DOCSLIB.ORG

PRIMARY RUNOFF ELECTIONS and DECLINE in VOTER TURNOUT About the Author This Report Was Written by Declan Alvidrez, with Contributions from Deb Otis and Austin Bartola

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PRIMARY RUNOFF ELECTIONS and DECLINE in VOTER TURNOUT About the Author This Report Was Written by Declan Alvidrez, with Contributions from Deb Otis and Austin Bartola RESEARCH REPORT PRIMARY RUNOFF ELECTIONS AND DECLINE IN VOTER TURNOUT About the Author This report was written by Declan Alvidrez, with contributions from Deb Otis and Austin Bartola. It also builds on previous work by Corinne DeFrancisci, Rob Richie, Robert Fekete, Matt Bugajski, Katherine Sicienski, William Hix, Devin McCarthy, and Andrea Levien, and Kelsey Kober. © Copyright December 2020. We encourage readers of this report to use and share its contents, but ask that they cite this report as their source. About FairVote FairVote is a nonpartisan champion of electoral reforms that give voters greater choice, a stronger voice, and a representative democracy that works for all Americans. Operating since 1992, FairVote works with scholars, civic leaders, policymakers, journalists and national, state and local reform partners to advance fairer elections. FairVote 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 240 Takoma Park, MD 20912 www.FairVote.org [email protected] 301.270.4616 TABLE OF 01 Executive Summary CONTENTS 02 Introduction 03 Background 04 Overall Turnout Decline In Primary Runoffs 05 Turnout Decline in Communities of Color 06 Use of Primary Runoffs Over Time 07 Recommendations for Policy Makers 08 Ranked Choice Voting for Military and Overseas Voters in Primary Runoff Elections 09 Instant Runoff Form of Ranked Choice Voting 10 Data Sources Executive Summary n ten states, a primary runoff election may be held if no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast in their INTRODUCTION party’s primary. States currently using primary runoffs A primary runoff election is held following the official include Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, results of an initial primary election if no candidate Mississippi, North Carolina (30% threshold), Oklahoma, surpasses the necessary predetermined threshold for ISouth Carolina, South Dakota (35% threshold), and Texas. victory (typically 50% of votes, but standards may differ). FairVote studied voter turnout in all congressional primary The runoff is contested by the top two vote-getting runoffs held since 1994. Below are our key findings. candidates from the initial primary and the winner of this two-person race receives the party’s nomination. Near-Universal Decline in Turnout. Turnout declined The runoff format is an effective way to understand the between the primary and the runoff in 240 of the 248 nuance of party opinion; voters have the opportunity regularly scheduled primary runoffs in the U.S House to vote for the candidate they most strongly support in and U.S. Senate from 1994 to 2020. In other words, in the first round without potentially wasting their vote. In 97% of primary runoff elections fewer people voted in the event that their candidate advances to the runoff, the second round than in the first. The average decline they have the opportunity to vote for them again. If in turnout was 38% and the median decline was 37%. their candidate does not advance to the runoff, voters can still vote for the runoff candidate who most closely Primary-Runoff Timing a Key Factor. The longer the wait aligns with their preferences. This format increases between the initial primary and the runoff, the higher the the likelihood that the winning candidate accurately decrease in voter turnout between elections. Runoffs held represents the party and the party’s voters, and allows a between 31 and 40 days after the initial primary have a nominee to advance to the general election with majority median turnout decline over three times higher than that of support. runoffs held between 11 and 20 days after the initial primary. Despite the promise of primary runoffs, voter turnout is particularly problematic. Voter awareness of the system Runoffs Nominate Winning Candidates for the General coupled with the dip in enthusiasm following the initial Election. Of the 248 runoffs in this time period, 79 (32%) primary, has resulted in a trend of voter turnout dropping resulted in a primary winner who trailed in the first round. off in the runoff election. Low turnout in the runoff Forty-one of these went on to win the general election. sullies the results of the election and largely defeats the These congresspeople had the broadest support in their purpose of holding a runoff election. Across the United districts, but would not have been elected to Congress States, voter turnout in runoff elections has frequently under plurality voting. Despite their faults regarding voter plunged so low that the legitimacy of the system and the turnout decline, runoffs aim to achieve an important goal: elected officials has been called into question. avoiding unrepresentative winners who do not have majority support. 04 successful. On top of the high cost, there is a significant BACKGROUND decline in participation for the second election. To The runoff electoral system is not anything new for the understand the role of the runoff in voter-turnout, we United States or the rest of the world. Currently, ten states analyzed all federal primary runoff elections from 1994 to use primary runoffs at the federal level, while others use 2020. This study takes into account the voter-participation the system at a state or municipal level. There is a good of each election and the time-gap between the initial and deal of variation across the country as some states only runoff elections. The time gap between elections has use runoffs for certain elections; Vermont, for example, shown to be a major contributor to the sharp decline in only uses the runoff format in the event of a tie and voter participation and if this issue is to be addressed the South Dakota uses runoffs in federal and gubernatorial use of runoff elections must be examined. elections. California and Washington put a different spin on the traditional runoff format and conduct a “Top Two” The purpose of runoff elections is to allow voters to select runoff election, in which the top two vote-getters of the a candidate with whom they most closely align in the first initial non-partisan primary run against each other for round, while still advancing nominees who best represent the general election, regardless of party. Georgia and the voters to the general election. In order to combat the Louisiana use the runoff format for the general election turnout issue, however, changes must be made. Instead in addition to primaries. In 2020, six states held a total of 27 runoff elections. As of the 2020 general election the of completely throwing out the existing runoff format that past 13 election cycles have seen 248 U.S. House and is used among multiple states, we recommend shifting Senate Democratic and Republican nominees who have to an “instant runoff” election, also known as ranked competed in primary runoff elections. Of this group, 112 choice voting. This gives voters the chance to express were ultimately elected to serve in Washington, and 41 of their true preferences, costs significantly less money for the 112 would not have won their party’s nomination had jurisdictions and candidates, and shrinks the multiple the plurality voting system been used. round election to a single, more accessible election. OVERALL TURNOUT DECLINE IN PRIMARY RUNOFFS Though runoffs are widely used, there are underlying costs, both monetary and political, that bring into question the viability of the traditional runoff format. The multiple rounds of manual voting drastically increase the administrative logistics and costs, while also necessitating an even higher degree of funding for a campaign to be All primary runoff elections but eight from 1994 to 2020 05 have seen a dropoff in voter turnout from the initial from 34.7% in primary elections to 31.2% in runoffs. primary election. Over this time period, the average The Covid-19 Pandemic undoubtedly played a role in voter turnout decline was 38.0% and the median turnout turnout, but it is notable that runoff turnout declines more decline was 37.3%. The 2018 and 2020 elections had an significantly for voters of color than for white voters. The uptick in primary and general election turnout compared disparity in voter turnout reflects many burdens that more to previous midterm and presidential election years, but heavily affect people of color and as a result the runoff the higher rates of voter turnout largely did not reach the election is a less accurate representation of the electorate. primary runoffs. For primary runoffs, 2018 and 2020 had mean turnout declines of 46.1% and 42.9%, respectively. General elections are a national affair; election day in GAPS IN DAYS November is the same throughout the country, whereas primaries and especially primary runoffs are scattered BETWEEN ELECTION across the calendar. Particularly in the case of states that hold their primary runoffs many weeks after the election, ROUNDS without the benefit of a nationwide election atmosphere As a result of federal efforts to uphold the voting rights of and coverage, uncoordinated get-out-the-vote overseas and military voters, several states have opted to campaigns must be built in order to both notify voters of increase the number of days between primary elections the runoff date and build motivation to return to the polls. and the subsequent runoffs. Extending the gap between elections appears to lead to a drastic decline in voter TURNOUT DECLINE turnout, particularly in-person voter turnout. IN COMMUNITIES OF COLOR Figure 3: Average Decrease in Turnout by Ethnicity 60% 55% 52% 51% 50% 49% e 48% n i l 45% 44% c 42% 42% e 40% D t 35% u o n 30% r u T 25% t n 20% e c r 15% e P 10% 5% 0 ) f r r c e n n n n d i y o t e o l i a a a l n n i w h e e c c o h a s t l a i i o k r r i t C A p p n f O W e s L s o k The longer the amount of time between elections, the ( i A h a e t n m H E P u A U l o l S greater the decline in turnout.
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]