The Progressive States Network is working to promote election reforms that drive voter turnout in states across the country.  Here is a summary of their key policies.  They support the National Popular Vote to more or less scuttle the effective use of the electoral college system and more mail-in voting and making it easier for voters to register to vote through National Voter Registration Act Compliance. 

It's generally a less is more approach to election reform, the NPV has been being advanced by FairVote for some time and it treats the problem of low participation by less-educated voters as primarily a lack of convenience.  I'm more of the opinion that the problems of the cultural wars and the general economically rightward shift by both of the major parties is more at fault.  I also am a believer that we can revive the Electoral College system back to its original constitutional intent by taking serious some of the thoughts of Eugene McCarthy in "No Fault Politics". 

In my proposal,  we make the Nov 4 elections a winner-doesn't-take-all open primary that selects the final three candidates.  The next president would then be elected with a ranked choice vote by 1305 electors, less than a week later.  Three electors would be selected in the same winner-doesn't-take-all way from each of the 435 congressional districts.  All of the electors would be in seclusion for the week when they serve to select our next president together.   This would shift our most important election from a media-driven winner-take-all election to a winner-doesn't-take-all election that would be both a national and a local election at the same time.  It would be one of the best things we could do for our democracy, because it would make the election far less negative and more geared to local issues in the selection of electors and thereby far more constructive.  It would also help to bar extremist candidates, like Sarah Palin, that pander to particular  groups from having any hopes of winning the presidency.  The NPV ends the "Southern Strategy", but it exacerbates the influence of the Mainstream Media and its tendency to spin a lot of misinformation about the presidential candidates and to crowd out other elections that deserve more of people's time and energy to make our democracy truly work well.

dlw

I blogged earlier that the best way to deal with anti-establishment populists was through strategic election reform that empower local t(hird)-parties.  I believe that today's tea-party protests, of which Josh Marshall does a great job of showing are very extremist in their rhetoric, show how much we need to give non-extremist Republicans a realistic exit threat from their party so that these folks can't keep wagging the dog.  This exit threat is not going to be the Democratic party, and so the only other constructive option are third parties, but not the sort of third parties we are accustomed to....

What we need are local T(hird)-Parties that contest only local elections, and o.w., vote strategically together and engage in civil issue advocacy.  Now, chances are there'll still be third parties that keep on contesting less local elections and that are quite illiberal, but if we used winner-doesn't-take-all elections in state assembly elections, but not state senate elections, then these other third parties, likely including today's tea-partiers, that fail to employ the politics of Gandhi, trying to move the center of political opinion/practice, will not be influential.

dlw

Tragically, even TPM's Josh Marshall seems to build up the myth that one must follow rock-stars to make change happen.  But this tends to come at the cost of local issues/politics in ways that would perhaps have a much greater cumulative effect on US (and int'l) politics than anything we sort of accomplish via the hot big issues of the moment (aka Health Care reform right now.). 

State level election reforms are meant to engage voters and local t(hird)-parties in state legislative elections / issues.  This would provide alternative locations for political activism that does not require us to be groupies, following the major party leaders (not that that's wrong, its' just wrong that it is, more or less, the only "pragmatic" option available.).  The strategic election reform approach takes as a matter of both fact and faith that the changes in state-political dynamics and voter habits induced by reforms will then trickle-up to affect national issues.  And, since election reforms shall help with all other issues needing reform, it deserves more priority than other reforms.

And so I hope that TPM will decrease (after it helps to direct more atte to strategic state-level election reform), so that more local political blogs will increase.  Otherwise, it may be undercutting its progressive values, in my opinion, by virtue of its desire to stay on top of things.

dlw

Folks don't understand why it matters?

General malaise about democracy/voting?

Those in power won't permit real changes anyways?

Too many other issues seem more pressing?

 

At any rate, it is because there are so many issues that need reform that I've come to emph election reform in my personal activism.  This is why I've also come to advocate for strategic state-level election reform that affirms the two-party dominated system, inasmuch as I am not interested in decentralizing power so much as influence.  This is also why I would like to see more t(hird)-parties that focus on contesting local elections, otherwise vote strategically together and engage in civil issue advocacy with others.

So what say you?

dlw

This is a new hybrid winner-take-all election system, which I call a Top Three IRV (Instant Runoff Voting).  It improves on the Top Two Primary system used in Washington State. 

In an election, there would be an open primary where anyone can vote, with seven candidates, who would be selected by local rules.  An example of a local rule would be: whichever six or seven candidates can gather the most distinct signatures or voter-registrations from potential voters in the general election, allowing the incumbent a pass if (s)he wishes to run for reelection.

Then, in the primary, just as a major party would get to endorse at most three of the seven candidates; each voter gets to approve of three candidates.  Now, they could choose to approve of less than three, but it is not wise to emphasize this possibility.  Instead, the frame should be to encourage them to pick their dream-team of which of the seven primary candidates they would like to see in the general election.

Then, whichever three candidates receive the most approval votes would go the general election, where an instant runoff vote would determine the winner. 

This winner-take-all rule, like all such rules, generally favors the two major parties.  But more importantly, it makes the primary not a winner-take-all election.  So, especially if the primary is close to the general election, we would have winner-take-all elections with the properties of winner-doesn't-take-all elections.  We would have candidates who now must listen to, not simply attack, their opponents, so they can take on the best of their ideas to win the approval votes of their supporters.  I also think that such primaries would also tend to foster stronger intra-party discipline, since there would likely be a need for cooperation at all stages of the elections.  But the key result would be less cutthroat and more interesting elections that would reduce the natural advantages of incumbents.  

Ranked Choice Voting was used for the first time in Minneapolis, MN and passed by 52% in St Paul MN.  The Minneapolis elections did not bring any surprises, in large part because there were often so many challengers that they collectively did not threaten the incumbents.  This especially proved to be the case for the mayoral race, where the popularity of incumbent RT Rybak and the fact he had nine not-so-well known challengers kept the race non-competitive and failed to stir up significant voter-turnout for the off-season election.

And so it seems that giving voters multiple options is by no means a panacea, but the turnout was not that far down from four years ago and overall pretty good, given  the lack of a competitive mayoral race. 

Now, I have been sharing here in Mpls, MN about the idea of a "top three IRV" election, which would rely on a winner-doesn't-take-all open primary to whittle down the number of candidates in the general election to three candidates.  This would make it so that even a popular incumbent needs to campaign for reelection and more voters would study up the views and positions of all of the candidates in the general elections before voting.

Let us hope that a real dialogue begins on this crucial topic, particularly around the frame of the need for us to use both winner-take-all and winner-doesn't-take-all elections, possibly including the use of Top 3 IRV to revive the electoral college system for presidential elections....

dlw

This is a new hybrid winner-take-all election system, which I call a Top Three IRV (Instant Runoff Voting).  It improves on the Top Two Primary system used in Washington State. 

In an election, there would be an open primary where anyone can vote, with seven candidates, who would be selected by local rules.  An example of a local rule would be: whichever six or seven candidates can gather the most distinct signatures or voter-registrations from potential voters in the general election, allowing the incumbent a pass if (s)he wishes to run for reelection.

Then, in the primary, just as a major party would get to endorse at most three of the seven candidates; each voter gets to approve of three candidates.  Now, they could choose to approve of less than three, but it is not wise to emphasize this possibility.  Instead, the frame should be to encourage them to pick their dream-team of which of the seven primary candidates they would like to see in the general election.

Then, whichever three candidates receive the most approval votes would go the general election, where an instant runoff vote would determine the winner. 

This winner-take-all rule, like all such rules, generally favors the two major parties.  But more importantly, it makes the primary not a winner-take-all election.  So, especially if the primary is close to the general election, we would have winner-take-all elections with the properties of winner-doesn't-take-all elections.  We would have candidates who now must listen to, not simply attack, their opponents, so they can take on the best of their ideas to win the approval votes of their supporters.  I also think that such primaries would also tend to foster stronger intra-party discipline, since there would likely be a need for cooperation at all stages of the elections.  But the key result would be less cutthroat and more interesting elections that would reduce the natural advantages of incumbents.  

We've been trying CFR for a third of a century now and where has it gotten us?  

Read more »

The issue of election reform vs CFR has come back up in recent comments made in my last post on strategic state-level election reform as the way to subvert populism and restore trust in the two major parties.  Why strategic election reform trumps election reform is an issue I delved into earlier.

 

Another issue is whether my editorial prescription for election reform is simply a complicated way to get Proportional Representation (PR)?    My short answer is yes and no.  Yes, I want PR used in part of our political system.  No, I do not want it used as extensively as it is used elsewhere and, in my editorial series, I make my case for strategic election reform, as such, on both pragmatic and idealistic grounds.  I want us to use both winner-take-all and winner-doesn't-take-all elections.  Furthermore, I wd like to see both open list and closed list version of PR used in different types of elections.  There is no one right election rule and when that is understood, it'll be a lot easier to make election reforms. 

 

Wonks are already describing the next couple of years as the year of the third party and predicting that folks will show how discontented they are with both major parties by voting for third party candidates in major elections.

Now, I'm a believer in Duverger's law that there is a nexus between the party system and election system and so I see a surge of votes for third party candidates as of little long-term consequence.  It may get folks riled up and make our politics get even uglier, which is possible...

And so the imperative for me is to get people to see that strategic state-level election reform that introduce the use of more winner-doesn't-take-all elections into our political system will have a trickle-up effect into national politics, making both major parties give more voice to more people on more issues....  But I could use some help in this regard, and yet it seems like 3rd party candidates for major offices may end up garnering way too much of the public attention instead.

dlw

I've posted recently here at TPM Cafe about an approach to state-level election reform that focuses on introducing more winner-doesn't-take-all elections to our political system so as prevent either of the two major parties from dominating our state (and national) politics.  The goal is to renew our democracy by keeping our system a (somewhat) contested duopoly, rather than a (somewhat) contested monopoly or, even worse, a cut-throat competitive duopoly that is verging to become a (somewhat) contested monopoly.  
But that's a hard sell to most folks, who simply aren't comfortable thinking about politics in rather economic terms or who have a tacit "once-saved-always-saved" notion of democracy that simply needs to get exported to the rest of the world.  And so, it seems that to make election reform sexy(er) that it needs to get bundled with another issue.  Over at the New America Foundation, they bundle election reform with a comprehensive intervention in CA's political schizophrenia.  Hopefully, this will work and they will ratify a new state constitution for CA.

I would like to share an alternative approach at bundling in order to get feedback from TPM denizens.  What if, in addition to the use of winner-doesn't-take-all elections, we advocated for rule changes for state legislative elections to ensure more women were on the ballot in primaries and/or general elections?  I believe this would be constitutional, since states have a fair amount of leeway in the conduct of their own elections.  It is desirable, since research has shown that men and women politicians have different policy-making priorities and so it could very well be best for us to have a more even gender balance among our political leaders and the state legislatures would be an ideal place to push for that.  It has somewhat more power and the potential to trickle up into state-wide or national political positions.  

So would coupling gender politics and election reform make election reform more likely to get a hearing in as many states as possible the coming two years?  I think 50%+ of voters might be more interested and we'd see whether the rest of us would do the right thing.  If people are interested, I'll go into more specifics in a later post of how the rule changes I brought up before could be modified to adjust the gender-balance...dlw

I recently shared a 3 part editorial series on election reform here, here and here.  In retrospect, the editorial series was not written for the typical tpm denizen.  It was written for my mother, the sort of person who doesn't read political blogs or get into politics, but is unhappy with the current ugliness over healthcare reform.  This is why I believe they did not elicit much interaction or positive feedback.  The first editorial elicited some comments about not being specific enough and people shared about how their priorities were elsewhere, with Campaign Finance regulations being mentioned more than once.  I'd like to share briefly why I believe a focus on election reform rather than campaign finance reform is called for, when it seems that both have the same intent: to make our elections more competitive and reduce the influence of $peech on the decision-making of our leaders. 

Read more »

The third of three editorials by David L Wetzell, PhD 
Just as we sometimes need both to improve our lifestyles and medical interventions to get better,  the US needs both changes in its' voters' habits and election reform to renew its democracy.  In my second article, I developed some rules for election rules that showed why more local election reforms will cure what ails the US's democracy.  In this third article, I detail specific strategies to reform state election rules in coming years.  

Read more »

The second of three editorials by David L Wetzell, PhD
Yesterday, I described generally how recent ugliness over health care reform stem from flaws in our democracy.  In order to heal our democracy, we need changes in both our habits as voters and some of our election rules.  The critical habit that we need is to see our democracy as like a garden that has gone to seed and fixable with some rule changes.  But to change our status quo election rules, we could use some rules for election rules.  Below are three ideas I've developed over many conversations.  

First, one election-rule does not fit all.  

Read more »

The first of three editorials by David L Wetzell, PhD  

Who else who feels embarrassed over how ugly things have gotten over health care reform? After all, it's one thing to get worked up about being misled into a war of choice, but to want better health care for more people is to want to do the right thing.  And, if mistakes get made, they'd be less costly and easier to fix down the road.  And so perhaps we may diagnose our present partisan ugliness, unwieldy health care system and fifteen year lapse in efforts at its reform as symptoms of a deeper disease in our democracy.  As such, while Health care reform (of some sort) shall pass, my hope for change lie more with election reform.  Strategic election reforms could make our politics less cut-throat and assist reform movements of all shapes and sizes.  In recent years, I have brain-stormed, shared with and learned from all sorts of people on the issue of election reform.  I distill in this three part series my experiences and views into three goals, three rules and three strategies.  Below are three goals for election reform.    

Read more »