Political Reform Program: Policy Papers

A Citizens Constitutional Convention for California

Elizabeth Wu — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:15:00 -0400

“Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government…I am not among those who fear the people.” --Thomas Jefferson

“This representative assembly should be in miniature an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason, and act like them.” -- John Adams

“The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.” - Alexis de Tocqueville

Crucial Details of a California Constitutional Convention

Elizabeth Wu — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:53:00 -0400

With California's fiscal woes mounting, and the government in Sacramento seemingly frozen in place, a constitutional convention has been proposed as a way to fix the Golden State's deeply entrenched structural problems. But as more people have begun considering this option, several important questions have arisen about some of the details of the Convention, specifically: 1) how would the delegates to the Convention be chosen; 2) how would a Convention of delegates chosen by random selection function, and how would the delegates be educated;

Instant Runoff Voting for the City of San Jose:

Political Reform — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:14:00 -0400

Executive Summary

San Jose uses a two-round runoff system to elect its mayor and city council, with the first election in June and a runoff election in November if no candidate wins a majority of votes in June. Voter turnout in the June general election is about half that of the November election, with turnout disproportionately lower among traditionally disenfranchised communities. With most elections being decided in a low turnout June election, a small and unrepresentative segment of the community is having an oversized effect

Remapping a Nation without States

adminn — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:10:00 -0500

California is a state of many distinct regions. To give citizens a voice on regional issues and to reinvigorate California's Legislature, the state's central institution of self-government, we propose Personalized Full Representation for the 21st Century (PFR21), a system of representation by means of regionally based legislative elections that will allow the state'scitizens to set the agenda for their regions and for the state as a whole.

Voter Education and Outreach in San Francisco to Implement IRV

Political Reform — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 06:39:00 -0400

San Francisco voters approved Proposition A in March 2002 that adopted instant runoff voting (also known as ranked choice voting) to elect local offices in San Francisco. The first election occurred in November 2004. For that election, the Board of Supervisors funded and the Department of Elections conducted a voter education and outreach campaign leading up to the first election. Approximately $750,000 was spent by the Department of Elections to educate the 440,000 registered voters in San Francisco.

For the complete description and evaluation, please see the attached PDF file below.

Instant Runoff Voting for the City of Los Angeles

Political Reform — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:15:00 -0400

Overview

The City of Los Angeles currently uses a two-round runoff system to elect its mayor, city attorney, city council and controller. One election is held in early March, and if no candidate wins a majority of the vote, a second election between the top two finishers is held in May. Voter participation is usually low, with only 10 percent of registered voters participating in the March 6, 2007 election. In addition, LA taxpayers pay millions of dollars for administering the second election. Candidates also must raise funds for a second election, undermining campaign finance reform.

Instant runoff voting, which allows voters to rank a first, second and third choice, would elect majority winners in a single election, saving Los Angeles the cost and difficulty of a second election.

The Problem

Holding two elections instead of one is expensive, inconvenient and is burning out voters with too many elections. It leads to:

Expensive, Low Turnout Elections. At a time of budget deficits, the City, along with the LA Unified School District and the LA Community College District, is spending a whopping $14 million to administer a March primary and May runoff election. Since 1993, Los Angeles, LAUSD and LACCD have spent $30.9 million administering runoff elections. From 2001 to 2005, the City of Los Angeles alone spent $9.2 million, $4.7 million in 2005, as costs have escalated in recent years.

Despite these high costs, hardly anyone bothers to vote. The March 6 election had a voter turnout of barely 10% overall, with single digit turnout for School Board and Community College District. Since 1997, voter turnout has declined in more than half the runoff elections. Even when there's no May runoff (because winners are decided in March), election officials still must spend money preparing for the May election, in case it's necessary. This is a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Voter Fatigue. In the March 6 election, five of the eight city council races featured incumbents who ran unopposed. In 2005, three incumbents ran unopposed; meaning over half of the current city councilors ran unopposed. Most of the other races are won by landslides. People are unlikely to interrupt their busy workday to vote when the result is predictable.

Adding insult to injury, voters will be asked to vote a second time on May 15, when the only races on the ballot will be one district-wide seat for the Community College District and two district seats for the School District. Turnout will be in the single digits, yet taxpayers will pay millions to hold this second election.

Undermines Campaign Finance Reform. Candidates need to raise and spend vast amounts of money for their runoff campaigns. Since 1993, $27.8 million have been donated to local candidates for their runoff campaigns, over six million dollars in 2005 alone as fundraising has escalated in recent years. Runoff elections also lead to huge increases in independent expenditures. Since 1993, $7.5 million have been spent by shadowy independent expenditure committees in runoff elections. In the 2005 mayoral race, independent expenditures ballooned from $602,009 in the primary to $3.1 million in the runoff – a five-fold increase.

Mudslinging Campaigns. The current system encourages negative, hack attack campaigning, where the winning strategy becomes driving voters away from your opponent rather than debating ideas and policy. In recent LA elections, voters have been bombarded with campaign attacks telling them the worst about their political leaders. Runoff elections have been notorious for mano-a-mano, head-to-head contests that have alienated voters, lowered public trust and damaged the eventual officeholder.

Environmental Costs. Runoff elections waste more than just time and money – at least 20.7 million pieces of paper were needlessly wasted in the 2005 runoff on voter info pamphlets mailed to 1.5 million voters and sample ballots available at 1,599 polling sites. A blizzard of multiple campaign mailers sent out by candidates or organizations wasted an untold amount more.

The Solution: Instant Runoff Voting

The best remedy to expensive, low turnout, mudslinging runoff elections is an electoral method called instant runoff voting. Instant runoff voting (IRV) allows voters to rank their candidates, 1, 2, 3, and the rankings are used to elect a majority winner in a single election. This saves the cost and hassle of running a second election. With IRV, Los Angeles could combine the primary and runoff into one effective election.

The Benefits: 'One Election, Not Two'

Increased Voter Participation. Voters, candidates and voter mobilization organizations in Los Angeles could focus on a single election and maximize voter participation. San Francisco has been using IRV for the past four years in a November election, and voter participation in many minority neighborhoods has increased by 300 to 400 percent.

Eliminate Costly Runoffs. By combining the primary and runoff into a single election, tens of millions of tax dollars will be saved that currently are wasted on an unnecessary second election where few voters bother to participate. Those tax dollars could be better spent on other pressing needs in Los Angeles.

New Voices, More Choices. With IRV, if your first choice candidate can’t win your vote goes to your second choice. This liberates voters to choose the candidates you really like instead of always voting for the “lesser of two evils,” or “wasting” your vote on spoiler candidates. It brings new candidates and their issues into the debate, leading to a more robust “marketplace of ideas,” and inspiring greater participation

Better Debate, Less Mudslinging. IRV discourages negative campaigns because candidates know they may need the second or third ranking from other candidates’ supporters to win. The result is a major shift in traditional campaign strategy. Instead of mudslinging, candidates have an incentive to run civil, issues-based campaigns and find common ground. In San Francisco’s IRV elections, some of the most contested races have seen candidates endorsing like-minded opponents, sharing slate mailers and co-sponsoring fundraisers. One New York Times headline read: "New Runoff System in San Francisco Has the Rival Candidates Cooperating." Such coalition-building is certain to benefit the eventual winner when governing.

Support Campaign Finance Reform and Public Financing. IRV spares candidates the burden of raising money for two elections instead of one. Since 1993, the City’s program to partially fund political campaigns has given $8.9 million to candidates in runoffs. That public money all could be saved. Combined with the tax savings from eliminating the administration of runoff elections, tens of millions of dollars will be saved over time. That money could be used to help fund an expansion of the current partial public financing program to one of full public financing of campaigns.

How It Works

Instant runoff voting (IRV) allows voters to rank the candidates in their order of preference, 1-2-3, instead of just picking one candidate. All the first rankings are counted, and if a candidate wins a majority the election is over, just like now. But if no candidate wins a majority, each voter’s second and third rankings are used to determine the winner -- instantly.

The candidate with the fewest first rankings is eliminated and voters who ranked that candidate now have their vote counted for their second choice – that’s their runoff choice. All ballots are recounted in the "instant runoff," and if a candidate has a majority, that's the winner. If not, the process repeats until one candidate has majority support (To view a Web-based demonstration of how IRV ballots are counted, visit www.newamerica.net/irv_resources).

Growing Momentum

Instant runoff voting is widely used around the world and is spreading in California. It is used in San Francisco for local elections, where exit polls have shown that voters across all ethnic lines like the system and find it easy to use. Voters in Oakland, Davis and Berkeley, and Santa Clara County recently passed ballot measures to adopt IRV. Student governments at UCLA, Cal Tech, Stanford, UC-Berkeley and others are using such electoral methods. In California IRV has broad support from the state Democratic Party, Green Party, Libertarian Party as well as good government and voting rights groups like Common Cause, League of Women Voters, California PIRG, Latino Congreso, Greenlining Institute, Asian Law Caucus, Chinese for Affirmative Action, and Southwest Voter Registration Education Project.

A PDF of the Final Report on City of Los Angeles Runoff Elections can be found below. A 2-page version without supporting documents is also available.

Pre-Registration at Age 16

Political Reform — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:46:00 -0500

THE PROBLEM

In California, nearly a third of eligible voters – about 6.7 million Californians – are not registered to vote.Of particular concern is that young people are more negatively impacted by our voter registation system than other demographic groups. In 2004, a presidential election year, just over half of eligible Californians between 18 and 24 years of age were registered to vote (and in nonpresidential elections that rate is even lower). This lack of civic participation is a threat to good governance and a healthy democracy. Current state law limits valuable opportunities for reaching this important and under-represented population.

BACKGROUND

Current state law and practices. California state law establishes three conditions for voting registration: an individual must be a citizen of the United States; a resident of California; and at least 18 years of age before the next election. Eligible voters register by signing a legal affidavit swearing that she or he is a citizen and has reached the required age. Finally, since passage of the federal Help America Vote Act in 2002, first-time voters in federal elections must show proof of residency (photo ID, current utility bill, bank statement or government document) either at the time of registration or when they show up at the polls for the first time. Registration forms are available at government web sites and offices. In addition, many voters are provided registration forms by political parties or advocacy groups. This all-voluntary basis for voter registration has proven to be ineffective at producing complete or clean voter rolls.

For the complete paper , please see the attached PDF version below.

Instant Runoff Voting

adminn — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:01:00 -0500

Click here for a brief video discussion of this idea.

Americans want a more representative and responsive government capable of addressing the nation's challenges, yet our electoral system is founded on antiquated practices that inhibit voter choices and encourage a politics of polarization and paralysis. It's time to bring our electoral system into the 21st century by adopting instant runoff voting (IRV).

IRV elects winners with majority support in a single election by allowing voters to rank a first, second, and third choice on their ballots. If no candidate wins a majority, and a voter's first choice is eliminated, the vote goes to the voter's second-ranked candidate as his or her runoff choice. IRV encourages more electoral competition, solves the "spoiler" problem, enables voters to choose the candidate they really want, and encourages candidates to win by building coalitions rather than tearing down opponents.

The full text of this essay is available below in PDF format. To learn more about our other Big Ideas for a New America, please click here.

Automatic Voter Registration

Political Reform — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:44:00 -0500

The Problem. Recent elections underscore the importance of improving the way we register citizens to vote. Our voter rolls are not complete enough, with nearly a third of eligible Californians -- about 6.7 million people -- not registered, a lower percentage than in 2001.This lack of civic participation is a threat to good governance and a healthy democracy. Current state law limits valuable opportunities for engaging more Californians in the electoral process.

California, like the rest of the United States, is one of the few democracies where the government does not take responsibility for registering its voters. The international norm is an orderly process of government-mandated automatic voter registration of every citizen who reaches voting age. Ironically, Iraq has a higher share of its adult citizens registered to vote than the United States because the Iraqi government and the American authorities sponsored automatic voter registration of Iraqi citizens. It's time to establish automatic, universal voter registration that ensures every Californian’s ability to vote.

Automatic Voter Registration. The way forward is to establish universal voter registration as a mutual responsibility of citizens and their government that is conducted through an automatic registration process. Registration would occur on a steady rolling basis instead of in spurts tied to any specific election. Each voter receives a unique identifier that ensures she or he does not vote more than once. Not only does such an orderly process provide nearly 100 percent voter registration, but it leads to much cleaner voter rolls and less voter fraud.

For the complete paper, please see the attached PDF version below.

Universal Voter Registration

Political Reform — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:12:00 -0500

California's strength flows from a willingness to innovate and improve upon the American experiment in democracy. Recent elections underscore the importance of revamping the way we register citizens to vote, with the twin goals of registering all eligible voters and decreasing opportunities for voter fraud. Voter rolls should be complete and clean.

The Problem

Currently, there are two widespread failures. First, our voter rolls are not complete enough, with nearly a third of eligible voters -- about 60 million Americans -- not registered to vote. In California 6.7 million (30 percent) eligible adults are unregistered to vote, a lower percentage than in 2001.Young people are even more negatively impacted than other demographics. In 2004, only 54.4% of Californians 18-24 years old who are eligible to vote were registered and only 44.9% of these eligible voters actually voted (each of these figures is approximately 10 percentage points below the national averages). In 2002, 39.2% of eligible voters from this group were registered and only 18.8% of eligible voters turned out to vote.

Second, our voter rolls are not clean enough, which leads to administrative confusion and uncertainty about voter fraud. Under current laws and practices, we naturally see major voter registration drives during election years. The result is a surge of registrations right before an election, leading to long lines at polling places, voters not receiving information about where to vote, and turmoil over provisional and absentee ballots. It all-too-easily leads to potential partisan fraud, such as a Republican-linked voter registration firm in Nevada and Oregon that in 2004 threw out forms collected from voters registering as Democrats; and accusations of Democratic urban machines registering dead people to vote in cities and other party strongholds. Other charges have included people voting in two states and places like Alaska having more registered voters than adults. California elections also have not been immune to charges of voter fraud.

The lack of confidence over the "cleanness" of our voter rolls undermines the integrity of our elections. Having so many unregistered citizens hurts voter turnout and causes great problems in election administration. It's time to establish CLEAN and COMPLETE voter rolls to not only enhance every American's ability to vote but also to preserve the integrity of elections and keep close elections in the hands of voters rather than judges.

Current Law and Practices

State and federal laws establishes three conditions for voting registration: an individual must be a citizen of the United States; a resident of a particular state of the District of Colombia; and at least 18 years of age before the next election. Eligible voters register by signing a legal affidavit swearing that she or he is a citizen and has reached the required age. Finally, since passage of the federal Help America Vote Act in 2002, first-time voters in federal elections must show proof of residency (photo ID, current utility bill, bank statement or government document) either at the time of registration or when they show up at the polls for the first time. Registration forms are available at government web sites and offices. In addition, many voters are provided registration forms by political parties or advocacy groups. This all-voluntary basis for voter registration has proven to be ineffective at producing complete or clean voter rolls.

The Solution: Universal Voter Registration

Pointing fingers and name-calling won't fix the problem. The way forward is to set a goal of 100 percent voter registration -- universal voter registration -- by establishing registration as a mutual responsibility of citizens and their government that is conducted through an automatic registration process. It's the best way to bring together conservatives concerned about fraud in elections and liberals concerned about low voter registration. We need a coherent system that ensures all of us can vote, but none of us can vote more than once.

The United States, including California, is one of the few democracies where the government does not take responsibility for registering its voters. The international norm is an orderly process of government-mandated automatic voter registration of every citizen who reaches voting age. In fact, Iraq has a higher share of its adult citizens registered to vote than the United States because the Iraqi government and the American authorities sponsored automatic voter registration of Iraqi citizens. When the government takes a proactive ongoing role, registration occurs on a steady rolling basis instead of in spurts tied to any specific election. Each voter receives a unique identifier that ensures she or he does not vote more than once.

Not only does such an orderly process provide nearly 100 percent voter registration, but it leads to much cleaner voter rolls and less voter fraud. With comprehensive databases and full registration, there is no longer a question about who is or is not registered. Everyone who is a citizen and has reached the age requirement is registered to vote.

For the complete paper , please see the attached PDF version below.

Proportional Voting

Political Reform — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 23:09:00 -0400

Overview. California’s representative government is plagued by an unprecedented number of noncompetitive elections. The Legislature is highly partisan because over 90 percent of legislative districts strongly favor one political party over the other. Incumbents are not accountable to voters and act without fear of losing re-election.

Instant Runoff Voting: Making Your Vote Count

Political Reform — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:08:00 -0400

Overview

California’s winner-take-all electoral system is responsible for polarized politics, a balkanized legislature and declining voter turnout. Advanced electoral systems like instant runoff voting offer voters the opportunity for better choices at the ballot box, improved political debate and broader-based politics.

The Problem

Loss of Moderates. Party primaries in California empower the political extremes and discourage moderates, creating a Legislature that is unable to reach compromise and is therefore subject to gridlock. Primaries are low turnout elections mostly restricted to registered party voters. Candidates can win their party's nomination with low percentages of the vote, relying on a narrow core of voters for victory. This makes it much more difficult for candidates with politically moderate views to reach a general election.

Spoiler Candidacies. Winner-take-all elections also are vulnerable to "spoiler" candidacies, where like-minded voters supporting different candidates run the risk of splitting their vote and helping to elect a rival. This dynamic makes it virtually impossible for a serious candidate to run outside of the two major parties, leaving voters with a choice of candidates that is limited to those who have won favor with traditional party stakeholders. This in turn alienates voters who get tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils," instead of voting for the candidates they really like.

Mudslinging Campaigns. Winner-take-all elections encourage negative campaigns, where the winning strategy becomes driving voters away from your opponent through mudslinging rather than building coalitions and consensus. Runoff elections in particular are certain to produce mudslinging campaigns that turn off voters, lower public trust in government and damage the eventual officeholder. The winner of a divisive runoff faces a much more difficult time rebuilding the public trust that is essential for strong leadership.

The Solution: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)

How It Works. Instant runoff voting (IRV) elects candidates who win majority support in a single election. Voters rank candidates in order of preference: a first ranking for your favorite candidate, a second ranking for your next-favorite, and so on. If a candidate wins a majority of first rankings, he or she wins. If not, the “instant runoff” begins.

The candidate with the least number of first rankings is eliminated. Supporters of the eliminated candidate give their vote to their second ranking, i.e. their runoff choice. All ballots are recounted, and if a candidate has a majority, that's the winner. If not, the process repeats until one candidate has majority support.

For the complete paper, please see the attached PDF version below.

Citizens Assembly

Political Reform — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:05:00 -0400

The Problem

A number of promising reforms have been proposed for making the California political system more representative and responsive— from independent redistricting, term limits, and open primaries to more modern electoral systems and public financing of campaigns—but all face the same obstacle: entrenched interests, including elected lawmakers, who benefit from the status quo.

One means of removing partisanship and incumbent protectionism from the political reform process is known as a Citizens Assembly, which convenes a body of average citizens empowered to formally propose electoral reforms that politicians have too strong a conflict of interest to propose themselves. Already successfully employed in British Columbia, California’s legislature is now considering a Citizen Assembly measure of its own.

The British Columbia Model

The Citizens Assembly in British Columbia was established by the legislature, with a mandate to focus on electoral reform. The assembly's 160 members were chosen by a random selection process, just like a jury pool. First there was a draw of 100 men and 100 women from all of the province's 79 electoral districts, asking how many would agree to serve. Eventually one man and one woman were selected from each of the 79 districts, and two more members were added to ensure representation of native Canadians, a total of 160 members.

The Assembly's tenure was divided into three phases: first, learning about reform from noted experts, January-March 2004; second, over 50 public hearings, May-June; and third, final deliberations, Sept-Nov. They met on weekends, their expenses and a per diem of about $1000 per month paid by the government. They were addressed by top experts from all political perspectives who gave them the benefit of their knowledge and analysis.

Nearly 11 months later in December 2004 the Assembly delivered its final report. It voted 146-7 to toss out its longtime winner-take-all, single-seat district electoral system and replace it with a proportional representation system. "This really is power to the people," stated Jack Blaney, the chair of the Citizens Assembly.

For the complete paper, please see the attached PDF version below.