FairVote Feed: FairVote Blog

Does Florida’s increasingly diverse Latino population have the last word on Decision 2012?

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:39:17 -0700

Does Florida’s increasingly diverse Latino population have the last word on Decision 2012?

With former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney surpassing the magic number of 1,144 delegates needed for the party’s official nomination this week, the focus of the campaign season has shifted from winning delegates in primaries to winning over voters, specifically swing state voters, for the general election. One of the most important swing states of the 2012 election is Florida– with the potential to play the same decisive role in the Electoral College that it did in the 2000 election.

Central to winning Florida’s 29 electoral votes is winning over Florida’s Hispanic electorate, an electorate that is not the Cuban American monolith some press reports might suggest. There are 1.5 million registered Latino voters in Florida, about 13 percent of all registered voters. Those 1.5 million Americans are predominantly comprised of people of Cuban and Puerto Rican descent. Although still outnumbered by Cubans 540,000 to 480,000, Puerto Rican voters are the fastest growing group of the Latino electorate, their presence nearly doubling over the last decade.

Voters of Cuban descent tend to lean more Republican while voters of Puerto Rican and other Latino descent tend to lean more Democratic. In the 2008 election, President Barack Obama won 57 percent of Florida’s Hispanic vote, while 42 percent went to Senator John McCain. Among non-Cuban Latinos Obama won by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, winning 65 percent to McCain’s 33 percent, however he did not win the Cuban-American vote. McCain won it with 53 percent to Obama’s 47 percent.

While there are many reasons that Cubans vote differently than other Latinos, the biggest one is immigration. Cubans and Puerto Ricans do not have the same immigration concerns that other Latinos have. Cubans tend to be more conservative about social issues and are granted asylum when they reach the United States. Republicans tend to support harsher illegal immigration policies, but because those policies do not really affect Cubans due to their asylum, Cuban voters can support Republicans on immigration issues at no detriment to themselves.

But immigration doesn’t explain most Puerto Ricans’ voting preferences. Because Puerto Ricans are American citizens at birth, illegal immigration policies are rarely of direct concern to them. Puerto Rican party leanings seem tied to other factors. Because most of the Puerto Rican growth in Florida comes from Puerto Ricans leaving Democratic stronghold states such as New York, Florida’s Puerto Ricans tend to lean Democratic.

For the remaining Hispanic voters in Florida, however, immigration helps explain their preference for Obama in 2008. Non-Cuban and non-Puerto Rican voters lean more Democratic because Democrats tend to support social and immigration reforms that those Latinos view as greatly beneficial.

Even though different groups of Latinos lean different ways, the electorate is still very much up for grabs. Some of the biggest issues of concern to Latinos are the economy, immigration, and policy surrounding Cuba and Puerto Rico. Hispanics in Florida have been disproportionately affected by the downturn of the economy – their unemployment rate stands at 11.4% in comparison to national unemployment rate of 9% and in 2010, more Hispanic children lived in poverty than any other racial or ethnic group.

With figures like these associated with President Obama’s time in office, we could see a large influx of voters who voted for Obama in 2008 shift to Romney in the 2012 election. However, even with such dismal figures, Hispanics are more optimistic about the economy and the country’s future than any other demographic. That optimism could keep voters in President Obama’s camp.

Still, immigration reform remains very important to parts of the Latino vote and could very well be the difference between whether or not we have President Obama or President Romney for the next four years. While campaigning in 2008, President Obama promised immigration reform, something that he and Congress have yet to produce.

In fact, under the Obama administration more illegal immigrants have been deported than under any other president in recent history with the use of controversial tactics such as Secure Communities (SCOMM). SCOMM is a program that requires local law enforcement to share the fingerprints of detained undocumented workers with the proper Federal agencies.

One would think that this stance could only help Romney gain votes, but that may not be the case seeing as Romney also has a very tough stance on immigration. Romney supports the implementation of “self deportation”, a system in which instead of the Government actively finding and deporting illegal immigrants the Government would make life so difficult for them that they would leave the country of their own accord in order to find better opportunities for themselves.

The increased number of deportations under Obama and the idea of “self deportation” under Romney do not appeal to many Latino voters interested in immigration policy, keeping them out of either camp. Due to this, the deciding factor for voters voting based on immigration policies may be the DREAM act. The DREAM act, also known as Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors act, would grant legal residency to illegal immigrants who fulfill certain requirements such as arriving to the United States as a minor, completing college or serving in the military and showing good moral character. President Obama has voiced his support for the bill, but Romney has gone back and forth from saying that he would absolutely veto it to saying that he would support it if it focused more on military participation. President Obama’s clear willingness to support the bill could definitely help him win votes in the Latino community.

The treatment of Cuba by the United States is an issue that remains very important to Cuban-American voters. One of the biggest reasons Cubans immigrate to the United States is to escape poor treatment and quality of life under the Castro regime. Romney, referring to Castro as a tyrant and vocalizing his hopes for Castro’s death, has consistently advocated his position of no appeasement or negotiation with Cuba. Many Cuban-Americans harbor a lot of anger and resentment towards Cuba and the Castro regime and identify with Romney and his stance on Cuba. Based off the belief that his stance would change things in Cuba most of those Cuban-Americans would vote for Romney.

President Obama’s stance on Cuba varies greatly from that of former Governor Romney. United States’ policy used to limit not only the number of times one could visit Cuba, but also the amount of money one could send to Cuba. These policies angered many Cuban-Americans who wanted to be able to visit their relatives in Cuba and help them financially. Under Obama, those restrictions have been eased under with the idea that by limiting American interaction with Cuba, we force Cubans to rely more and more on Castro and his regime. Obama’s ideas and policy changes appeal to Cuban-Americans who finally have the chance to more easily connect with, help their families, and could help him win the Cuban-American vote that he was not able to win in 2008.

The candidates’ positions on Puerto Rico are more similar. As it stands now, Puerto Rico is an unincorporated, organized territory of the United States with commonwealth status, however, that can be changed. Puerto Ricans have the opportunity to vote on plebiscites where they have four options for the future of Puerto Rico: remain a commonwealth, be granted statehood, be granted free association, or be granted independence. If the majority votes for any option other than remain a commonwealth then Puerto Rico goes before Congress to attempt to change their status. The next Puerto Rican plebiscite is on November 6, 2012, concurrent with both the United States Presidential election and the Puerto Rican Governor’s election.

Obama and Romney both support Puerto Rican self-determination, an idea that appeals to mainland Puerto Ricans and draws them towards both camps. The deciding factor as to which camp those Puerto Rican voters ultimately choose could be Romney’s stance on English. Romney has said that he would not force Puerto Rico to adopt English as its official language in order to become a state, but has also voiced his goal of making English the official language of the United States. Latinos and mainland Puerto Ricans (those who support Puerto Rican statehood especially) who are proud of their Spanish-speaking heritage could see Romney’s pursuit for English as the official language as an assault on their history and culture and vote for Obama instead.

Although they consist of only about 13% of Florida’s electorate, Hispanics may be the most coveted demographic in the state – partly because their partisan loyalties are still being defined. Being elected, or reelected, President of the United States could very easily come down to whichever candidate best energizes and mobilizes Latino voters in Florida – swing voters in a swing state. And this year more than ever, it will come down to more than a candidate’s views on Cuba.

Texas' congressional elections near bottom in FairVote's Democracy Index

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:54:47 -0700

Houston voters, May 29

A new FairVote report shows winner-take-all voting rules for U.S. House elections in Texas create largely uncompetitive races and elect officials who do not reflect the state's diverse population. For the 2010 U.S. House elections, Texas ranks 49^th out of 50 states using FairVote's Democracy Index, which measures a combination of representation and competition factors.

This week's primaries represented the best chance for voters to affect their U.S. House representation prior to the November election. However, voters in most races did not have the chance to cast a meaningful ballot, as ten incumbents didn't face a primary challenger and all but one incumbent won by a landslide. Rep. Sylvestre Reyes, an eight-term Democratic incumbent running in District 16, was the only incumbent to lose in yesterday's primaries. Like Reyes, the delegation's longest-serving Member Ralph Hall was also targeted by an anti-incumbent PAC called The Campaign for Primary Accountability, but Hall won with 58% -- more than 37% ahead of his nearest challenger.

Texas' redistricting process has been messy, but intervention by the courts has allowed the state to hold primaries without too much delay. However, Texas' current map may well be interim -- the state is likely to redraw lines next year. The only Democratic incumbent directly affected was Rep. Lloyd Doggett. Rather than vie for votes in a more heavily-Republican district, Doggett District opted to run in a newly drawn Latino-majority district. Doggett won his Democratic primary handily -- with 71% of the vote, meaning two Latino-majority districts will likely be represented by non-Latino candidates.

If Texas' recent electoral trends indicate November's election results, most of these incumbent representatives will coast to another term in Congress without ever facing a legitimate challenger.

The only loser in this scenario appears to be Texas voters, who will not get the chance to participate in meaningful elections for the U.S. House.

Here are key facts about Texas' U.S. House elections from our report:

Why Texas ranks so low in the Democracy Index: Texas was nearly dead last in our Democray Index in 2010, when it was in the bottom five states in competitiveness of its elections and voter turnout. Only Oklahoma ranked lower.
Incumbents continue to win big: Of all Texas congressional elections since 2002, just ten races (6%) were decided by less than 10%. In 2010, 27 House seats (84%) were won by landslide margins of at least 20%.
Nearly four in five eligible voters didn't elect anyone: In 2010, less than 22% of eligible voters cast a ballot for a winning candidate and secured representation in the U.S. House. Since 1992, the highest amount of eligible voters winning representation is 35% -- still barely over a third.
Latinos under-represented: Latinos make up 38% of Texas' voting population, yet there are only six Latinos (19%) serving in the state's congressional delegation. Although the new redistricting plan increased the number of Latino-majority districts by two, both districts may well end up with non-Latino members - and that number could even decline with Reyes' defeat.
Men dominate Texas' congressional delegation: Currently, Texas has just three women in its congressional delegation. A dozen women won nominations in yesterday's primaries, and several more will compete in a July runoff. But women face an uphill challenge to pick up seats with male representatives having such an incumbency advantage in winner-take-all districts.

FairVote's report, Dubious Democracy, provides a comprehensive assessment of the level of competition and accuracy of representation in U.S. House elections in all 50 states from 1982 to 2010. You can read the section on Texas here and the full report here.

Some highlighted national facts concerning the 2010 elections:

Sky-high incumbency rate despite wave election. Over 86% of incumbents running kept their seats, a high rate given public dissatisfaction with Congress.
Landslide wins continue. The average margin of victory in 2010 was a whopping 33%, and 64.4% of U.S. House races were won by landslide margins of at least 20%. Only 81 races (18.6%) were won by competitive margins of less than 10 percentage points.
Apathy and lack of representation. Just one out of every four eligible voters cast a ballot for a winning candidate. In other words, nearly three in four eligible voters in 2010 did not vote for anyone who went on to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Dubious Democracy: 1982-2010 comprehensively catalogues just how noncompetitive U.S. House elections have been in states around the nation for nearly three decades. FairVote Executive Director Rob Richie said, "Although political campaigns and cable news constantly portray American elections as a horse race, the reality is that the majority of the time we have uncompetitive elections where the incumbent wins without having to make their case to voters."

Confronting meaningless and uncompetitive congressional elections in Texas and throughout the rest of the country is possible. FairVote proposes an alternative - a fair voting system in multi-seat districts - to facilitate fair representation and foster competitive elections.

You can find the fair voting plan for other states here.

Americans' View of Government Shaped by Student Government Experience

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 07:06:34 -0700

Sidwell Friends School

When we think about the skeptical views many Americans have about our government and our elected leaders in Washington, we can't help but wonder whether these problems start developing at a younger age - specifically with student government and the power (or lack of it) in most schools.

The fact is that the civics lessons students learn in schools have an impact on how they view government when they are older. Students' civics experiences or lack of experiences starting from elementary school all the way through college can shape the way they view our politics today. I'll use my own experience as an example.

As a member of student government in my junior and senior year in high school, I faced the same problems that many students across this country face. I can't tell you how many times I've heard students say, "Student government doesn't do anything" or "Oh, student government? They are a joke." I cringe every time I hear statements like these because I know that 10 or 20 years down the line, these individuals will be thinking the same thing about our government.

The problem doesn't seem to be the process of electing student leaders - although elections on campus do provide a chance for innovation -- but rather it seems that these student government groups do not get the respect they deserve within their establishments. Some schools even use alternative voting systems, like approval voting or rank choice voting, that are more representative, but full representation won't make a difference if the students don't think student government has legitimacy or influence in the community.

Students are very smart and perceptive. When they observe that student government lacks authority or power, they are less likely to listen or express their thoughts, as it would just be a waste of time. Our student government meetings in school were open to the public, but over the two years I served as a member, there were at most four meetings where a student came to discuss something.

This lack of participation was very disappointing because, after all, the entire point of having a student government is to represent the voice of the students. I believe this goes all the way back to the perception of student government as a meaningless body.

The characterization of student government as a figurehead happens across the country and even in this nation's most prestigious schools. My experiences have taught me that the relationship between the administration and the student government must be well established before student government can be an effective body. There was a serious belief in student government that the administration did not involve us in the community as much as they could.

The administration rarely came to student government to address problems facing the student body. When the administration came to us, it was usually because they wanted us to implement a policy that they felt students wouldn't think favorably upon, but it was already too late for us to state our opinions. This was likely because they felt that the students would be more responsive to student government than the administration, but that is a huge misconception. In fact, I think the students were much less encouraged to listen to student government than the administration because of how rarely we were given any real power to make decisions affecting students' lives on campus.

Even when the administration gave us some minor power in the community, it was largely watered down. They gave us the authority to allocate funds to different clubs after these clubs made a proposal, but actually, student government was supposed to make a proposal to that administration about the proposal that the club made. Not only does this policy water down the role of student government to a middleman, it's also simply ineffective. Then why wouldn't the clubs just make a direct proposal to the administration?

I believe that this relationship between the two bodies must be worked on and developed by both the administration and student government itself. The truth is that the student government is also to blame in many situations. I felt that we tended not to be resilient enough when our ideas were shot down. We didn't revise our proposals and re-approach the administration, and we just gave up on ideas as if they were lost causes. As opposed to giving up, if we had worked on negotiating and communicating with the administration, we could have built a better foundation or relationship between student government and the administration.

Building this relationship is a challenge, but once that relationship is built, both students and student government itself will be far more encouraged to work toward goals that will actually impact the community. Students will realize the power of student government and will not only be more encouraged to run for office but also more encouraged to participate in meetings and have their voices heard in other ways.

Ultimately, student government will serve its purpose of being advocates of change sought by the student body. But most importantly, as students become adults, these habits of engagement would translate into participation within their communities.

The Failure of US Civics Education

Thu, 31 May 2012 12:03:35 -0700

"An education that teaches you to understand something about the world has done only half of the assignment. The other half is to teach you to do something about making the world a better place."

--Johnetta Cole

Today, the United States falls short of its goal to create generation after generation of educated citizens to ensure the continuation of our democracy. Once the founding motivation for the creation of public schools, civics education has fallen into the shadows of math and science. It is taught in a passive learning environment, and lacks any development of critical thinking essential to the democratic process. Without a thorough revamping of our education system, civics education will continue to be sidelined and our democracy will suffer.

Civics Education is on the Backburner

With the current focus on test scores, civics education has receded into the background of public education. According to a 2010 study by the American Enterprise Institute, seven out of ten teachers say social studies are a lower priority because of pressure to show progress on statewide math and language arts tests. Even in states where civics education is tested, it pales in comparison to the testing of other subjects. For example, in the state of California, students are instructed in social science and history during four grade levels, and tested on them twice. In eighth grade, out of seventy-five questions only one-third of materials relate to the Constitution, the other two-thirds ask about unrelated sixth and seventh grade state curriculum standards. In eleventh grade, ten out of sixty questions relate to American political and social thought. Further, the failure to reach proficiency on the eighth or eleventh grade assessments carries no real ramification for the students. If social studies standards are meant to prepare students for democratic citizenship, they fall short.

Passive Learning is Unacceptable

In addition to being sidelined by state testing, civics education has fallen into a state of passive learning. When civics education is measured, taught, and tested, it is based upon factual knowledge on a true/false or fill-in-the-bubble test format. This method of measurement is likely contributing to the passive environment of the classroom. The graph to the right shows the results of the2010 Civic Assessment by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. It reveals that the most common civics classroom activities are passive-discussions, readings, or tests-while the least common activities are active-role playing, writing letters, or taking field trips. The activities practiced in civics classrooms do not adequately prepare students for their role as engaged citizens. Reading and discussing the role of Congress is not as effective as taking a field trip to the state capitol, or creating a mock congress within the classroom. Learning about low youth turnout also does not reverse the problem. However, participating in mock elections not only teaches the process of voting in a more tangible manner, but also cultivates a culture of voting.

Lack of Critical Thinking

In addition to stifling the culture of democracy amongst the youth, the passive learning environment encourages students to submissively accept the current system instead of striving to improve it. If students are only expected to read out of a book, discuss it, and bubble in the correct answer, where will our future leaders develop critical thinking skills? If our students are encouraged to memorize facts about the past instead of learning to think for themselves, how will they deal with challenges of the future? The fate of democracy lies in the future leaders of our nation, but we are failing to give students a valuable knowledge of civics, and are doing even less to prepare them for their role as active citizens. As Robert Hutchins warned, "The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and underourishment." To save our democracy from the threat of civic apathy, we must instruct students to be engaged citizens, through an active classroom that is respected as a core subject of public schools.

Presidential Tracker: The Orphaned States of America

Tue, 15 May 2012 14:20:30 -0700

Three weeks ago, voters in South Carolina looked on as President Obama passed them by once again. Since coming into office in 2008, the president has held 18 events in North Carolina, yet has not once held any sort of event in South Carolina. Geographically, religiously, and historically, the Carolinas are quite similar. The big difference: In 2008, President Obama won North Carolina with 49.9%, but lost South Carolina with 44.9%.That modest difference means everything given the way states currently cast their electoral votes.

Under the current system, presidential candidates must target all their attention towards swing states, meaning those politically divided states that could tip the majority of the Electoral College towards one candidate. Candidates have no incentive to focus any resources on states that will predictably vote Democratic or Republican in nationally competitive elections. Even with the similarities between states like North and South Carolina, a small percentage of difference can be the gap that labels a state either an election favorite or an election orphan.

As we track the movement of the president, his trend to focus on swing states stands out. According to The New York Times, 34 states will decidedly vote Republican or Democrat this election. Most analysts reduce the number of states that can truly tip a close election to seven or eight.

Both major party candidates will funnel resources away from predictable orphan states like South Carolina into battleground states like North Carolina. The Boston Globe reports the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has given $25 million to state parties for voter outreach in about a dozen swing states, and that a Super PAC tied to Mitt Romney has bought $4 million in ad time to be spent in those same states.

The Globe reports the DNC has already invested $976,000 in North Carolina, exceeded only by donations to parties in the usual trio of big swing states: Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.

That kind of focus is also demonstrated by our Presidential Tracker, which reports on every event and state visit by President Obama since assuming the presidency. Just as in 2004, when George Bush ran for re-election without a primary opponent, the White House will again keep a close eye on swing states when prioritizing where to travel.

President Obama’s Five Most Visited States:

Ranking	State	# of Total Events	Margin of Victory (%)	% of National Donations in 2008
1	New York	59	25.5% (D)	10.52
2	California	45	23.6 (D)	17.8
3	Florida	38	2.6 (D)	4.91
4	Virginia	37	6.3 (D)	5.27
5	Ohio	31	4.6(D)	5.98

In a practical effort to lead the United States, candidates are left with no other option than to bypass millions of American voices in order to hear the few that will actually influence their victory. Utah, for example, has not come within 6% of voting Democrat since 1912 – and is among the least likely swing states for at least another generation. .

That means presidential candidates have consistently lacked incentive to seek the voice of Utah citizens, Republican, Democratic or independent. Unsurprisingly, Utah is among the five states with the biggest drop in youth turnout over since the voting age was lowered 40 years ago.

This year, all 2.8 million Utah residents will again stand by watching with the majority of the United States as candidates from both parties pour millions of dollars into a handful of states as they bounce back and forth speaking and advertising to the few voters with any decision power.

With the polarization of parties and shrinking number of battleground states, the electoral system is muting an increasing number of American voices. The current system stifles the majority of Americans by locking them into geographic regions where they are barred from casting a vote that carries any weight. While 72% of Americans favor a national popular vote in presidential elections, the Electoral College continues to speak on their behalf.

More than 98% of campaign events and campaign spending took place in only 15 states in the final months of the 2008 election. These states make up 37% of the nation’s eligible voter population, and their voter turnout was only 67%. In other words, 25% of the country’s population received 98% of attention from candidates in 2008. From within the 25% of Americans that voted in these swing states, the real campaign targets were a small pool of swing voters who can decide a state like North Carolina, but not one like South Carolina.

A national popular vote, in contrast, would shift the focus of presidential candidates from fighting ruthlessly over the margins of an already marginalized country and on to listening to the rest of U.S. voters. It won’t happen in this election, but if the national popular vote determines the president in 2016, maybe 98% of funds and campaigning will be used across 98% of the country.

Follow our Presidential Tracker as we update you on President Obama’s location on the campaign trail. We will also be keeping you posted on former Governor Romney’s campaign whereabouts as things heat up before elections. Keep your eyes open for the Romney Tracker.

Tracker Highlights from White House travels 2012:

*38% of events held by Obama in 2012 (30 of 80) have been held in swing states. We predict this number will surpass the current 38% as the campaign season continues forward.

* President Obama has held five public events in Ohio, a swing state, since January and hasn’t yet gone to Ohio’s neighboring states of Indiana, Kentucky or West Virginia since May of 2011.

*115 electoral votes are currently tossups between 9 swing states.

* Obama has held 23 of 45 campaign fundraising events in California, New York and Florida so far in 2012.

Democracy Demands Civic Education

Tue, 15 May 2012 13:41:18 -0700

Through at least 40 years of polling, the American public has claimed that the number-one purpose of the nation’s schools is “preparing people to become responsible citizens.” The best way to prepare ‘responsible citizens’ is to instill basic democratic values and ideals into the nation’s youth, which is most effectively achieved though civic education, that includes instruction about the specifics of our democratic processes and a general introduction to open-minded engagement with the challenges facing our nation. The American school system needs to increase its role in civic education, and help foster democratic values in its young people.

While school is stereotypically seen as a place to learn grammar and mathematics, it is also a place where moral education is taught to the youth who will one day control the fate of our democracy. Perhaps best stated over one-hundred and seventy years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville noted in his observations of American

Democracy, “I see the time drawing near when freedom, public peace, and social order itself will not be able to do without education.” Such a time is upon us, and we must dedicate a significant amount of educational time to instruct students in the area of citizenship.

Today, when people are polled about what they want out of their children’s schools, people continuously respond that the personal and social development of the children is just as important as vocational and academic development. As one such person believes, “what [students] deserve and must receive through schooling is an education conducive to the development of a sense of political efficacy, and, coupled with this, a program of concerted community enculturation in the ethic shouldering a responsible measure of civic virtue.” Civic education is a key factor in personal and social development, as well as essential to the democratic process.

Although our young people can become responsible adults through instruction outside of the classroom, it is still necessary to provide civic education within a school setting to reach the youth who do not have access to quality alternatives. As pointed out by Wolfgang Edelstein, a German social and educational scientist, “the only institution that can provide opportunities to cultivate democratic experience-not for elite groups, but for all children and youth- is the school.”

Because all citizens become eligible voters by age eighteen, it is important they understand their role and responsibility as democratic citizens — knowledge they only have the resources to learn through education. Our emphasis at FairVote is ensuring that knowledge includes the mechanics of how to participate, but ensuring everyone is registered to vote, knows how to change their registration when they move, what offices are elected in their community, and other key aspects of our democracy. We also want them to see the rules of our democracy as an evolving process — one with a history of invention and reinvention that demands a critical eye about how our democracy is living up to core American ideas.

That’s why one of my major tasks during my FairVote internship is to develop and refine curriculum tools on voting and electoral reform, as well as to study and share best practices from other nations. Without a thorough understanding of the civic education learned at school, how could you expect anyone to perform their civic duties- you wouldn’t want a population full of untrained doctors, would you?

Look to Election Rules to Reverse Decline of Political Center

Fri, 11 May 2012 08:34:20 -0700

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Despite having one of the Senate’s more conservative voting records, Dick Lugar (R-IN) has not been a partisan ideologue. His landslide primary defeat to Tea Party-backed challenger Richard Mourdock is the latest sign that reaching across the aisle to build bipartisan policy has become a recipe for a shortened political career.

After a campaign in which Mourdock charged that Lugar was “President Obama’s favorite Republican,” Lugar defended “constructive compromise” and warned that “unrelenting” partisanship would paralyze American government. His remarks mirrored those of Olympia Snowe (R-ME) when she announced her retirement this spring. Snowe lamented that her approach to governance no longer fit an institution in which partisans “block the other side” and demand reflexive fealty to party.

Snowe called on Americans to see “strength in compromise, courage in conciliation, and honor in consensus-building.” But moderates are far more apt to be pilloried and purged than prized and protected. Lugar and Snowe are only the latest in a string of victims of a “do-not-compromise” stance that has been reinforced within both major parties by every new hardliner victory. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Joe Lieberman (D/I-CT), George Voinovich (R-OH), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Lincoln Chafee (R/I-RI), Arlen Specter (R/D-PA), and Bob Bennett (R-UT) are among high-profile senators whose history of bipartisanship led to retirement or lost reelection bids. The ranks of moderates in the House have been similarly depleted.

The decline of the middle in the Senate is especially significant given that its rules make one-party rule almost impossible. Because the Senate needs 60 votes to break a filibuster, moderates can assist the majority by voting for cloture or side against the majority until it tempers its proposals. They often inject restraint into a dialogue often soured by venomous rhetoric.

Yet as the divide between the parties has widened and solidified, moderates today face pressure to conform or retire. Those remaining face a dual threat: stronger challenges to holding onto their party’s nomination and uphill general elections in the “opposition territory” they disproportionately represent. It’s no accident that 2012’s most vulnerable Senate incumbents—Scott Brown (R-MA), Jon Tester (D-MT), and Claire McCaskill (D-MO)—all represent states that their presidential nominee will likely lose. Overcoming that partisan challenge has become harder in every passing election.

Sen. Snowe has rightly faulted the “corrosive trend of winner-take-all politics,” in which winning parties fail to forge bipartisan solutions. But we must go further to understand this behavior. Winner-take-all politics is grounded in winner-take-all voting, in which a plurality of votes earns 100% of representation. We have had those rules for a long time, but not with modern consultants armed with new polling methods, modern technologies, and near-limitless funds. In mastering how to win the game, we have destroyed its ability to produce effective representative government.

While not as enthralling as the battle for power and clash of values that dominate political coverage, election rules matter—they condition ballot tabulation, voter behavior, and campaign strategy. Winner-take-all influences the composition of government—who’s in it and who’s not, as well as how they get there. If Americans are dissatisfied with the latter, they must examine the former.

Winner-take-all rules today simply cannot represent fairly the left, right, and center. In a two-party system, the gain of one side is undeniably the other’s loss when third parties and independents are dismissed as mere “spoilers” rather than viable alternatives. Vilifying one’s opponent leaves voters with only one viable electoral option: oneself. The apocalyptic rhetoric and black-and-white thinking that pass for political strategy work under winner-take-all.

These tools of negative rhetoric and zero-sum campaigning translate into the habits of governing. With only two viable choices, parties are rewarded electorally for obstruction more than compromise. In turn, partisans seek representatives who will fight more than seek consensus.

Winner-take-all voting incentivizes partisanship, compels centrists to squeeze into restrictive ideological boxes and rewards the “us-versus-them” mentality moderates resist. But it is not part of our Constitution, and our cities and states are already providing a roadmap for change. In Illinois, cumulative voting in three-seat state legislative districts led to shared representation across the state for both parties until 1980, when the legislature was reduced in size and went to one-seat districts. In Minneapolis and San Francisco, the instant runoff form of ranked choice voting rewards candidates who can earn the second choice support of other candidates’ supporters.

Electing representatives interested in compromise and independent thinking in proportion to the share of voters who support them will require structural election change. Pleading with voters to support centrist politicians is not sufficient when the institutional framework of American elections and government discourages and penalizes such behavior. Rather than just criticize Congress as broken, let’s act to fix it.

Primaries Spotlight Sharp Decline in U.S. House Moderates

Tue, 08 May 2012 13:41:02 -0700

Left to right: Tim Holden and Jason Altmire

Pennsylvania’s April 24 primary lacked the anticipated fireworks between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in the Republican presidential race, but results on the Democratic side may have a far more lasting impact: they underscore the disappearing center in American politics. Two Blue Dog Democrats*, Jason Altmire and Tim Holden, were defeated by more mainstream Democrats. After 20 years of victories in Republican-leaning districts, Holden fell to newcomer Matt Cartwright in a district drawn to be much more Democratic, while Altmire was upset by his colleague Rep. Mark Critz† in a race that, because of redistricting, featured two incumbents battling over one seat.

Both Cartwright and Critz received strong support from unions and other progressive groups, which sought to defeat Holden and Altmire because of their opposition to President Obama’s health care and climate change legislation. In other words, the party’s base organized against Holden and Altmire because their voting records were not sufficiently orthodox. While the Tea Party’s targeting of moderate Republicans in 2010 and 2012 has received the most media attention, the Pennsylvania results indicate a similar (and arguably just as strong) tendency in the Democratic Party.

Indeed, the Democrats’ Blue Dog caucus—a barometer of moderate strength—had its numbers reduced by more than half, from 54 to 26, in the 2010 election, in which Republicans made most of their gains in the Republican-leaning districts that wee disproportionately represented by Blue Dogs. The Washington Post reports that primary defeats and retirements are expected to reduce the caucus by at least eight more members by next year.

Although it is no surprise that a party’s most fervent supporters would desire “faithful” representatives ready to stand up for their core principles, the decline of moderates in Congress is worrisome, with Senate moderates also under attack. Although a minority in both major parties, moderate voters exist in large numbers that deserve representation. Furthermore, the political center is necessary to the health of a democratic system, especially one like ours grounded in checks and balances across branches of government.

Moderates, for instance, can serve as bridges between the two parties, swinging to the majority or away from it in order to develop policy that is more temperate. They also inject civility into a poisonous discourse. But we are in a vicious cycle: the decline of moderates causes each party to become more polarized and isolated, which in turn, only further accelerates the decline of moderates. With the center under attack, moderates face pressure to conform or perish.

Whatever one may think of Holden and Altmire, it is critical for a political system to reflect the wide range of viewpoints; such is the essence of a democratic system. Yet, our current election framework disadvantages moderate candidates and the voters that back them. As manipulated by modern campaign consultants, winner-take-all rules (in which a plurality of votes wins 100% of representation) encourage partisanship, zero-sum thinking, apocalyptic rhetoric, and negative campaigning—since only one side can win in a given congressional district.

As such, winner-take-all creates a political environment inhospitable to compromise, as it forces centrist politicians to fit themselves into narrow ideological boxes. Clearly, we need rules in place that reflect nuances and partisan gradations, rather than the “two-sizes-fit-all” mentality of winner-take-all. The most natural alterative to winner-take-all elections at the U.S. House level is proportional representation, a system in which like-minded voters can elect candidates in proportion to their share of the overall vote.

FairVote advocates for candidate-based, American forms of proportional representation, what we call “fair voting,” in which voters would elect several representatives in larger “super districts” with voting methods in which 51% of votes wins most seats, but not all. The key is that fair voting plans lower the threshold of votes necessary to win a seat and create opportunities for an array of opinions to be represented within a given super-district. This contrasts sharply with winner-take-all, in which the candidate with the most votes wins and his or her voters receive representation while everyone else gets nothing.

By fairly representing the left, right, and center in any given super district, fair voting would liberate moderate candidates from pressures to conform. With the threshold lowered, moderates could focus on targeted appeals to their core constituency, including a mix of centrist independents and more partisan voters. Both Holden and Altmire were targeted by a Democratic base that demanded fealty to party. It is not terribly difficult to imagine the way in which proportionality could have freed them from these pressures—and given voters in these districts a centrist alternative to the traditional partisan-Democrat-versus-partisan-Republican race set for November.

Fair voting would also weaken the power of partisan redistricting. Winner-take-all makes gerrymandering a particularly potent tool; without those underlying “if-you-win-I-lose, if-I-win-you-lose” rules in place, its power is diminished. Both Holden and Altmire faced difficult roads to reelection, in part, because of redistricting. Pennsylvania Republicans controlled redistricting and packed more Democrats into Holden’s district in order to help Republicans in adjoining districts—thereby making the district less hospitable to Holden’s unique brand of moderation and exposing him to a primary challenge. Altmire, meanwhile, was paired in a district with fellow incumbent Critz. Under fair voting, the Republican’s strategic cartography would have been without purpose and Holden, Altmire, and their opponents all would have a chance to win seats. Fair voting allows such shared representation.

It is time for structural election change. Election rules greatly impact the composition of government—who is in it and who is not, as well as how they get there. If Americans are dissatisfied with the latter—and polls consistently indicate they are—then they must examine the former. Clearly winner-take-all amplifies partisanship and polarization in Congress; it is therefore antagonistic toward the goal of achieving a more collaborative and collegial legislature. Blue Dog Democrats like Holden and Altmire are struggling to survive, while most moderate Republicans were long ago pushed out of Congress. To ensure fair representation in Congress, we must act before all bridges between the parties in Congress have been burned.

* The National Journal’s vote rankings of members of Congress places Altmire (187) and Holden (186) as the fourth and fifth most conservative of the 190 Democrats in the U.S. House; only representatives Dan Boren (OK-2), Mike Ross (AR-4), and Jim Matheson (UT-2) posted records that were more moderate. Both Boren and Ross have decided not to seek reelection in 2012.

† Relative to Altmire, Critz is more liberal. The National Journal’s vote rankings of members of Congress places Critz (169) as the 22nd most conservative Democrat in the U.S. House. While this would arguably place Critz among the party’s Blue Dogs, he is not a member of the Blue Dog caucus.

French Elections: Preview of May 6 Runoff

Fri, 04 May 2012 15:20:56 -0700

The French were strongly mobilized for the first round, with a turnout of 79.47%. Such a high turnout confirms that the presidential race is a highly regarded election for the Fifth Republic, with an average turnout of 81.2% in all presidential elections since the introduction of the direct universal suffrage in 1962.

In the first round, the socialist candidate, Francois Hollande, with 28.6% of votes cast, is in the lead, while the incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy trailing narrowly with 27.2%. Among the eliminated candidates, were right-wing nationalist Marine Le Pen (17.9%), left-wing champion Jean-Luc Melenchon (11.1%) and right-center Francois Bayrou (9.13%). Exit polls showed that backers of the eliminated candidates generally lean toward Hollande, as he would have defeated Sarkozy by approximately 10% among these voters if the runoff had taken place on April 22.

Hollande and Sarkozy will participate in the second round on May 6th. Hollande recorded the highest score ever for a Socialist candidate in the first round of the presidential elections, with the exception of François Mitterrand in 1988 who was running for his own succession. In comparison, Ségolène Royal (Hollande’s long-time companion with whom he had four children) received 25.87% in the first round, behind Sarkozy (31.18%).

Meanwhile, Sarkozy is the first incumbent French president in the Fifth Republic to not lead in first round votes – although in 1981 Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was defeated in the runoff.

A Strong Vote for the Nationalist Right in the First Round

Although Hollande is favored to win the runoff over the more conservative Sarkozy, the strong result of the extreme right constitutes the main surprise of the first round of the French presidential election. By gaining 18% of the cast votes, Marine Le Pen managed to register the highest score of the Front National (FN), in a presidential election.

Never has the extreme right seemed so strong in France, even when her father Jean-Marie Le Pen made the presidential runoff in 2002, only to be crushed by a four-to-one margin. She almost doubled the percentage of Jean-Marie’s 2007 percentage of 10% and solidified the party in third place, ahead of Melenchon of the Left Front (11.7%).

Le Pen’s FN focused its campaign on four major themes: immigration, insecurity, the output of the euro and consumers’ purchasing power. The first two themes are still and always mark the “frontist” determinants of the vote - immigration is cited as a priority by 62% of voter’s insecurity for 44% of her electorate. However, the theme that allowed her to broaden the party’s electorate is helping consumers: 43% of its voters were sensitive to this issue, a level equivalent to national average (46%).

This week the Front National held its annual May 1st meeting. The event drew much attention, because everyone knew that Marine Le Pen give instructions on how to vote for the second round. She decided to make no endorsement, instead saying “I will partake in the none of the above voting system” and that “our hope lies in the legislative battle” in anticipating the parliamentary elections this summer.

According to Le Monde, Marine Le Pen, with her speech although apparently neutral, has especially aimed to dissuade her audience to vote for Nicolas Sarkozy. By betting on Sarkozy’s defeat, Ms Le Pen does not hide her strategy of having her party supplant Sarkozy’s UMP. She already mentions clearly her objective for the next general election: “gather a maximum of deputies so as to form the only real opposition to the ultra-liberal left, and libertarian party then conquer the power.”

In search of Le Pen’s first round votes, Nicolas Sarkozy said “What am I suppose to do? As Mr. Holland, I cannot pretend to ignore these 6.5 million French? I tell them, ‘I respect you, I hear you and, in some ways, I understand you.’” He criticized immigrants, saying “We cannot keep accommodating as many people in our territory because our integration system has failed, many people are attracted by our welfare system which is one of the generous in the world.”

Has Sarkozy lost the Center?

Sarkozy’s strategy of a shift to the right, followed by some of his faithful partisans, may scare some of the more moderate right voters, who could turn to François Hollande.

Confirming this potential reaction of centrist voters,, the surprise of this political campaign came from the right-centrist candidate, François Bayrou, who did not endorse any candidate in the second round after his 2007 presidential bid. For the first time, a leader of a centrist party has chosen to vote for a socialist candidate, with Bayrou backing Hollande, although he said he "respects the different expressions" within his party.

Bayrou explained that Sarkozy "has engaged in a pursuit-race to the extreme right ", with “an obsession of immigration and borders"has engaged in a pursuit-race to the extreme right ", with “an obsession of immigration and borders .” Bayrou added that "the political line chosen by Nicolas Sarkozy is violent, comes in conflict with our values, my own, but also those of Gaullism"

Hollande saluted Bayrou’s choice in his favor for the second round, he added that was an 'independent choice , " and there was" no negotiation "with him at the microphone of RMC radio. On the other hand, the head of Sarkozy’s UMP party did not hide his dismay, “I'm sad. I deeply regret the decision of François Bayrou because I absolutely do not understand the motivation.” declared UMP chief J.F Copé.

Predicting the Runoff

The combination of the first round results, low approval ratings for Sarkozy, the Bayrou endorsement and the Le Pen non-endorsement suggests that Hollande has the upper hand for the runoff. According to recent polls, the Socialist candidate would obtain between 52.5 and 53.5% of the votes, against Sarkozy 46.5 to 47.5%. The campaign since the runoff and a debate this week did not seem to change the basic dynamic of French voters wanting to turn to someone knew.

Turnout again should be high. French voters like to say that the first round is a chance to vote for whom you really like. The final round is a chance to vote against the candidate you most really don’t like. Nearly half of voters will not have a chance to vote for their first choice from April 22. But they will be able to vote against the candidate they don’t like. That likely won’t be good news for President Sarkozy.

French Elects a New President: Analysis and Five Notable Facts

Fri, 04 May 2012 15:16:54 -0700

On May 6th, Francois Hollande won the second round runoff in France’s presidential election and will become the second socialist president of the Fifth Republic. Hollande defeated Nicolas Sarkozy (UMP), who will serve only one five-year term in the Elysee Palace. Hollande obtained 51.6% of valid votes, as compared with 48.4% for Sarkozy.

Voter turnout was 80.35% of registered voters, including more than two million voters (nearly 6% of all voters at the poll who did not cast a valid ballot). Overall turnout was higher than the 79.34% turnout in the first round of voting last month (although lower among valid ballots), but lower than the 83.97% turnout in the final runoff election in 2007

France acts on its elections quickly, with the official count done quickly. Sarkozy will turn power over to Hollande on May 15, only nine days after the election. Tomorrow the two men will appear together at the May 8th ceremony in Paris.

At his campaign headquarters in Paris after the election, Hollande said that he had already turned to forming his government – a more straightforward task in France than in the United States, where the Senate must confirm all major political appointees and where parties are less cohesive and organized than in France. Among his commitments, Hollande plans to pursue equal gender balance in his major political appointments.

Holland must also prepare immediately for upcoming international meetings, such as the G8 and NATO summits. Given the result in France and the backlash in this weekend’s elections in Greece to the parties that negotiated its economic bailout, these meetings will be very important and may lead to changes in European economic policy.

Sarkozy Faces the Voters

Having faced an economic crisis since 2008 -- meaning most of his term -- Sarkozy faced a difficult re-election challenge. He was counting on a surge of right-leaning voters with appeals to the backers of the 6.4 million “frontist” voters who backed Maxine Le Pen in the first round, but failed to obtain the majority necessary for re-election.

Up until Election Day, he nevertheless displayed his confidence and promised "surprises", a burst of the "silent majority qui n’a pas eu lieu. But on Sunday night, he accepted his defeat, saying, "I bear all responsibility for this defeat, I'm not a man who does not assume his responsibilities. I need to draw all the consequences.” He has pledged to abandon electoral politics and resume his law career.

International Reactions

White House press secretary Jay Carney said that Barack Obama congratulated Francois Hollande for his election to the French Presidency, and invited him to a bilateral meeting at the White House before the G8 and NATO summits planned for 18th and 20th May in U.S. Carney said that “President Obama said he intends to work closely with Mr. Holland and his government on a range of difficult issues in economic and security.”

German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who had taken the unusual step of publicly backing Sarkozy’s candidacy, has called the new Socialist president to congratulate him on his election. “They had a first exchange and agreed to work together on a Franco-German relationship that is strong, friendly and at the service of Europe, "according to the socialist Pierre Moscovici.

General Elections for Parliament in June

In the aftermath of this victory, both socialist and right parties are embarking on a new campaign, the legislative elections will be held on 10 June, with any necessary runoffs on 17 June. Since the presidential term was lowered from seven to five years, general elections for parliament take place immediately after the presidential election. This timing allows the French to more easily ensure a majority for the newly elected President, as they did in rewarding the party of the winning president in parliamentary elections in 2002 and 2007. In addition, parliamentary elections are held with winner-take-all, single-member districts, allowing the leading party to exaggerate its representation in parliament.

Conservative parties will argue for a "rebalancing" of power in these elections, because currently the President, the Senate and most regions are controlled by the Socialists. But they face their own divisions, with the first round of voting key to seeing if Sarkozy's UMP party will be hurt by his defeat and whether Marine Le Pen's National Front will grow in support Socialists will appeal to French voter to give Hollande the power to pursue reforms. They are calling for the mobilization of "all those who want change" to give the president a socialist "clear majority."

In the Spotlight: Five Notable Facts about France's May 2012 Election

1. France’s voter turnout is far higher than the United States: Voter turnout in the election was 80.35% of registered voters (with France, like most established democracies, having a much higher rate of voter registration of eligible voters than in the United States). Analysts expect that fewer than 60% of eligible American voters will cast votes in the November 2012 presidential race, with turnout disproportionately high in the dwindling number of "swing states."

2. Nearly 6% of voters spoiled their ballot: Many French voters go to the polls out of a sense of civic duty to participate in presidential elections – it can be embarrassing to admit missing an election for president. But that doesn’t mean some also don’t take pride in electoral acts of protest nor displeasure at a runoff lacking their preferred candidates. Even though the presidential race was the only item on the ballot, more than two million French voters -- 5.8% of all those at the polls -- spoiled their ballot. That's a large increase from the spoiled ballot rate of 1.92% in the first round when voters had a far greater array of candidates and could cast a more affirmative vote for a candidate they liked.

3. Voting is so easy that spoiled ballots are done on purpose: France administers presidential elections with a very simple method. Each presidential candidate is listed on a separate ballot paper. Each voter places the ballot paper of his or preferred candidate in their voting envelope and returns the envelope. (A voter wanting to keep his or her choice secret takes more than one ballot paper and discards the unused one in the trash.)To invalidate their ballot, the voter has to leave the voting envelope empty, put ballot papers for more than one candidate in the envelope or deface the ballot with writing.

4. No voter, even if living overseas, is allowed to vote by mail, but can designate proxies: France does not allow any of its voter to cast an absentee ballot in presidential races, although it will allow this option in a limited fashion in the June elections for parliament. A voter who is homebound or travelling (even those serving France in its military) has two options: to find a way to get to a diplomatic office like an embassy to vote in person or to designate another French voter with the power to cast a ballot on their behalf. That helps explain why turnout among French voters overseas was much lower than those in France, but also why election results were so prompt and difficult to dispute.

5. France has its own red-blue partisan division, but every vote counts: The Guardian newspaper has provided well-presented data on the French election, with accompanying analysis. As with presidential elections in the United States, support for Hollande and Sarkozy varied dramatically in different parts of the country. But because France holds a national popular vote for president, every vote is equal wherever it is cast, and candidates and their backers have incentives to seek votes everywhere. Hollande in particular campaigned personally in a range of urban, suburban and rural areas.