------------ Forwarded Update ------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:43:47 -0500 From: Rob Richie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Flash: John Anderson for President? Sender: Rob Richie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/19/99 To: Center for Voting and Democracy Fr: Rob Richie, CVD Executive Director, http://www.fairvote.org Re: - CVD Chair John Anderson Contemplates Bid for Presidency in 2000 - Election '99 Commentaries in Washington Post, New York Times and USA Today - IRV News -- Big Vote in San Francisco on Monday - John Adams on Need for Proportional Representation Our Center is non-partisan, of course, and cannot support any particular candidate for President. But I wanted to draw your attention to a news development of particular interest to us: John Anderson is considering another run for the presidency. Below is a news release and John's commentary that today is being circulated around the country. Following John's commentary is one example of several important pieces on the need for electoral reform that appeared at the time of the November 1999 elections -- this one by Stephen Medvic and me ran in the Washington Post. For excellent commentaries in USA Today (editorial) and the New York Times (by Gail Collins), please visit "What's New" in our web site at: http://www.fairvote.org Note in addition that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Monday will vote on whether to place on the March 2000 ballot a measure to enact instant runoff voting for most San Francisco elections, including the mayor's race -- an San Francisco Chronicle op-ed by two members of the Board of Supervisors is below. An initiative to enact IRV for all federal and state elections has been launched in Alaska, and legislation is being crafted by in such states as New Mexico, Utah and Vermont. Note that voters in Vancouver, Washington this year approved a stand-alone charter amendment to allow instant runoff voting to be adopted in the future; local activist John Gear did remarkable work in winning endorsements for the measure from most key political forces in the city. Finally, the update ends with a quote from John Adams, second president of the United States. Adams suggests that legislatures "should be in miniature an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason and act like them." ######### For Immediate Release Contact: Rob Richie November 19, 1999 (301) 270-4616 John Anderson: Preidential Run in 2000? 1980 Independent Candidate Explains Potential Bid for Reform Party Nomination in New Commentary Proportional Representation and Instant Runoffs Highlighted in Former Congressman's Platform Today the Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service circulated a commentary by 1980 presidential candidate John B. Anderson in which the former congressman reveals he is considering another bid for the presidency. A law professor and president of two non-profit organizations, Mr. Anderson writes: "The complexity of our global society and the degeneration of our democracy demand boldness, innovation and frank talk." Mr. Anderson is considered by many third party proponents to be the father of today's increasingly active third party movement. He stresses the need for independent and minor party candidacies, writing that consultants to the major party nominees will "urge them to focus on safe generalities and a handful of wedge issues to pry support away from their opponents. Move to the center, they say, but their center is a void rather than the progressive spirit at the heart of the American people." Mr. Anderson, 77, represented Rockford, IL, in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1961 to 1981, where he was in the leadership of the Republican party. He currently is a distinguished visiting professor at Nova Southeastern Law Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He also is president of the Center for Voting and Democracy in Takoma Park, Maryland and the World Federalist Association in Washington, D.C. [Note that the Center for Voting and Democracy is a non- profit, non-partisan organization which studies the impact of electoral systems and redistricting on voter turnout, representation and governance. Its web site (www.fairvote.org) has additional information about proportional representation, instant runoff voting and non-partisan redistricting, all of which are touted by Mr. Anderson in his commentary. For information on these issues, please contact Rob Richie, (301) 270-4616.] ########## "A Time for Principle" By John B. Anderson In 1980, I ran for president. Many of those who supported that effort have approached me about another campaign. Let me explain why I am compelled to listen. On the brink of a new century, we cannot afford complacency. The complexity of our global society and the degeneration of our democracy demand boldness, innovation and frank talk. But let me make a prediction about next year's presidential election. After winning their respective nominations, the Democratic and Republican nominees will spend far more time avoiding substantive debate than addressing the challenges facing us. I cast no aspersions on the leading contenders. They include several admirable public servants. But in the zero-sum world of winner-take-all elections, their consultants urge them to focus on safe generalities and a handful of wedge issues to pry support away from their opponents. "Move to the center," they say, but their center is a void rather than the progressive spirit at the heart of the American people. Elections have too much promise for galvanizing citizen participation and promoting new ideas to be left to pollsters and focus groups. We need authentic voices offering real choices. Turning to other parties is the obvious solution. Indeed, I have spent much of the last two decades promoting a multi- party democracy in the United States. That is why I passionately support fair access to the ballot, public financing of elections, non-partisan redistricting, instant runoff voting and proportional representation. Yet the party best positioned to challenge the Democrats and Republicans is in disarray. Building on Ross Perot's campaigns of 1992 and 1996, the Reform Party has great potential to bring Americans together around a package of issues drawing from the best of all parties, including fiscal responsibility, environmental protection, global problem- solving, responsive government and competitive elections. Neither of the leading contenders for the Reform Party nomination, commentator Pat Buchanan and businessman Donald Trump, seem well-prepared to offer the optimistic, forward-looking message that is so important to building a lasting third party movement in America. My 1980 campaign as an independent stands in contrast. Although unsuccessful in the short-term, my campaign inspired many people to challenge the two-party system. The movement for a multi-party democracy in the United States has grown steadily ever since. In the 1990s, more minor party candidates have run for Congress than in decades. Four states have elected governors running outside the major parties. Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura's victory was due in no small part to supporters of my 1980 bid. To gain a lasting foothold in American politics, new parties must address the future, not the past. Let me provide three examples. First, we must urge full participation in the global community, seeing the world as the first astronauts saw it years ago: one world whose political lines fade in the face of such issues as global warming, population growth, fair trade, conflict resolution and nuclear proliferation. Making the United Nations and other global bodies a success is imperative for those wanting a secure future. Second, we must create a more muscular, participatory democracy. Major party candidates might support democratically financed elections, but actually winning real campaign finance reform in Congress will demand a true outsider ready to challenge the leaders of both major parties. Third, despite shocking declines in voter participation, particularly among young people, no candidate is talking about the key to bringing people back to electoral politics: systems of proportional representation that promote a free marketplace of ideas, principled candidacies and a fair share of seats for any political grouping able to mobilize support. It is imperative that we find a candidate willing to promote such an agenda. We cannot afford silence in the face of demands for a better world and more vital democracy. [John B. Anderson served 20 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. He currently is a distinguished visiting professor at Nova Southeastern Law Center: 3305 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314.] ####### "A Lock On Elections In Virginia" By Rob Richie and Stephen K. Medvic Washington Post. Sunday, October 31, 1999; Page B8 The partisan stakes in Virginia's legislative elections on Tuesday have never been higher. After losing the governor's mansion and the state Senate, Democrats are fighting to keep a one-seat majority in the House of Delegates. Republicans seek to sweep state government for the first time since Reconstruction. But behind a torrent of political ads lies a disturbing reality: sixty-one delegate races out of 100 already are decided with no major party opposition. Why would the parties give up on nearly two-thirds of the seats when a single seat change could shift control of the legislature? They know that Virginia's electoral rules make most races lopsided and voters irrelevant. If even 10 Virginia races are decided by victory margins of less than 10 percent, it will be a surprise. In the 1990s three of four delegate races have been won by margins of at least 20 percent. Since 1991 only 3 percent of the 300 delegate races have resulted in a partisan shift. Republicans control every seat they held in 1991 -- and have advanced on Democrats one seat at a time. Some blame this near-stasis on incumbency. Indeed, only four incumbents have been defeated since 1991, but most open seats also stay comfortably with one party. In 1997 only one of nine open seats changed hands. A better explanation for lack of competitiveness is that most delegate districts are designed for one party. In 2001 Virginia will join the rest of the nation in drawing new district lines -- including those for congressional seats, where the closest race since 1994 was won by 22 percentage points. Redistricting means that incumbents will get to choose their constituents before their constituents can choose their representatives. Sen. Chuck Robb (D-Va.) admitted recently, "How we vote this fall will determine who gets to draw the lines -- and determine who gets elected to the General Assembly for the next 10 years." One result is that few legislative elections offer voters real choice. Because Democrats controlled redistricting in 1991, they were able to shield the house from Republican control even as Republicans rolled up big gubernatorial wins in 1993 and 1997. But under the sheer size of Republican gains, that shield is cracking. A loss of one more seat will mean Republican control of redistricting in 2001 -- and that is likely to cement GOP domination of the legislature until the next redistricting in 2011. In short, most Virginians' representation in 2009 will have far more to do with which party wins two or three delegate races in 1999 than with their votes in 2009. So what can be done? Options range from the modest to the profound: * Make the redistricting process more public, with increased media coverage and citizen input. Better yet, turn redistricting over to commissions not driven by partisan concerns. Iowa's use of this approach has resulted in more competitive elections. Elect legislators in three-seat districts with an alternative voting system. From 1870 to 1980, Illinois elected its lower house by cumulative voting, which led to two-party representation in nearly every district. Under this system, voters can divide their three votes in any way they choose, giving two votes to one candidate and one to another, for example, or giving all three votes to a single candidate. The result is more voter choice and more balanced policy-making. Restoration of cumulative voting in Illinois is supported by a bipartisan coalition. Adopt a proportional representation system. Proportional systems are used by most of the world's established democracies because they give everyone a fair share of representation, with seats earned by political groupings in proportion to votes received. More voters participate, and policy more closely reflects majority interests. Gerrymandering is nearly impossible. We should not dismiss the rising number of nonvoters as apathetic rather than victims of a stagnant election process. On the brink of a new century, it is time we returned the power of decision and representation to where it belongs -- with the voters. [Rob Richie and Stephen K. Medvic are, respectively, the executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy and an assistant professor of political science at Old Dominion University in Norfolk. ] ######## San Francisco Chronicle Tuesday, November 9, 1999 Page A25 Let's Try Instant Runoffs By Mark Leno, Michael Yaki MANY SAN FRANCISCANS breathed a sigh of relief after the November 2 elections. But guess what? We have to do it again. San Francisco uses a December runoff election when no candidate receives 50 percent of the vote plus one, so the elections for mayor and district attorney have another six weeks to go. That means six more weeks of campaigning, sound bites and doorways littered with campaign literature as Willie Brown and Tom Ammiano try to woo voters in their bid for the mayor's office, and Terence Hallinan and Bill Fazio battle over the district attorney job. That means the Department of Elections must spend an estimated $1 million to set up all the polling stations around the city, mail voter pamphlets, train poll workers and count the votes. With district elections for the Board of Supervisors looming in November 2000, San Francisco voters face the prospect of runoff elections every December. The last time San Francisco used runoff elections for the Board of Supervisors was in 1979, and five out of six of the races required runoff elections. Five out of the last six mayoral races have required runoffs as well. Fortunately, there is a faster, better and less expensive alternative. It's called the instant runoff. The instant runoff works just like a regular runoff, except that voters don't have to return to the polls in December to cast their runoff vote because they have the option of ranking a first choice, a second choice and a third choice in the general election. Then, if no candidate receives a majority of the first choice votes, the instant runoff takes place. The last-place candidate doesn't make the runoff, and the ballots of voters who supported that candidate get counted for whichever candidate the voter listed second. This process of eliminating the last-place candidate and transferring the votes continues until one candidate gets a majority. It's as simple as 1-2-3, and it ensures that every voter gets to support a candidate with a chance of winning. It also saves the taxpayer an estimated $1 million per election cycle. There are other benefits to the instant runoff. It makes the November election the decisive one, which is important because voter turnout has dropped in four out of five of the last mayoral runoff elec tions in San Francisco. Voters know the election outcome sooner, campaigns don't drag on and candidates don't have to scrape together more money for a second election. The instant runoff allows voters to express their support for a favorite candidate, rather than being forced to choose the ``lesser of two evils,'' because voters have the option of ranking a ``realistic candidate'' second on their ballot. Organizations can form coalitions to support each other's candidates. Voters can get excited about voting, and even campaigning, for their favorite candidates again. The instant runoff can also improve the quality of campaign debate. Candidates who know that winning might require being the second or third choice of those supporting rival candidates will be less inclined to attack opponents and more inclined to promote their own views and build coalitions. Last year, voters in Santa Clara County amended their county charter to permit, but not require, the use of instant runoffs, and last Tuesday, voters in Vancouver, Wash., approved a similar measure. Instant runoffs have been used for more than 70 years in Ireland and Australia, and the mayor of London will be elected this way starting next year. The same method is used to elect the president of the American Political Science Association, which knows a thing or two about elections. The goal of the December runoff election is laudable: to guarantee that a winner commands majority voter support. That's one of democracy's fundamental demands. But the alternative of instant runoffs offers a faster, better and less expensive way to achieve that goal. The estimated million dollars saved could be better spent. We think the instant runoff has enough merits that it should be placed on the March 2000 ballot for San Francisco voters to decide if they wish to elect their local representatives in this way. [Mark Leno and Michael Yaki are members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. ] ######## JOHN ADAMS ON REPRESENTATION "The principle difficulty lies, and the greatest care should be employed in constituting this representative assembly. It should be in miniature an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason and act like them. That it may be the interest of the assembly to do strict justice at all times, it should be an equal representation, or, in other words, equal interests among the people should have equal interests in it. Great care should be take to effect this, and to prevent unfair, partial and corrupt elections." - John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
