and individuals who have provided assistance. Ultimately, this Preliminary Staff Report reflects a focus on civic life and democracy in New York City—a theme that is particularly appropriate and relevant in contemporary times. The report also introduces a new and exciting phase in our process—one that I am confident will include a robust public discussion and debate about the future of the City Charter.
    [Show full text]
  • C00053 6930 Carroll Ave., Suite 610 the Center for Takoma Park, MD 20912 - (301) 270-4616 (301) 270-4133 (Fax)
    STATE OF HAWAII OFFICE OF ELECTIONS 802 LEHUA AVENUE PEARL CITY, HAWAll 96782 www.hawaii.gov/elections KEVIN B. CRONIN CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER TESTIMONY OF THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER, OFFICE OF ELECTIONS TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY ON SENATE BILL NO. 2898, S.D.I RELATING TO AGREEMENT AMONG THE STATES TO ELECT THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE March 20, 2008 Chair Waters and members ofthe House Committee on Judiciary, thank you for the opportunity to testify on Senate Bill No. 2898, S.D.I. The purpose ofthis bill is to allow states to determine the winner ofa presidential election by "national popular vote". The Office ofElections knows the contents ofthis bill and believes this bill presents a policy issue for the Legislature to resolve in its sound judgment. The Office ofElections remains available to provide, on request, any technical assistance arising from this bill. Please let us know ifthis office can be ofassistance to you. Respectfully Submitted: By Kevin Cronin C00053 6930 Carroll Ave., Suite 610 The Center for Takoma Park, MD 20912 - (301) 270-4616 (301) 270-4133 (fax) . [email protected] Voting and Democracy www.fairvote.org Written Testimony of Rob Richie, Executive Director On Behalf of Hawaii's SB2898 SD 1, March 19,2008 Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide written testimony in support of SB 2898 SI, legislation to enter Hawaii into an interstate compact designed to guarantee the election of the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. My name is Rob Richie.
    [Show full text]
  • Intervenor Alaskans for Better Elections, Inc
    Scott M. Kendall Alaska Bar No. 0405019 J ahna M. Lindemuth Alaska Bar No. 9711068 Samuel G. Gottstein Alaska Bar No. 1511099 FILED in the Tri~! Courts Holmes Weddle & Barcott, P.C. State of Alaska Third ;.)1stnct 701 West 8th Avenue, Ste. 700 Anchorage, AK 99501 .APR U 2 202"1 Phone: 907.274.0666 Clerk of the Trial courts Fax: 907.277.4657 By______ Deputy Attorneys for Intervenor Alaskans for Better Elections, Inc. IN THE SUPERJOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE SCOTT A. KOHLHAAS, THE ALASKAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY, ROBERT M. BIRD, AND KENNETH P. JACOBUS, Plaintiffs, V. STATE OF ALASKA; STATE OF ALASKA: DIVISION OF ELECTIONS; Case No. 3AN-20-09532 CI LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR KEVIN MEYER, in his official capacity as Supervisor of Elections; and GAIL FENUMIAI, in her official capacity of Director of the Division of Elections Defendants. ALASKANS FOR BETTER ELECTIONS, INC. Intervenor. 61NTERVENOR ALASKANS FOR BETTER ELECTIONS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Intervenor Alaskans for Better Elections, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment Scott A. Kohlhaas, et al. v. State of Alaska, et. al., Case No. 3AN-20-09532 CI Page 1 of 39 I. INTRODUCTION After voters approved an election reform initiative in November 2020, Plaintiffs Scott A. Kohlhaas, the Alaskan Independence Party, Robert M. Bird, and Kenneth P. Jacobus ( collectively "Plaintiffs") filed this facial challenge seeking to invalidate the entirety of the popularly-enacted law. 1 Through this law, the public adopted comprehensive reforms to give voters and individual candidates more choices in elections, and to ensure that the candidates with the most support - regardless of party affiliation ( or lack thereof) - would represent Alaskans.
    [Show full text]
  • Top Four Primary Ranked Choice Voting for U.S
    Top Four Primary Ranked Choice Voting for U.S. House Elections What It Is and How It Performs on Key Democracy Criteria Prepared by Rob Richie1for the National Democracy Slam on April 22, 2015 Summary of Evaluation of Impact on Criteria Voter turnout and political participation: 3 Fair representation of parties and political groups: 2 Fair representation of racial minorities and women: 3 Electoral competition: 4 Reduction of polarization in Congress: 4 Impact Scale Definitions 1 No impact or negative impact 2 Low impact or impact likely only if coupled with other reforms 3 Moderate impact 4 High impact, including significant long-term impact 5 Problem substantially solved, even without other reform Description of Top Four Primary with Ranked Choice Voting The Top Four primary combines the best features of two electoral rules: the Top Two Primary and ranked choice voting. Congress could enact it nationally for congressional elections or individual states could adopt it for their federal and state elections. It involves three changes: Adopting ranked choice voting for both primary and general elections: Ranked choice voting (RCV, known also as “instant runoff voting” and “preferential voting”) is a voting method that can address a range of defects derived from our current electoral rules when more than two candidates run for an office. Voters are given the option to rank candidates in order of preference. Their vote is counted initially for their first choice. If no candidate has more than half of those votes, then the last-place candidate is eliminated. The votes of those who selected the defeated candidate as a first choice are then added to the totals of their next choice.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Women Matter Summit
    WWhhyy WWoommeenn MMaatttteerr LESSONS ABOUT WOMEN’S POLITICAL LEADERSHIP FROM HOME & ABROAD Summit Materials National Press Club, Washington, DC March 3, 2003 Crowne Plaza, San Francisco, CA March 6, 2003 WHY WOMEN MATTER SUMMIT THE WHITE HOUSE PROJECT 110 Wall Street, 2nd floor New York, NY 10005 (212) 785-6001 - 1 - Find further information about The White House Project and our other research and programs online at: www.thewhitehouseproject.org The White House Project would like to thank the following for their contributions to this Briefing Book: Ann Burroughs Georgia Duerst-Lahti, Beloit College Morgan Hanger & Erin Vilardi, WHP Interns Anat Maytal, former WHP Intern Karen O’Connor, Women & Politics Institute at American University Rob Richie and Steven Hill, Center for Voting & Democracy The Proteus Fund Women’s E-News Briefing Book for “Why Women Matter” Summit © 2003 by The White House Project Edited by Shauna L. Shames Research Director, The White House Project WHY WOMEN MATTER SUMMIT THE WHITE HOUSE PROJECT 110 Wall Street, 2nd floor New York, NY 10005 (212) 785-6001 - 2 - Table of Contents Introduction 3 The White House Project Overview 5 PART I: SUMMIT MATERIALS Why Women Matter Summit Schedules 6 Why Women Matter Speaker Biographies 9 Summit Partner Organizations 15 Summit Postscript 18 PART II: U.S. RESEARCH Women in Politics: National Statistics 20 Research Overview: Do Women in Local, State, and National Legislative Bodies Matter? 21 A Definitive Yes Proves Three Decades of Research by Political Scientists PART III: INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVES & STRATEGIES Women in Politics: International Overview 26 Women in Politics: Country Rankings 28 Strategies for Equality: Initiatives from a Selection of Countries 33 PART IV: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • A Vote Counted: Quantifying Voting Rights Through Proportional Representation in Congressional Elections
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository University of New Hampshire – Franklin Pierce Law Faculty Scholarship School of Law 1-1-2002 A Vote Cast; A Vote Counted: Quantifying Voting Rights through Proportional Representation in Congressional Elections Michael McCann University of New Hampshire School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/law_facpub Part of the Election Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Political Science Commons, and the Politics and Social Change Commons Recommended Citation Michael McCann, "A Vote Cast; A Vote Counted: Quantifying Voting Rights through Proportional Representation in Congressional Elections," 12 KAN. J. L. & PUB. POL'Y 191 (2002). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of New Hampshire – Franklin Pierce School of Law at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Vote Cast; A Vote Counted: Quantifying Voting Rights Through Proportional Representation in Congressional Elections Michael A. McCann CONTENTS I. Introduction: Reassessing "Winner-Take-All" Voting Systems ........... 191 II. An Alternative: Proportional Representation .......................... 193 III. The Benefits of Proportional Representation: Expanding the Democratic Experience for More Americans .................................... 194 IV. The Drawbacks of Proportional Representation: Tailoring a New Voting System to Address Legitimate Concerns ............................. 204 V. The Legal Viability of Proportional Representation in Congressional Elections ...................................................... 208 V I. Conclusion .................................................... 212 I. INTRODUCTION: Michael A. McCann received his J.D. from REASSESSING the University of Virginia School of Law in "WINNER-TAKE-ALL" 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from the Use of Ranked Choice Voting in American Presidential Primaries
    Politics and Governance (ISSN: 2183–2463) 2021, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 354–364 DOI: 10.17645/pag.v9i2.3960 Article Lessons from the Use of Ranked Choice Voting in American Presidential Primaries Rob Richie *, Benjamin Oestericher, Deb Otis and Jeremy Seitz‐Brown FairVote, Takoma Park, MD 20912, USA; E‐Mails: [email protected] (R.R.), [email protected] (B.O.), [email protected] (D.O.), jseitz‐[email protected] (J.S.‐B.) * Corresponding author Submitted: 22 December 2020 | Accepted: 6 April 2021 | Published: 15 June 2021 Abstract Grounded in experience in 2020, both major political parties have reasons to expand use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in their 2024 presidential primaries. RCV may offer a ‘win‐win’ solution benefiting both the parties and their voters. RCV would build on both the pre‐1968 American tradition of parties determining a coalitional presidential nominee through multiple ballots at party conventions and the modern practice of allowing voters to effectively choose their nominees in primaries. Increasingly used by parties around the world in picking their leaders, RCV may allow voters to crowd‐source a coalitional nominee. Most published research about RCV focuses on state and local elections. In contrast, this article analyzes the impact on voters, candidates, and parties from five state Democratic parties using RCV in party‐run presiden‐ tial nomination contests in 2020. First, it uses polls and results to examine how more widespread use of RCV might have affected the trajectory of contests for the 2016 Republican nomination. Second, it contrasts how more than three million voters in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries backed withdrawn candidates with the low rate of such wasted votes for withdrawn candidates in the states with RCV ballots.
    [Show full text]
  • Vote for the NAACP's National Popular Vote Resolution
    Fair Representation Voting and the Voting Right Act Excerpts from FairVote Amicus Brief in Montes v. City of Yakima A FairVote Policy Perspective January 2015 In October 2014, FairVote filed an amicus curiae (friend of the Court) brief in Montes v. City of Yakima, a case brought against the city of Yakima (WA) under the Voting Rights Act. You can read the brief here. Here are excerpts from the brief relating to fair representation voting. FAIR REPRESENTATION IS A LEGAL REMEDY FOR SECTION 2 LAWSUITS Fair representation voting allows a population greater than a certain threshold of votes (from just over 10% in a nine-seat election to just over 33.3% in a two-seat election) to elect a candidate of choice. Where racial minority candidates of choice can expect to secure support above that threshold, courts accept the use of fair representation as a remedy to vote dilution caused by winner-take-all at-large elections. The following two excerpts include a number of citations demonstrating the legality of fair representation voting as a remedy to vote dilution claims brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act does not require the use of single-member districts alone as remedies for violations of the Voting Rights Act. United States v. Euclid City School Bd., 632 F.Supp.2d 740, 751–52 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (adopting the defendants’ proposed at-large single vote plan over the plaintiffs’ proposed single member district plan). Courts routinely uphold systems that include at-large elections with fair representation voting as remedies for vote dilution claims.
    [Show full text]
  • The Way Democracy Will Be
    the consent of the governed the time to make real the promise of democracy FairVote 2006 FairVote ... EQUAL WE THE PEOPLE the way democracy will be... FAIRVOTE FairVote pursues an innovative, solution-oriented pro-democracy FAIRVOTEagenda. Our vision of an equally secure, meaningful and effective vote for all Americans is founded on the principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Martin Luther King’s I Have a Dream speech: we are created equal, government is of, by and for the people and it is time to make real the our vision promise of democracy. Founded in 1992 and operating for many years as the Center for Voting and Democracy, FairVote is the leading national organization acting to transform our elections to achieve unfettered, fraud-free access to participation, a full spectrum of meaningful choices and majority rule with fair representation and a voice for all. Achieving our goals rests upon bold, but achievable reforms: a consti- tutionally protected right to vote, direct election of the president, instant runoff voting for executive elections and proportional voting for legislative elections. As a reform catalyst, we develop and promote practical strategies to improve elections for local, state and national leaders. 1 LETTER FROM OUR CHAIR 2-3 EFFECTIVE MEDIA & ADVOCACY 4-9 PROGRAMS 10 INDICATORS OF SUCCESS 11 FINANCIALS 12 DIRECTORIES letter from our chair... FAIRVOTE ...the way democracy will be That’s our new slogan. It captures how our optimistic vision of democracy is at the cutting-edge of reform, but grounded in achievable strategies that have always defined our organization.
    [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]