I'm on the CVD mailing list. Below is info on gerrymandering, voter
turnout, and the lamentable lack of competition in most legislative races.
There is a section on IRV near the end, but the vast majority of the
message should be interesting to people on this list.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fair Elections Update: Election 2002 and the Case for Reform
From: "Center for Voting and Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, November 14, 2002 5:52 pm
To: "Alex Small" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
November 14, 2002
To: Friend of Fair Elections
Fr: Rob Richie, Executive Director
The Center for Voting and Democracy
<http://www.fairvote.org/>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: - Election 2002 Index: Starkly Revealing Statistics
- Monopoly Politics: Predictions in 359 Races for 2004
- Editorial Consensus to Take on Gerrymandering
- Ongoing Rise in Support for Instant Runoff Voting
* * * * * * * * * *
(For more information about any issues discussed here or about
how to become a member of our Center, visit <http://www.fairvote.org/>
or email us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe/unsubscribe
from these updates, which are sent on a monthly basis in non-
election seasons, please see message's end.)
* * * * * * * * * *
This November elections may well have a momentous impact
on federal policy in the next two years, with Republicans
having gained secure control of both branches of Congress and
the White House for the first time in half a century. But they
also underscore the need for fundamental reform of our
political system.
Voter turnout rose, but again was abysmally low in most states,
falling below 40% of all voting age Americans despite national
congressional elections and numerous competitive gubernatorial
races. Most legislative races lacked any meaningful
competition. Only four U.S. House incumbents lost to
non-incumbent challengers in their severely gerrymandered
districts, the average House races was won by more than 40%
and more than four out of every five U.S. House races was
won by landslide margins of 20% or more and more than nine
out of every ten races was won by more than 10%. In state
legislative elections from 1998-2002, two of every five winners
faced no major party opposition, including 37% this year.
Women and minorities remain severely under-represented, with
this year's status quo election standing in stark contrast to the
1992 surge in women and racial minorities after the last round
of legislative redistricting. Compared to 1993, there are two
fewer African-Americans in Congress and fewer states with
women in their U.S. House delegations. Minor parties tried
harder than ever, but again made no significant gains, and the
major parties will control all 50 governor's mansions for the
first time in more than a decade even as a growing number of
Americans, especially youth, express interest in viable
alternatives outside the major parties. To read the Center's
post-election analysis, see
<<http://fairvote.org/e_news/election2002.htm>>
Below are revealing statistics that I hope you will consider
sharing with others on your email lists. After the statistics are
items about our 359 projected winners in the __November
2004__ U.S. House elections, the rising tide of opposition to
political gerrymandering, an update on rising interest in instant
runoff voting and a review of major media coverage received
by our Center, including commentaries and articles in the Los
Angeles Times, USA Today and New York Times.
# # # # # # # # #
The Center for Voting and Democracy's Election 2002 Index
* Increase of women in U.S. House in 2002 elections after
the 2001-2 round of redistricting: 0
* Increase of women in U.S. House in 1992 elections after
the 1991-2 round of redistricting: 19
* Increase of racial minorities in U.S. House in 2002
elections after the 2001-2 round of redistricting: 3
* Increase of racial minorities in U.S. House in 1992
elections after the 1991-2 round of redistricting: 22
* Number of African-Americans in Congress in 2003: 37
* Number of African-Americans in Congress in 1993: 39
* Number of U.S. House races won by less than 20% in the
2002 House elections, after 2001-2 redistricting: 76
* Number of U.S. House races won by less than 20% in the
1992 House elections, after 1991-2 redistricting: 169
* Number of U.S. House races won by candidates facing no
major party competition in 2002: 78
* Number of U.S. House races won by candidates facing no
major party competition in 1992: 8
* Percent of U.S. House incumbents who defeated non-
incumbent challengers in 2002 elections: 99%
* Voter turnout among adult Americans in 2002 elections: 39%
* Voter turnout among adult Germans in 2002 elections: 75%
(For more such statistics, please see <http://www.fairvote.org)/>
# # # # # # # # #
MONOPOLY POLITICS: PREDICTIONS IN 2004 RACES
In 1997 we started predicting winners in U.S. House races
based only on information from previous elections and whether
an incumbent was seeking re-election. This year, we developed
a simple, one-size-fits-all projection model that made our
projections entirely objective. When applied to the 1996-2000
House elections, our model was correct in identifying which
party would win in all but one of 930 projections. It also
correctly projected the minimum victory margin in more than
97% of races without factoring in anything about incumbent
voting behavior, challenger quality or campaign finance.
Our model projected 333 winners for the November 2002
elections. Every single projection was accurate, and 98%
accurately projected the victory. For a full report, see
<<http://fairvote.org/2002/accuracy.htm>>
As an indicator of why the partisanship of districts can be such
a determining factor in who wins and loses, open seats races
(those races without incumbents) in 2002 were very revealing.
In this year's 49 open seat U.S. House races, only five were
won by a party whose presidential candidate in 2000 didn't
carry the district -- and three of those remaining five were in
districts where the 2000 presidential margin was extremely
close, one still could be reversed (Colorado-7) and the fifth was
impacted by the race of the Democratic nominee (Georgia-12,
where a black Democrat lost in a white-majority district).
Now our model projects 359 winners for 2004, the most our
model has ever projected. That number will decrease as some
incumbents decide to give up their seats, but only marginally
so. Every indication is that this historically non-competitive
election may be the __most__ competitive election of the
decade unless there is a seismic shift in voting patterns or
states decide to change their voting system or redraw their
district lines. You can read more about our November 2004
projections and download our spreadsheet to just see who's
safe and is who might face meaningful competition at
<<http://fairvote.org/2002/2004.htm>>
For those interested in money in politics, we have a suggestion:
follow the money. Nearly all of our projected winners will end
up with a good deal more money than their challengers --
probably the only ones who won't will face doomed
self-financed candidates. Given that any wise special interest
donor also knows who is likely to win, following the money
provides opportunities to analyze just why certain incumbents
end up receiving so much money from certain interests.
Finally, we should note that we don't make projections in those
relatively few races that are close. This year, both parties split the
close U.S. House races nearly evenly in every grouping --
those races won by less than 5%, those won by less than 10%
and those won by less than 20%. This indicates that the
on-ground campaigns of both parties cumulatively fought to a
draw and means that neither party has an edge in targeting
seats for gains until we learn where there will be open seats.
# # # # # # # # #
EDITORIAL CONSENSUS: END GERRYMANDERING
In recent days, the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall
Street Journal, Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times have
all published powerful editorial calling on states and/or
Congress to reform how we draw districts in order to promote
more competition. These writers generally tout Iowa's non-
partisan approach to redistricting. See these editorials in the
"what's new" part of our website
<<http://fairvote.org/whatsnew.htm>>.
We applaud this sentiment, but however beneficial Iowa's
process of nonpartisan redistricting might be, it can't go far
enough. Iowa is one of the relatively few states that is highly
competitive in presidential elections. Most states have clear tilts
toward one party, however, and even clearer tilts within their
borders. Those inherent partisan majorities will result in
numerous one-party districts in the fairest of redistricting plans.
To give all voters meaningful choices and provide fairer
representation for racial minorities, we must reform
winner-take-all elections. As a modest step, we can adopt full
representation plans in districts with three seats. Illinois used
such a system for more than a century, and many state
leaders of both parties support restoring it. One major reason
is the value they place on cumulative voting resulting in nearly
every district electing representatives of both major parties. The
smaller party could win representation with the support of 25%
of voters, the bigger party would generally elect two
representatives from two different parts of its internal
spectrum and voters ended up with better choices and more
accurate representation of their district's views and interests.
# # # # # # # # #
INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING: INTEREST KEEPS RISING
The elections provided several examples of how instant runoff
voting (IRV) would improve our politics. With a system
requiring majority rule, we might have different governors and
U.S. Senators in several states. With IRV -- a system the state
already uses for some overseas election ballots -- Louisiana
would already have elected its U.S. Senator rather to have to
wait for a whole new election in the December holiday season.
Everywhere independents and third party candidates could have
been considered without being tagged necessarily as "spoilers."
The Minneapolis Star Tribune is the latest major paper to
provide a strong endorsement for IRV
<<http://fairvote.org/op_eds/minnst111202.htm>>. The paper's
November 12th editorial ends: "Rather than trying to stifle third
parties, the Legislature would do well to adjust state election
law so that multiparty politics can be practiced without
sacrificing the benefits of majority rule. Instant runoff voting
would nicely serve that goal."
IRV received a great boost this election in Massachusetts.
Voters in two legislative districts gave a strong endorsement to
IRV. Advisory questions in support of IRV won 67% in the 1st
Hampshire District and 71% in the 3rd Hampshire District.
Interest in IRV is growing rapidly in the state legislature, and
some towns are seriously debating its use for town elections. In
a Hampshire Gazette news story, state Sen. Stanley Rosenberg
said that he "fully expects instant runoff proponents to
eventually mount a statewide ballot question on it." For more
on Massachusetts IRV activism, see the webpage of FairVote
Massachusetts and the Center's report on the ballot measure
successes <<http://fairvote.org/irv/mass2002.htm>>.
# # # # # # # # #
MAJOR MEDIA COVERAGE
The Center received a great deal of media coverage in the
weeks around the election. News articles featuring quotes from
the Center's staff ran on most major wire services, and
commentaries appeared in major newspapers across the nation,
including the Los Angeles Times on election day. The Center's
staff and its president John B. Anderson also appeared on more
than forty radio programs in this period, including several that
are syndicated programs in cities across the nation.
To peruse these articles and more, please see our media
coverage <<http://fairvote.org/op_eds/media.htm>> and items
posted in "what's new" <<http://fairvote.org/whatsnew.htm>>
# # # # # # # # #
SUBSCRIBING/UNSUBSCRIBING
We send out updates about once a month that generally
highlight one or two developments about voting system reform
and findings from our reports. If you do not want to receive
these updates, let us know by replying to this message with the
word "remove" in the subject or your message. If you would
like to subscribe, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Center for Voting and Democracy is a non-profit
organization based in Washington D.C.. It is headed by former
Congressman and presidential candidate John B. Anderson. We
are devoted to increasing public understanding of American
politics and how to reform its rules to provide better choices
and fairer representation. Our website (<http://www.fairvote.org/>) has
information on voting methods, redistricting and voter turnout.
As we rely heavily on individual donations, please consider a
contribution by mail (6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610, Takoma
Park MD 20910) or on-line at <http://www.fairvote.org/donate.htm>
Thank you!
Rob Richie, Executive Director
The Center for Voting & Democracy
[EMAIL PROTECTED], <http://www.fairvote.org/>
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
(301) 270-4616
"Make Your Vote Count!"
----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
