- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Reforming the election system in Colorado is a top priority for the Green Party.The current discussion (see below) is enlightening. Thank you for contributing to the discussion from a wide variety of perspectives. I can see that my position, as gubernatorial candidate, on election reform needs to be more encompassing. I'll write more here, shortly.-Harry Hempy[This is a record of a recent email discussion on election systems. Please continue the discussion on the General Discussion forum on the state party website.]> From: Gary Swing [mailto:theswingvote@yahoo.com]> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 11:29 AM> To: Jay Taylor; Ryan Ross; mhaughey@earthlink.net; 'Harry Hempy'; 'Bill Bartlett'; 'Chris Allen'> Cc: 'Tom Moore'; 'Shawn Rosvold'; 'Nancy York'; 'Andrea Merida'; 'Laura Clark'> Subject: Re: GPCO Annual Meeting - A Resolution to support a New Colorado Election System>> I was able to open the attachment this morning using a different computer, and yes, this is quite different from the California top two primary system (which is a terrible system). I'm not sure if this proposal is better or worse than what we have in Colorado right now, but it is still the wrong proposal for a ballot initiative. It would be a major overhaul of the Colorado election system without instituting proportional representation, which must be our number one priority for election reform.>> Instant runoff voting benefits the Democrats and Republicans by eliminating the ability of minor party candidates to affect the outcome of elections in close races without providing broad representation for a multi-party system. IRV essentially neutralizes what little political power minor political parties have in the US now.>> IRV is appropriate for single winner, executive offices to secure representation for the majority. The Green Party platform advocates IRV for executive offices. Personally, I would prefer a parliamentary system, which is what nearly all other representative democracies use. In most democratic countries, the parliament (legislature) is elected by a party list vote. The Parliament selects the executive rather than having adi rect election for the executive.>> More than 80 percent of representative democracies use a party list system to elect their parliaments. Voters cast their ballot for their favorite political party, or for candidates within their party's list. Seats in the parliament are allocated to each party in proportion to their share of the party list vote. Five percent of the vote equals five percent of the seats; thirty percent of the vote equals thirty percent of the seats, and so forth. Winner-take-all voting systems like IRV only provide representation for the majority. Proportional representation provides representation for nearly all voters.>> The Green Party's platform advocates proportional representation for legislative elections as its first election reform goal. PR provides better representation for women, minorities, and alternative parties in government, increases voter turnout, decreases the influence of campaign spending, and gives nearly all voters the opportunity to elect the representatives of their choice.>> The Green Party has run candidates in more than 80 countries around the world and currently has 315 Members of Parliament elected to national Parliaments in 30 different countries. More than 95% of these MPs were elected by proportional representation, mostly by party list vote.>> Proportional representation can also take the form of the single transferable vote (STV), which is ranked choice voting in a multiple member district instead of a single member district. Ireland and Malta use this system. I think Scotland and Wales use it as well. Australia is an interesting case. For their Senate elections, voters have the choice of casting an STV vote ranking individual candidates in their order of preference, or a simple vote for the party list of their choice. This is interesting because when voters there are given the option of ranking individual candidates or voting for a party list, more than 90% of voters choose the party list system instead of ranked choice voting.>> IRV, as proposed in this Colorado initiative is only used for national parliamentary elections in Nauru, Papua New Guinea, and in Australia, for the lower house, with worse results than the STV-List system that Australia uses for the upper house. IRV is okay for executive offices, but it should not be used to elect legislators.>> The insistence upon having elections that focus upon individual candidates rather than political parties and platforms is a peculiarly American phenomenon, not shared by the rest of the world. The United States has the longest, most expensive elections in the world, with the most offices voted upon, some of the lowest voter turnout, and the worst representation.> My suggestion to the backers of this initiative would be to scrap it and start over on a proportional representation ballot initiative that would make a real, positive difference through genuine election reform.>> Cheers,>> Gary Swing>> >> On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:45 AM, Jay Taylor
wrote:>> While I share some of Mr. Swing's concerns about so called "non partisan" elections, and find the idea that every person would have a choice in every party's nomination process to be problematic, I did want to point out that there are many differences between the California system(which is absolutely terrible and gives the CA voters much less choice) and what's being proposed by the Colorado Group.> > 1) In the California system, parties cannot place candidates on the ballot. Each person who is running, may declare a party affiliation to put by his/her name on the ballot, but each is technically an independent who must either petition onto the ballot(10,000 signatures for statewide races) or pay a filling fee equal to 1% of the annual salary of the position he/she is running for.> 2) Only the top 2 finishers in CA move on, sometimes resulting in D vs. D or R vs. R for the same seat in the general election. The Colorado group is proposing 4 to automatically move on, but any person who finished below the top 4 could qualify for a wild card slot on the general election ballot, by getting a least 3% of the vote.> 3) The CA System didn't introduce an alternative system of voting, it is still the original first past the post, and any other system would be irrelevant anyway because they only allow 2 candidates for each office, so one is bound to win outright the first round of voting except in the very rare and improbable case of a tie.> > There may be other differences that I've missed, but those are the main ones. I'm not sure whether or not I support this proposed ballot measure, I'd need to learn more about it first. However, from what I've seen, it's not the partisan nomination process that's the problem, it's first past the post voting; which inevitably leads to a 2 party system and especially Gerrymandering that is the problem. For those of you who haven't seen it, here is a great video series on the problems with America's current voting method and different alternate voting methods explained.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_873960&feature=iv&list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638&src_vid=QT0I-sdoSXU&v=s7tWHJfhiyo>> Great tool for teaching those who might be new to these concepts. >> Mahalo,> Jay Taylor>> >> Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 15:21:38 -0800> From: theswingvote@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: GPCO Annual Meeting - A Resolution to support a New Colorado Election System>> I am unable to open the attachment summarizing this proposal, but I Googled it. I consider this proposal to be an irrelevant distraction. I would vote against this initiative and I would oppose an endorsement of it.>> The Green Party's national platform advocates proportional representation for legislative elections (Congress, legislatures, council, and boards) and instant runoff voting (IRV) for executive offices (president, governor, mayor, administrators, etc.). Proportional Representation can refer to party list systems which are used by more than 80% of democratic republics or to the single transferrable vote (STV). The term "ranked choice voting" is confusing because it includes both IRV and STV which have opposite effects. STV uses ranked choice voting in multiple member districts to secure proportional representation. IRV uses ranked choice voting in single member districts to security majority support for the winner. (IRV is a winner-take-all voting system). >> Proportional representation is critical for the success of the Green Party. >> I oppose the idea of making elections non-partisan.>> Cheers,>> Gary Swing>>> From: Michael Haughey [mailto:mhaughey@earthlink.net]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 2:41 PM> To: 'Harry Hempy'; 'Bill Bartlett'; 'Chris Allen'> Cc: 'Ryan Ross'; 'Gary Swing'; 'Tom Moore'; 'Shawn Rosvold'; 'Jay Taylor'; 'Nancy York'; 'Andrea Merida'; 'Laura Clark'> Subject: GPCO Annual Meeting - A Resolution to support a New Colorado Election System>> Hi Harry,>> IRV is already in the National Greens Platform: http://www.gp.org/index.php/what-we-believe/our-platform/17-platform/37-i-democracy.html . Not that it hurts to have a local resolution.>> Michael D. Haughey>> AJ Greens>> >> From: Harry Hempy [mailto:harryhempy@fullsignal.net]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 12:20 PM> To: Bill Bartlett; Chris Allen> Cc: Ryan Ross; Gary Swing; Tom Moore; Shawn Rosvold; Jay Taylor; Nancy York; Michael Haughey; Andrea Merida; Laura Clark> Subject: GPCO Annual Meeting - A Resolution to support a New Colorado Election System>> Dear GPCO Co-chairs:>> At the GPCO annual meeting on March 22 I intend to seek the Green Party’s endorsement of a citizen's initiative to boost voter turnout in Colorado, end partisan elections, give every voter the right to participate in primary elections, and for the first time give voters the ability to vote for minor party and independent candidates without having to be concerned about “throwing their vote away” or "spoiling the election.">> The initiative is driven by The Coalition for a New Colorado Election System, Ryan Ross, Director. It is targeted for the November 2014 election. The initiative is substantially consistent with the Green Party's position on ranked-choice voting and proportional representation.>> A draft one-page summary of the initiative is attached. I'll provide the complete language shortly.>> Election reform is the highest priority issue of the Hempy4Governor campaign. I expect to actively campaign for this initiative and ask GPCO to endorse it.>> Thank you for your attention to this matter.>> Harry Hempy>> Candidate for Governor> for the People> of Colorado>> Hempy4Governor.org> 303-459-0172 I have a few concerns, including taking control of a party’s candidates away from the party. Each party should, I believe, be able to agree on principles and then to hold their own candidates to those principles. Letting anyone run in any party, and anyone vote in any party, seems counter to that principle. I think it is more likely that the fear of electing a Republican has kept people from voting Green and is the bigger problem. IRV eliminates that fear and could allow Greens to attract more 1st tier votes and quite possibly to dramatically increase the number of Green party members. This is to me far preferable to the possibility of electing Republicans by possibly drawing away Democratic votes and continuing the trend to the political right that the two major parties have experienced over the past 30-40 years. That isn't really the kind of power I want to wield as a minor party. While neither major party addresses true core issues, one party is still more receptive to ideas that help the 99% at least a little.Abolishing primaries and then having candidates campaign to the entire electorate twice may have the consequence of giving even greater advantage to moneyed candidates, or more accurately those on whose behalf money puts up attack ads against the other candidates. I think the problem this initiative is trying to solve is the excessive role of money in elections. The better way to do that is to support the Constitutional amendment language of MoveToAmend. It seems to me that voters are not so much turned off by the Primaries as they are by the very real fact that their vote counts for so little these days, and many (? - not enough) of them get that the influence of money is at the heart of the problem.IRV seems to me a good first step, and one that is achievable. Once that is achieved, and then we get MoveToAmend's Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech passed, then we will have a more level playing field in which to propose proportional voting methods.
My proposal for a new election system for Colorado is this: (critique is welcome)1. Recognized political parties nominate 1 to 3 candidates for each office using a caucus/nominating convention process (just like all parties do today). 2. Standalone candidates, running without a party nomination, declare their candidacy for office (just as is done today), but are put in the primary election instead of having to wait for the general election. [Whether standalone candidates need to gather signatures to petition onto the primary ballot is an open question.][Note: The ability of parties to control who will be the party's nominee(s) is not impacted in any way.]3. The primary election will be restructured. The current system of holding separate primary elections for each major party and each minor party in which there is a contested office will be discontinued. Instead, there will be one primary election in which all candidates participate and all registered voters may vote. The purpose of the primary election shall be to narrow the field for the general election, leaving only top viable, credible candidates in the general election. I suggest the top 5 candidates advance to the general.[Note: Problems with the current primary system are legion: The current primary system produces voter suppression of a magnitude that eclipses Sec. of State Gessler's voter suppression efforts. Taxpayer money is used to fund party primaries. Major parties are given a primary election even if the party has no contested races. Why?][Note: The CNES proposal is that the top 4 candidates for each office, together with candidates who receive at least 3% of the votes cast, advance to the general election. This provision needs to change - read on.]4. Primary elections will use a multiple-choice voting method in which voters may vote for up to 5 candidates, ranking their preferences for each office first to fifth. The top 5 candidates emerging from the primary will be determined using the single transferable vote protocol (STV).5. General elections will use a multiple-choice voting method in which voters may vote for up to 5 candidates, ranking their preferences for each office first to fifth. If no candidate receives a majority of the first-choice votes, the winner will be determined using instant runoff protocol (IRV).[Note: Multiple choice voting is essential to removing the 'spoiler effect' and 'throwing my vote away dilemma' of the current single-vote, plurality-winner system (FPTP). I believe that the 'throwing my vote away dilemma' is the biggest obstacle to a voter's decision to vote for a minority party candidate.][Note: To be clear, this proposal does not directly address proportional representation in the legislature. The proposal, with multiple-choice voting, does open the door for minority party candidates to actually be elected, however.][Note: This proposal does not address the problem of the influence of money on elections. Until the Citizen United decision is overturned, progress getting big money out of elections will be difficult. But I will campaign for the CO Elections Division to provide information from all declared candidates and supply candidate information as an integral component of the primary and general election process. In theory, at least, all candidates will have their information/message in front of the voting public at election time. You could call this a 'poor state's version of publicly-funded elections in the Citizens United era.']
Thanks, Harry.A statewide ballot initiative is a major project. In 1998, I drafted a proposal to elect Colorado's state legislature by mixed member proportional representation. I didn't try to take it past the title setting stage because I didn't have organizational backing or funding for it. Even the Green Party *theoretically* supported proportional representation but wouldn't commit to backing an initiative. I wrote the initiative as MMP because that was the form of proportional representation that had consensus support among the Colorado Greens after discuusing alternative voting systems. My preference now would be to get rid of single member districts for legislative offices altogether and push for an open party list system for the state legislature. My first choice would be a ballot initiative to elect the legislature by George Hallett's STV-List system, giving voters the option of casting a single vote for the party of their choice, or a more detailed STV ranked ballot across party lines for the candidates of their choice. I have Hallett's original statutory language from the 1920s, but when I was working on this proposal 15 years ago, I wanted to include a universal quota in the proposal and didn't know how to write it up. I figured that I needed the help of a mathemetician with an interest in legislation for alternative voting systems. A simpler form of open party list would allow voters to cast a single vote for a single candidate, which would be used both to help that candidate and to allocate the percentage of seats assigned to each party. The "single subject rule" could be problematic, but my really big idea for a ballot initiative was to try to implement ranked choice voting methods for all state and federal elections in Colorado:1) Single winner offices: IRV.2) US Representative: State that Colorado's delegation of US Representatives would be elected at-large by STV unless federal law requires that members be elected from single member districts (which we know it does) and "instruct" Colorado's members of Congress to introduce a bill allowing states to elect their Congressional delegations by proportional representation. (Get the horse to push the cart.)3) Elect the Colorado State House of Representatives by George Hallett's proposed STV-List system (like Australia's Senate elections).4) Either a) Abolish the Colorado State Senate; or b)Phase out staggered terms and elect the entire state senate every fourth year by the Hallett List System of proportional representation.5) US President: STV for presidential electors.A statewide citizen initiative is a huge project. If I were to work on a project like this, I would want to do something that would have maximum impact, creating real proportional representation for the state legislature, and advocate a very good system. My interest is in creating an election system that will enable the widest possible range of the population to elect representatives of their choice, not just the majority or plurality. Cheers,Gary SwingFormer National Advisory Board member, Center for Voting and Democracy (since renamed FairVote)Former Vice-Chairman, Colorado Coalition for Fair and Open ElectionsFormer Green Party candidate for US Representative, CD1, Colorado 2010/2012Creator of "Coloradoans for Proportional Representation" Facebook page
A few comments about the open primary/IRV ballot initiative proposals.The media coverage that I have read concerning Ryan Ross' proposed open primary-IRV ballot iniative was inaccurate and confused it with California's top two primary system. Ross' proposed initiative is better than the California system in my opinion, but still not what I believe we should be pushing for. However, I would like to see some more commentary from the ballot initiative proponents making the case for their proposal.I agree with Michael that an open primary system would probably increase the cost of elections. The US already has the most expensive elections in the world.I don't see that current state election law suppresses participation in party primaries. Unaffiliated voters can affiliate with a party on election day, vote in their primary, and switch back to unaffiliated the next day if they want to do so. I believe that more notice is required to switch from one party to another to vote in a primary, to deter people from trying to undermine the primaries of opposing parties. Advocates of particular parties argue that blanket open primaries violate their freedom of association to build political parties that stand for particular platforms.Also, under the current Colorado nomination system, candidates are allowed to bypass a party's nominating assembly and petition directly onto the party's primary ballot. The United States probably has the most candidate-centered election system in the world. Elections here focus on individual personalities, while elections elsewhere tend to focus more on party platforms and issues. Campaign literature, websites, television, and radio ads for major party candidates here usually don't even mention what party the candidate represents, yet most voters vote for a particular party. I think the role of political parties in elections should be strengthened, not weakened, but under a multi-party system -- not a system that represents just two corporate puppet parties. As Michael said, your "vote counts for so little" here. We should create a system under which nearly everyone has a meaningful vote that enables them to elect representatives of their choice."Splitting the vote" is not the central problem with American elections. The main problem is lack of fair representation for a diverse electorate. This should be addressed by implementing proportional representation for legislative offices.Many fundamental changes should be made to the American political system. The United States hasn't held a Constitutional Convention since the original one that threw together the existing US Constitution as a compact with slavery. Why should we be stuck with an 18th century Constitution created by a handful of unrepresentative white male delegates who agreed to preserve slavery in order to establish a union, rather than creating a good system of government? It's time to create a modern Constitution.Cheers,Gary Swing
For the record, I testified (representing myself as a candidate for Governor) at the Colorado House Committee on State, Veterans, & Military Affairs about HB14-1062 (Approval Voting Act) on March 12, 2014. Also, representatives of the Libertarian, American Constitution, Democratic, and Republican parties, Colorado Common Cause, and the Colorado League of Women Voters testified.I called for the Legislature, Governor, and Secretary of State to use a multiple-choice voting system for all Colorado state elections in 2016 (going far beyond the scope of bill #1062). The call was not acted on (no surprise) and the committee's inaction is in the public record.My testimony:
Harry HempyPO Box 264Jamestown, CO 80455March 12, 2014
House Committee on State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Rep. Jonathan SingerSen. David BalmerGov. John HickenlooperSec. of State Scott GesslerSubject: Testimony on HB14-1062 Approval Voting ActI speak on HB14-1062, the Approval Voting Act, from the perspective of a declared candidate for Governor in 2014. I am not a Republican nor a Democrat.I support the Approval Voting Act, with an amendment to more effectively introduce multiple-choice voting in Colorado.The Approval Voting Act is similar to the Voter Choice Act, HB08-1378, passed eight years ago.Both bills introduce a multiple-choice voting system capable of ameliorating problems inherent in our vote-for-only-one (single choice, plurality winner) voting system. In the vote-for-only-one system it is very easy for minor party candidates to spoil an election, throwing the election to, take your pick - a Democrat or a Republican, by getting just a couple percent of the vote. Our vote-for-only-one system presents voters with the dilemma whether to vote for the best candidate or vote against the worst candidate by voting for the candidate most likely to defeat the worst candidate. Vote-for-only-one forces many voters to vote only for Democrats and Republicans, regardless of the qualities of the candidates, out of concern for throwing away their vote. Both bills limit the use of a multiple-choice voting system to local, non-partisan elections, presumably to gain experience in small elections, familiarize voters with multiple-choice voting, and work out any unforeseen problems, before implementing a multiple-choice election system state-wide.It is time now, eight years after passing the Voter Choice Act, for the Colorado Legislature to reform the election system to use a multiple-choice election system state-wide. I propose an amendment to bill 1062, to wit:AMENDMENT: The Governor and Secretary of State shall submit draft legislation to the Legislature, on or before March 1, 2015, to amend Colorado election law to use a multiple-choice voting system for all Colorado state elections, beginning in 2016.The political polarization, divisiveness, and gridlock that characterize federal and state governments in America are a direct result of a two-party system of government. To repeat: Political polarization, divisiveness, and gridlock are a direct result of two-party government.If this seems like a radical statement, remember warnings of our nation's founding fathers about the fragility of democracy and formation of a two-party system. President George Washington said in his farewell address, "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. . . . The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”And listen to our second President, John Adams, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”As the committee deliberates bill 1062, please consider two questions. First, is it truly in the best interests of your constituents, the people who voted for you and the people who voted for someone else, to have an election system that guarantees Colorado will continue to have only two political parties represented in Colorado state government?Second, who among us might have a personal vested interest in maintaining two party government in Colorado and vote-for-only-one elections?Please, put the 'spirit of party' aside long enough to create a multi-party government in Colorado.Sincerely,Harry Hempy
During questioning, committee vice chair Joe Salazar, argued that the current election system is fair because 'voters of each party elect their candidates'. I responded by pointing out that VOTERS DO NOT GET TO VOTE FOR THEIR PARTY'S CANDIDATES in the vast majority of CO state races. Party nominees are usually decided by an undefined group of party insiders, leaving no contest - nothing to voters to decide - in the party's primary election. Over the last 4 years, only 6% of state offices up for election were contested in Democratic primaries and 13% of offices were contested in Republican primaries.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.