-----Original Message----- From: Rob Richie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 22 December 1998 16:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CVD Update on Fair Elections, 12/21/98 12/21/98 To: Friends of Fair Elections Fr: Rob Richie, Executive Director, www.fairvote.org Re: Fixing a broken politics Our tumultuous week of politics in Washington is merely the exclamation point on the steady decline of our representative democracy: a decline grounded in our fundamentally flawed and dangerously antiquated winner-take-all system of politics. To stop the bi-partisan destruction of democracy, we must shake up the current nasty brew that gives voters either monopoly politics with no real choices or zero-sum, two-choice elections with powerful incentives to destroy opponents. Certainly if one sees representative democracy flowing out of high participation, a full range of credible choices and a balanced representation of voters' preferences, it should be no surprise that our politics is in its current dismal state. The Center for Voting and Democracy is a non-partisan, non- profit organization which sends about five general e-mail updates every year. We send more regular e-mail updates to a "key list" of recipients and yet additional updates to a "core list." If interested in seeing past updates, please see our web site at http://www.fairvote.org. If interested in receiving our postal newsletter or contributing to the Center (a sentiment worthy of support!), please see the end of this update. * * * * * The impeachment vote and the poisonous atmosphere in the House of Representatives overwhelms our typical array of powerful argument for modernizing our system of elections. Yet our November elections and events around the world indeed do provide good fodder. Before returning to our argument for zeroing in on winner-take-all elections to address Washington's ills, here are a few facts to consider: -- Quote of the weekend: "We need a constructive debate that has all the different voices in this country heard in the halls of Congress." - Bill Clinton in his December 19 speech, perhaps secretly lamenting the lack of proportional representation in congressional elections -- Monopoly Politics, November 1998: -- 99% of US House incumbents were re-elected, with an average winning percentage of more than 70%. -- All 252 House incumbents first elected before 1994 won -- 243 won by more than 10%. -- 321 (74%) of 435 House elections were won by landslide victory margins of more than 20%, including 94 (22%) uncontested by a major party. -- The vantage point from inside the Beltway is particularly choice-less. The nearest House race won by less than 20% was outside Philadelphia. The 23 House seats in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware were all won by landslide. -- The U.S. Senate, with its anti-democratic features founded in each state having equal representation regardless of population, 10.49 percent of the voters in the 1992-1996 elections were able to elect 51 of our 100 U.S. Senators with the lowest votes. The Senate has ZERO black or Latino members despite the fact that 25% of the American population is black or Latino. -- At a state level, non-competition is often even more extreme. In Florida, the two major parties did not compete against each other in the November elections in 73 of 120 State House seats, 14 of 21 State Senate seats and 18 of 23 US House seats. More than a third of all state legislative seats have been won a major party opponent around the country in the 1990s. -- Some 214,000 Nevadans voted for Republican candidates in the 42 districts races for the General Assembly in the November elections, 158,000 voted for Democratic candidates, and 8,000 voted for independent or third party nominees. Yet the Democrats won two-thirds (28) of the seats. -- According to the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, the turnout in the 1998 election in states outside of the south was the lowest since 1818. At least 36 states and the District of Columbia recorded lower turnout than in 1994. -- In Quebec's U.S.-style plurality system, the separatist Parti Quebecois (PQ) - the only party to favor a referendum on pulling Quebec out of Canada -- won 60% of seats with 43% of votes. Nearly half of PQ winners garnered less than 50%. * * * * * Note that our Center in general supports the principle of proportional representation (PR) for legislative elections. As used in most democracies around the world and in a growing number of American local elections, PR systems are ones in which political parties and like-minded groupings of voters win seats in proportion to their support among voters. 51% of votes wins a little more than half of seats, not all seats, and 20% of votes wins one of five seats rather than none. PR is "full representation" because most voters win representation, in contrast to "winner-take-all" elections in which the largest grouping of voters can win all seats. We also advocate reforms of "one-winner" plurality elections. One such system is instant runoff voting (also called the alternative vote). By allowing voters to rank candidates instead of vote for just one, instant runoff voting reverses calculations about "spoilers" and allows candidates to run from across the spectrum. It also encourages candidates to reach out beyond their core support in an effort to win true majority support. In this update you will find: -- A recent commentary by myself and CVD west coast coordinator Steven Hill which has appeared in several newspapers -- including Missoula (MT), Fresno (CA) and Charlotte (NC) -- on the breakdown of our two-party system. -- Information on "Reflecting All of Us," a new book on featuring a lead essay by Steven Hill and myself -- Short news items on international and national subjects and excerpts from longer pieces being sent to our "core list." -- A report from our president John Anderson and information on how to support our work to modernize elections. * * * * * Following is a CVD commentary circulated on a national news wire and published in several papers. (Last month we published a similar piece with a prophetic title: "Mr. Livingstone, I Presume? You're Next. How to De-Fang Attack Politics.) Speaking of Rep. Livingstone, note that the likely new Speaker of the House will be Rep. Dennis Hastert from Illinois. His first election to office was won in the semi-proportional representation voting system called "cumulative voting." Illinois used cumulative voting to elect its assembly from 1870 to 1980 and there is a vibrant effort to restore cumulative voting, with significant support from both the Illinois political establishment -- which, significantly, laments the loss of co-operation and legislative innovation which cumulative voting fostered -- and the reform community. For more information, visit the web site of Illinois Citizens for PR at http://www.prairienet.org/icpr. Consideration of proportional and semi-proportional systems is certain to increase in the new Congress. With Rep. Hastert as Speaker and all of the 13 sponsors of the pro-PR Voters' Choice Act returning to Congress -- including newly-elected chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. James Clyburn (D SC) -- expect a stronger push for legislation in 1999-2000. Impeachment To Escalate the Partisan War By Rob Richie and Steven Hill The long-simmering conflict has escalated to an all-out war with no end in sight. We're not talking about the bombing of Iraq. Rather, the Republicans' drive to impeach Bill Clinton has one certain consequence: that Democrats will respond in kind during the next Republican presidency. In this blind trajectory to mutually assured destruction, the final casualties promise to be more than individual politicians. Rather, our national faith and confidence in our political institutions -- and indeed in representative democracy itself -- are at grave risk. American politics has had its share of partisan rancor, but the recent escalation and broadening of targets is without parallel. Politics is now driven by opinion polls and slick TV ads and soundbites, crafted by high-priced consultants who know that winning doesn't require -- or perhaps even allow -- principled positions on issues any more. It is more effective to win by demonizing your opposition than selling yourself. Candidates seek to increase turnout in their base, win the swing vote and decrease turnout in their opponents' base through simplistic portrayals of complex issues and personal smears. Politicians attack their opponents for one reason: it is highly effective in a close race. Negative campaigning is nothing new, but the 1990s have set a new standard. The media technology -- the weapons of this war -- has changed dramatically. The internet and 24-hour television have turned the lives of politicians into a kind of "Truman Show" fish bowl. Not only are campaigns relentlessly negative, but attacks and wedge issue politics continue throughout governance. The impeachment process is just the latest and most dramatic illustration that politics has devolved into a permanent negative campaign. It is easy to vilify Republicans or Democrats without recognizing the real culprit: our "winner take all" election system which fosters such negative politics. In a zero-sum game of "if you lose, I win," it pays to run against a demon. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were destined to fill this role no matter what actions they took. Monicagate is just the latest version of Whitewater, GOPAC, questionable book deals, Paula Jones, Travelgate, government shutdowns, the FBI files, "mediscare" and other attempts by both parties to toss political grenades to gain partisan advantage. Our political institutions are in danger of becoming incapacitated and an international laughingstock. Voters have already registered their disgust with "winner take all" campaigns and governance that seem to driven more by zero-sum calculations than the public interest. They once again stayed home in droves in the November elections. The 37% participation rate among eligible voters is far below the international norm. But staying home or seeking to cast out "bad politicians" will not change our system's incentives to attack nor the technology that has made attacks all the more ruthlessly effective. The most promising institutional rule change is proportional representation. Proportional representation describes a range of voting systems in which groupings of voters -- as defined by how they vote -- win legislative seats in proportion to their share of the vote. One typical by-product is multi-party democracy that shakes up the zero-sum incentives for mud-slinging campaigns, negative governance and adversarial politics in general. With credible political parties across the ideological spectrum, campaigners need to distinguish themselves by running positive, policy-driven campaigns rather than spending gobs of *money on negative attacks. Not surprisingly, proportional and semi-proportional systems are now used by most established democracies in the world and a growing number of American corporations and localities. The latest below-the-belt politics in Washington is more than just upping the ante in a high stakes poker match. The currency gambled by the parties is trust and confidence in democracy itself. Even the politicians who recognize what is happening it cannot stop themselves; they will not unilaterally disarm. We must find ways to disarm our leaders by reforming winner- take-all elections before we, the citizenry, indeed lose all. * * * * * NEW BOOK ON PR Earlier this year, Steven Hill and I wrote an essay on proportional representation in the "Boston Review." There were several responses to our essay, and a final response from us. The series of articles has been turned into a book. Reflecting All of Us: The Case for Proportional Representation (The New Democracy Forum Series) by Robert Richie, Steven Hill, Joshua Cohen, Joel Rogers (Paperback, 1/99, Beacon Press, ISBN:0807044210) Note that the list price is $10, but on-line services such as amazon.com and Barnes and Noble are selling it for $8. * * * * * NEWS ITEMS -- Important initiative results in November 1998 elections -- vote-by-mail, ballot access, clean money, instant runoff: Many reformers were pleased by big wins in the November elections, although we recognize there is not a consensus among voting system reformers on some of the issues. Among them: vote-by- mail won easily in Oregon, meaning that future elections there will be held entirely through the mail; initiatives to adopt the "clean money" approach to campaign financing passed in Arizona and Massachusetts; Florida voters by an overwhelming 2-1 margin supported easing ballot access requirements for minor parties; and instant runoff voting was officially placed in the Santa Clara County (CA) charter as an option. -- David Duke after Bob Livingstone's House seat: Given voter disgust with partisan rancor in Washington and the dynamics of a low turnout special election, observers should take note of the announced candidacy of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke to fill never-quite-Speaker Bob Livingstone's seat in Louisiana. In his two statewide elections in which he won some 40% of votes, Duke carried Livingstone's district. -- Supreme Court to hear another redistricting case: On January 20, the US Supreme Court will for the third time here a challenge to the constitutionality of North Carolina's congressional districts based on alleged "racial gerrymandering." As on observer put it, "The Court needs to clarify the "rules of the game" as we move toward 2001 and the new census data. If not, I suspect the next round of redistricting will be more chaotic than the last." -- UK to use PR for European Parliament elections: In the United Kingdom, the Labor-led government continues to make bold moves toward proportional representation (please see our web site to download a copy of the Jenkins commission report, which likely will lead to a national referendum on a system combingin PR and instant runoff voting). All parties had agreed that PR was best for electing its delegation to the European parliament, but the House of Lords had vigorously sought to prevent use of a "closed" party list system. The House of Commons last week finally resorted to an unusual parliamentary procedure to circumvent the House of Lords. -- Northern Ireland's peace plan still working -- and grounded in PR: Protestant and Catholic politicians agreed last week on the shape of a future coalition government. In June, the new Northern Ireland assembly was elected by choice voting (a.k.a. "single transferable vote"). This fall, Northern Irish leaders won the Nobel peace prize and explicitly praised PR's role. -- Former fascists win in Rome: The National Alliance, with ties to the fascist party of Mussolini, won the mauyorality of Rome on December 13. Italy ended use of proportional representation for most municipal elections earlier this decade; only 43% of eligible voters participated in the election. -- New Party chapter Supports PR: In November, Progressive Dane, the Madison (WI) New Party chapter, added the following to its city platform: "We propose that the city adopt a resolution calling for state enabling legislation to allow local governments to use proportional representation electoral systems for multi-seat bodies and instant runoff voting for single-seat offices." Progressive Dane endorsed 6 member of the current council and may help elect more in 1999. The council is nonpartisan, but those receiving the endorsement of Progressive Dane are bound to adhere to the party's platform. -- Minor Party Candidates Support Voting System Reform: Any such list of candidates promoting voting system reform will miss key players, but note that: Reform Party candidates for Secretary of State promoted instant runoff voting in several states this fall, including in publicly televised debates in Iowa and Minnesota and in public forums in Georgia; several Green Party candidates for governor promoted proportional representation, perhaps most vigorously in California and Wisconsin; and a Libertarian candidate and state chair made voting system reform his number one issue in Rhode Island. -- Women Do Well Statewide in Arizona, but....: Arizona voters in November elected an all-female statewide lineup for the first-time in American history. Women won the top five elective offices, headed by Gov. Jane Hull. Nationally, however, only three states have women governors. Women also hold only 13% of US House seats and 9% of US Senate seats. -- Untimely deaths of Galina Starovoitova and Leon Higginbotham: In Russia, leading reformer Galina Starovoitova was assassinated last month. Ms. Starovoitova was a speaker at our news conference in December 1993 releasing our first "Voting and Democracy" report. In addition, former federal judge A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. died last week. In addition to his towering role in civil rights law, Judge Higginbotham was a member of our Center. * * * * * PIECES SENT TO CORE LIST The following are being sent today to the CVD core list. They will appear on the Center's web site later this month. -- USA Today Lead Editorial, November 3, 1998: "Election leaves key decisions to a select few voters" EXCERPT: "The United States is the only major democracy that lets the politicians pick the voters before the voters get to pick the politicians. In Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Britain, for example, nonpartisan technocrats draft district boundaries based on common-sense factors such as geographic compactness and community of interest, not incumbent protection or party convenience." -- Dan Balz, Washington Post Staff Writer, in December 18 Post on Page 1 story: EXCERPT: "A decade of destructive partisanship, personal attack and win-at-all-cost politics has crystallized in Washington this week, and the question no one can begin to answer is where it will end." -- John Rensenbrink's column on opening up multi-party competition in Maine Sunday Telegram, 12/6/98: -- 11/11 column in Las Vegas Review-Journal by Vin Suprynowicz on "Reapportionment overdue": -- Tony Solgard on "Instant Runoff Voting: for both greater choice and majority rule" in 12/3 Minneapolis Star Tribune. -- My 12/3 Financial Times letter on Quebec's elections. -- "Time to Take Another Look at the Way Vermont Vote", a Burlington Free Press commentary on instant runoff voting by the chair of the Commission to Study Preference Voting. -- Jim Cullen's column touting proportional representation in November 1998 "Progressive Populist" * * * * * On December 11, 1998, John Anderson -- president of the Center for Voting and former Member of Congress and presidential candidate -- wrote a letter to members of the Center about our activities in 1998 and plans for 1999. To recipients of the letter, please don't be shy about responding! To readers not on the Center's list, we certainly hope that you will become a member. Please send checks to: CVD, PO Box 60037, Washington, DC 20039. Note that contributions are tax- deductible, as we are a charitable organization. Following is a shortened version of John's letter: If it indeed is true that the arc of the universe bends toward justice, as Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, I believe the arc of our democracy certainly must bend toward full representation. Those who participate in elections should earn a just share of votes at the table of representation. To believe otherwise is to violate two great principles: that majorities should decide and minorities should be heard. As president of the Center for Voting and Democracy, I am pleased to report that we had another sterling year. I would like to focus on three areas that show our catalytic and substantive role in seeking fairer elections -- and why we need your support to build on our success in 1999. * Laying the Groundwork for Proportional Representation: Instituting forms of proportional representation in the United States requires both opportunism and endurance. We must be ready to seize sudden openings for change -- as in San Francisco in 1996 and this year when charter commissions in Pasadena (CA) and Kalamazoo (MI) received information from the Center and recommended proportional systems -- yet at the same time patiently build a movement for change through establishing educational partnerships with a range of organizations and through creating tools to empower individual reformers in their communities. In 1998 we held two major conferences, in San Francisco and Minneapolis. Together they drew hundreds of participants, ranging from young reformers to veteran civil rights lawyers to respected scholars. The national chairs of the Reform Party and US PIRG were among many leaders of key constituencies who rolled up their sleeves to talk seriously with grassroots activists about how to pursue voting system reform. I chaired two hearings on redistricting that resulted in excellent testimony from many of the nation's leading experts about the irresolvable conundrum of how to draw "fair" winner-take-all districts in our complex society. The Center's staff has a steady flow of speaking engagements and small-group meetings. Just last week, our executive director Rob Richie spoke about proportional representation and voting system reform to an influential League of Women Voters group in Ohio, the annual convention of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators and the staff of the Brennan Center in New York City. * Sparking the Rapid Rise in Support for "IRV": The "voting system of the year" clearly is instant runoff voting (IRV), a system of choice voting that opens up one-winner elections like president, governor and mayor to more competition. If winning full representation may demand a marathon, I am confident IRV will win its share of sprints -- with potential major victories as soon as 1999. Legislation to enact IRV for statewide elections was introduced for the first time in 1998 in Vermont and New Mexico. It quickly gained the endorsement of those states' affiliates of Common Cause and other major political players such as former Republican and Democratic governors. New legislation in 1999 is planned. The Center produced a new video on IRV in 1998, and our staff worked closely with reformers in New Mexico, Vermont and Santa Clara. Simply our drawing attention to IRV can make a difference. I wrote a commentary on IRV in Minnesota's largest newspaper after the gubernatorial win of the Reform Party's Jesse Ventura. It led to a flurry of editorial comment that has firmly implanted IRV on Minnesota's political map. * Fingering the problems of the status quo: It is no exaggeration to say that the Center has changed the terms of the national debate about the roots of "no-choice" elections. Most analysts now explain that campaign finance reform and term limits alone will not create real choices in most legislative races. To emphasize that most voters live in one-party strongholds, the Center soon will release its U.S. House predictions for the year 2000 -- after getting it right in its 1997 predictions in 340 of 341 incumbent races in November. We need your help to be sparkplugs for change in countless communities and states and the engine of reform in those situations holding most promise. We avoid excessive numbers of appeals for financial support because we want each one to count -- just as we all should count come election day. In the midst of your plans for holidays and for the new year, I urge you please to give generously. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm For archives http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
