There ought to be a special U.S. flag for use in Presidential election years. Forget those fifty stars, all crowed into a corner like swine in a feedlot. Three rows, three big stars per row. There, that’s the ticket.
Patrick O’Connor writes for the Star Tribune.
Thanks largely to the way Congressional districts were drawn in the latest round of redistricting, even a dramatic wave election like the one in 2008 that swept President Obama into power and added to Democratic majorities in Congress would do little to alter the composition of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, a new, nonpartisan study found.
FairVote, an organization that examines voting patterns and laws, predicts that Republicans will maintain control of the House in 2014 unless Democrats meet the unlikely threshold of winning 56 percent of the vote nationwide.
Press release: “As part of its biennial Monopoly Politics series on the overriding dominance of partisanship in controlling the outcomes of American congressional elections, FairVote today released its initial projections for its Monopoly Politics 2014 report. The report projects outcomes in 374 of 435 U.S. House elections in 2014 based on current incumbents seeking re-election. Of those 374 races, FairVote projects 211 to be won by Republicans and 163 to be won by Democrats.”
Three months after the 2012 election, independent redistricting continues to gain attention as a panacea for American congressional elections. Making the case from the quantitative flank is Sam Wang, professor of neuroscience at Princeton and founder of the Princeton Election Consortium, whose February 2 op-ed in the New York Times purported to show that the partisan bias in the U.S. House of Representatives could be corrected nearly entirely by implanting independent redistricting nationwide in the form that it is currently used in states like California. Wang later expressed his admiration for the California commission model by tweeting, in response to a National Journal article on the defeat of Congressman Howard Berman, “What independent redistricting looks like: races blown wide open, incumbents ousted.”
As FairVote has long argued, independent redistricting is a necessary reform, and we support it wholeheartedly. But proponents are simply wrong to suggest it would be sufficient if left to operate within winner-take-all elections. A perfect illustration of this point is the effect of the independent redistricting commission in California. Election results clearly show that ”wide open” races and “ousted incumbents” were not the norm in California in 2012 – and are likely to become even more scarce in the state’s future elections.
Cumulative voting as VRA remedy, played out in new election.
Richard DeLeon and Arend Lijphart have written this oped for the SF Chronicle.
This item appears at FairVote.
Key Stats:
- Number of 20 most “centrist” Members from 112th Congress returning in 2013: 8
- Number of House districts leaning more than 52% to 48% for one party that in 2011 were represented by a Member of another party: 26. Number of such districts in 2013: 10
- Number of non-incumbent Republicans who won seats in the 177 most Democratic districts: 0
- Number of non-incumbent Democrats who won seats in the 177 most Republican districts: 0
Billings Gazette: “U.S. Senate Libertarian candidate Dan Cox will tell you that it was never his intention to be a spoiler in one of the most closely watched races in the nation. He equally disliked both of his opponents’ records. But the nearly 30,000 votes Cox garnered in Tuesday’s general election were 10,000 more than the difference between Democratic incumbent Sen. Jon Tester and his Republican challenger, Rep. Denny Rehberg.”
Press Release: How FairVote Correctly Projected 333 Congressional Races Last July
Press Release: We Know 35 States That Will Not be 2016 Swing States
Cumulative voting in Alabama.
Mr. Johnson shares some of the cross-party appeal of Representative Ron Paul of Texas, who complimented him publicly last week. Advisers said Mr. Johnson’s potential for cutting into Mr. Romney’s support was greatest in Florida, where Mr. Romney is basically tied with Mr. Obama, but could also have an impact in Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire and North Carolina.
They said Mr. Johnson’s potential to eat into Mr. Obama’s support was greatest in Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin.
Republican officials have already tried to challenge Mr. Johnson’s place on the ballot or are trying to in states including Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Many of the challenges have failed — courts recently rejected efforts to throw him off the ballot in Virginia — and Roger Stone, a Republican Party veteran who is advising Mr. Johnson, said he was optimistic that Mr. Johnson would qualify in all 50 states.
Courthouse News Service reports. My earlier coverage of the Nevada “None of the Above” litigation is here.
Nick Stephanopoulos has posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming U Chicago Law Review). Here is the abstract:
Election law suffers from a comparative blind spot. Scholars in the field have devoted almost no attention to how other countries organize their electoral systems, let alone to the lessons that can be drawn from foreign experiences. This Article begins to fill this gap by carrying out the first systematic analysis of redistricting practices around the world. The Article first separates district design into its three constituent components: institutions, criteria, and minority representation. For each component, the Article then describes the approaches used in America and abroad, introduces a new conceptual framework for classifying different policies, and challenges the exceptional American model.
First, redistricting institutions can be categorized based on their levels of politicization and judicialization. The United States is an outlier along both dimensions because it relies on the elected branches rather than on independent commissions and because its courts are extraordinarily active. Unfortunately, the American approach is linked to higher partisan bias, lower electoral responsiveness, and diminished public confidence.
Second, redistricting criteria can be assessed based on whether they tend to make districts more heterogeneous or homogeneous. Most of the usual American criteria (such as equal population, compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and the pursuit of political advantage) are diversifying. In contrast, almost all foreign requirements (such as respect for political subdivisions, respect for communities of interest, and attention to geographic features) are homogenizing. Homogenizing requirements are generally preferable because they give rise to higher voter participation, more effective representation, and lower legislative polarization.
Lastly, models of minority representation can be classified based on the geographic concentration of the groups they benefit and the explicitness of the means they use to allocate legislative influence. Once again, the United States is nearly unique in its reliance on implicit mechanisms that only assist concentrated groups. Implicit mechanisms that also assist diffuse groups—in particular, multimember districts with limited, cumulative, or preferential voting rules—are typically superior because they result in higher levels of minority representation at a fraction of the social and legal cost.
I read an earlier draft of this piece. Highly recommended.
See this press release.
News from Maryland. In more Maryland redistricting news see this report, “Redistricting petition drive meets signature goal; Supporters expect legal challenge to congressional map.”
News from Florida (via Dan Smith).
FairVote has posted this piece.
FairVote has issued this press release.
There ought to be a special U.S. flag for use in Presidential election years. Forget those fifty stars, all crowed into a corner like swine in a feedlot. Three rows, three big stars per row. There, that’s the ticket.
See here. “Though he says he’s in this race to win, if he became the Americans Elect candidate, he has now committed to a crucial promise: if at the end of the race, Roemer writes, ‘I discover I have no realistic chance of winning, I will ask my supporters to vote their conscience or for their second choice so the issue of spoiler can be dropped once and for all.’”
I wonder how that will go down with the AE funders who decide which candidates get to go on the ballot.
Patrick Dunleavy defends modified IRV in London election.
T. Scott Uzzle has written this oped,which begins: “Richmond’s elections for mayor are unlike any other municipal election in the country. Richmond employs a system known as “unit voting.” Rather than simply counting all the votes in a straightforward fashion, unit voting divides voters into sub-units and holds sub-elections for the same office. The candidate who wins the most sub-elections — although not necessarily the most votes — wins the election. For the mayor’s election, Richmond divides voters into nine geographic areas based on city council districts. The candidate who receives “the most votes in each of at least five of the nine City Council districts” is elected mayor. In other words, Richmond holds nine separate elections for mayor on Election Day; the candidate who wins five of those elections wins the mayor’s office. It is a complicated way to run an election, and Richmond is the only city in the country using a unit-voting system for one simple reason: Unit voting is unconstitutional.”
David Karpf has this oped at TechPresident.
Sheahan Virgin and Rob Richie write.
WaPo editorial says it may be the way to go.
John Lumea explains.
John Anderson writes in the Chicago Tribune.
News from Canada: “The New Democratic Party of Canada will choose a new party leader at a two-day conference at a Toronto convention centre this weekend, through a process that gives each member a chance to have their say in the future of the party. With seven candidates vying to be named Jack Layton’s successor, the selection process could involve several rounds of voting, backdoor deals between candidates and groups of supporters that shift allegiances and swing momentum from one direction from the next.”
FairVote: “Contrary to conventional wisdom, current projected delegate totals for frontrunner Mitt Romney are far closer to what they would have been if every state had used a winner-take-all rule for allocating delegates than if they had used proportional allocation of delegates. Romney’s share of delegates currently is projected at 52.1%. If every state and territory had allocated delegates by winner-take-all, his share of delegates would be just 53.0%.”
WSJ: “The divided support between Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich has prevented either from becoming a permanent heir to the Not-Mitt mantle. As long as both are in the race, neither can likely amass enough delegates to overtake Mr. Romney.”
Erica Lynne Mirehouse has written this student comment in The Scholar (St. Mary’s).
Here’s a guest post from Rob Richie of Fairvote, making an important observation:
The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza wrote last night that “In politics, winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing. The score sheet only shows ‘W’s’ and ‘L’s’….When we look back in the history books, all it will say is that Romney won Michigan and Arizona.”
To be sure, Mitt Romney’s wins yesterday boosted his campaign, but Cillizza overstates their significance. In a nomination contest that may easily end up being all about convention delegates, the results were more divided. Rick Santorum has likely won half of Michigan’s voting delegates, and Romney’s Arizona delegate sweep faces a challenge at the convention due to the Arizona GOP’s flagrant violation of RNC rules.
In Michigan, Romney won the state vote by just under 3%. But winning doesn’t necessarily forecast future outcomes – consider the post-Iowa momentum shifts of Romney winning New Hampshire, Gingrich South Carolina, Romney Florida, Santorum’s three state sweep of February 7th and now Romney’s return. More to the point, Michigan’s voting delegates were allocated primarily by congressional district, not the statewide result. Although the Secretary of State bizarrely reports primary results according to Michigan’s old congressional district map, Michigan’s GOP instead uses results in the state’s 14 new districts. Santorum and Romney each have relatively secure leads in seven districts.
Because Michigan violated party rules by voting in February, the RNC stripped half of its convention delegates. Each district winner earns two voting delegates in Tampa. Although additional delegates will be awarded to Romney and Santorum based on their proportion of the statewide vote, only two statewide delegates will vote in Tampa. Romney forces maintain they’ll get both delegates, but Santorum backers argue for one each. Michigan ultimately seems likely to have 15 voting delegates each for Romney and Santorum – and Santorum would have won an 17-13 edge if he had won all the votes cast for withdrawn candidates like Bachmann, Cain and Perry and overcome Romney’s 0.8% edge.
Meanwhile, Arizona has joined Florida in violating the crystal clear RNC prohibition against winner-take-all allocation of delegates in contests held before April 1st. The RNC has left penalizing states for this infraction to the convention’s credentials committee, and if the race stays close or the delegate leader is seen as a weak nominee, expect fireworks — and potentially many delegates voting their conscience, as I’ve argued in POLITICO is permitted.
I see two key lessons here. First, pundits should calm down about order of finish in particular states. Let this contest unfold, give more voters a chance to participate and have the eventual nominee prove his mettle under fire, as clearly helped Democrats in 2008 despite similar grumbling early on. Second, congressional district outcomes don’t necessarily reflect popular vote outcomes –something the nation may discuss much more if Pennsylvania Republicans revive their proposal to allocate electors based on congressional district. Certainly, allocating delegates by district is not “proportional representation” – a term wrongly applied to a wide array of state rules this year.
Onto Super Tuesday and, quite possibly, state wins by all four remaining candidates.
–Rob Richie
NYT Sunday Review features letters responding to Rob Richie’s reform ideas.
Rob Richie has written a letter to the New York Times, and the Times invites responses (some of which will be published in the Sunday Review).
TPM reports.
6. If the Republican caucus were being held today, and the candidates were: (Michele Bachmann), (Herman Cain*), (Newt Gingrich), (Jon Huntsman), (Ron Paul), (Rick Perry), (Mitt Romney), (Rick Santorum), who would you support? Which candidate are you leaning toward?
12/4/11 - NET LEANED PREFERENCE
Potential Likely
caucus-goers caucus-goers
Newt Gingrich 28 33
Mitt Romney 18 18
Ron Paul 16 18
Rick Perry 12 11
Michele Bachmann 10 8
Rick Santorum 4 7
Jon Huntsman 2 2
Other 1 *
None of these 4 1
Would not vote * 0
No opinion 4 3
*Cain supporters were reallocated based on their second choice.
Concern about election transparency in Colorado and support for instant runoff voting in Memphis.