The Center for Voting and Democracy

November 2004 Newsletter

In this issue:

– Big wins for instant runoff voting in cities
– We still need to protect our right to vote
– Election 2004: Revealing and surprising facts

We’vebeen sifting through the results of the November 2nd elections. Theytell important stories – ones that in some cases have been overlookedor misinterpreted by many observers. I think you’ll enjoy perusingthrough our findings below.

I also wanted to report on threelandslide wins for instant runoff voting at the ballot this November.Instant runoff voting (fairvote.org) is rapidly growing inpopularity as a means to elect majority winners when more than twocandidates contest an executive / one-winner office.

* ProposalB on Ferndale, Michigan’s ballot won by a lopsided 69%-31% margin. Theproposal amends Ferndale’s city charter to provide for election of themayor and City Council through the use of IRV pending the availabilityand purchase of compatible software and approval of the equipment bythe Ferndale Election Commission. A suburb of Detroit with about 17,600voters that are relatively balanced between Democrats and Republicans,Ferndale had a very energetic, effective campaign led by Ferndale IRV:www.firv.org

* In Vermont, voters in Burlington overwhelminglypassed an advisory referendum on whether the city charter should beamended to use IRV for the election of the mayor. Under Burlington’scurrent charter, a candidate for mayor can win with as little as 40% ofthe vote (meaning 60% might consider that candidate the worst choice),and if no candidate achieves that threshold, a separate runoff electionis held. These provisions offer the worst of both worlds, creating therisk of a “spoiler”
scenario and also the potential cost and lowerturnout typical of a separate runoff. Some 66% of voters approved theballot item, meaning that a formal charter amendment is likely to moveforward in March.

* Voters in 16 western Massachusetts townsapproved a non-binding motion in support of IRV, by a margin of 11,956to 5,568. The question directed state representative Steve Kulik tovote in favor of legislation or a constitutional amendment to requireIRV for elections to statewide office (such as Governor, Treasurer,Auditor and Secretary of the Commonwealth

The final good news onthe instant runoff voting was San Francisco’s first IRV election.Despite introducing the system to voters in the midst of a presidentialyear, the city reported a smooth transition. First-choice results werereported on election night. With absentee and provisional ballots beingintegrated into the totals, initial runs of the IRV program shouldtake place on Friday — in the future we expect quicker results, andcities and states that require all absentee votes to be in place byelection night could run IRV tallies that evening. For a San FranciscoChronicle news article, see: http://archive.fairvote.org/sf/sfchronicle110304.htm

Beforeturning to our “Election 2004 by the Numbers”, I will make one pointabout the election process in this country. Many observers aresuggesting that the election went smoothly. Although we applaud all theelection officials, observers and alert voters who helped make ourelections work better than in they could have been, we would politelydisagree that having only 71% of our adult population registered tovote and forcing some voters to wait in lines that take more than 10hours are signs of a well-operating electoral process.

Morefundamentally, I believe we aren’t hearing as much about problems insignificant part because this year one state isn’t holding the futureof the presidency in an election requiring a recount. If Ohio had been100,000 votes closer, we suspect we would be hearing hourly storiesabout controversial practices, the “chads” that are used on Ohio’s manypunchard machines, why there were so many provisional ballots, howoverseas ballots were handled, double-voting and the like. We continueto have a patchwork of laws and practices that are an ongoing accidentwaiting to happen.

We are developing a series of recommendationsfor congressional action to protect our citizenship right to vote,starting with a right to vote in the Constitution and continuingthrough statutory changes such as universal registration to ensureclean and complete voter rolls, making Election Day a holiday to ensureboth an adequate pool of pollworkers and increased access for voters,and uniform standards for voting equipment. We can — and must — dobetter, and we would be foolish to become complacent.

Onto our report on “Election 2004 By the Numbers.” Our key findings include:

*The 2004 election was in fact a very status quo one, reflected by thenear exact Electoral College mirror of 2004 to 2000 and the almostperfect stasis in U.S. House races. Even the Senate gains fromRepublicans fit into this pattern, with all Republican gains coming onground that already was firmly Republican in 2000. Of course whenRepublicans control the White House and Congress, a status quo electionis a victory for their party.

* The House of Representatives hasreached a breathtaking level of non-competitiveness. More than 95% ofseats were won by margins of more than 10% – a record. Only fourincumbents outside of Texas didn’t win by at least 4%, and only threewere defeated. The House has changed partisan control only once since1954 – and unless Republicans suffer major setbacks in the 2006 midtermelection, it almost certainly
won’t change hands anytime soon. Thislack of competition is partly due to redistricting, partly due toincumbent advantages, partly due to campaign finance – but primarilydue to the fact of winner-take-all elections in single-memberdistricts. We support full representation voting methods as the oneindispensable part of any reform package seeking to provide realchoices and fair representation to all voters.

* Our MonopolyPolitics projections in US House races were extremely accurate onvictory margins. Made without any attention to campaign financing andcandidate behavior and using a one-size-fits-all model, we projectedlandslide wins in 211 seats – and 210 those seats indeed were won by20% landslide margins. Of the 13 seats we identified as most vulnerablewith our model, fully 7 changed parties – among only 11 of 435 seatsthat changed overall. Only six seats changed hands in 403 seats outsideof Texas.

Here is more detail on our findings for each level of election:

* Presidency

-George Bush certainly ran more strongly than in 2000, a year in whichhe received a half million fewer votes than Al Gore. This yearPresident Bush’s popular vote victory margin will likely be about 3.5million votes – and was much larger in total numbers of votes receiveddue to the rise in participation. His percentage of the vote roseconsistently by 2-3% in most states, reflecting a general rise in thenational tide of support — although one that Democrats countered tosome degree in such battlegrounds as Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin.

-At the same time, 48 of 51 the Electoral College contests (in the 50states and the District of Columbia) voted for or against Bushaccording to how they had voted for Bush in 2000. A shift of only35,000 votes in Iowa and New Mexico (Bush’s narrowest wins in 2004 andGore’s closest wins in 2000) and New Hampshire (Kerry’s closest win in2004 and one of Bush’s two closest wins in 2000) would have resulted inall 51 contests going exactly as they had gone in 2000.

– IfBush’s victory had been smaller – perhaps by one million votes insteadof three – John Kerry likely would have won Ohio and thus the ElectoralCollege and the presidency. That win would have meant two consecutivedysfunctional presidential elections where the popular vote winner didnot win the presidency. This year’s race easily could have gone to a269-269 tie, after which the U.S. House would have picked thepresident, with one vote per state – a tie would have occurred if Kerryhad won a total of 46,000 more votes in Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico(and perhaps a good deal less once all the provisional ballots arecounted).

– For those dismayed by how the presidential campaignsso clearly focused all their energy and resources on the 16-18 statesdefined as battlegrounds, watch out. If anything, the number ofbattlegrounds likely will decline in 2008. If this year’s national votehad been a 50-50 tie and the vote share had changed equally across thenation, only 5 states would likely have been decided by less than 4%,and only 15 states by less than 8%. Democratic states in fact are moresolid than Republican ones in this scenario – a tie vote this yearcertainly would have elected John Kerry based on this year’s results.Thus, don’t expect more inclusive presidential campaigning in 2008 –and quite possibly an even smaller one, with all attention again paidon the two big truly swing states, Florida and Ohio.

– ForRepublicans to win all 50 states, their candidate likely would need towin more than 63% of the national vote. (Republicans can forgetcompletely about winning in Washington, D.C., where Bush in 2004 didnot crack double digits). A similar vote share for Democrats wouldlikely win only 42 states; to win all 50 seats, their candidate likelywould need to win more than 70% of the national vote. These sharpdifferences reflect how the nation’s partisan polarization is veryreal. Exit polls suggest that George Bush won only 10% support fromAfrican-Americans (11% of all voters) and John Kerry won only 23% ofevangelical Christians (22% of all voters).

* U.S. Senate

-Republicans had a net gain of four seats in the Senate, but there areimportant caveats about the mandate in that result. First, in U.S.Senate races Democratic candidates overall won approximately threemillion
more votes than Republicans. Second, Republicans only gained seats in statesthat George Bush had carried in 2000 at the same time he lost thenational popular vote — Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina,
SouthCarolina and South Dakota. Third, five of their six seat gains were inopen seats without incumbents, and each of the winning Republicans inthese open seat races ran behind George Bush’s winning total in thestate.

– The sixth seat gain for Republicans was in SouthDakota, where Tom Daschle was defeated by less than 5,000 votes (andwhere he and his opponent John Thune spent more than $30 million in anelection where
390,000 votes were cast – more than $75 per vote).Daschle was the only Senate incumbent to lose; the Democrats’ two gainswere in open seats in Republican-leaning Colorado and Democrat-leaningIllinois.

* U.S. House of Representatives

-This House election was the least competitive in history. 416 out of435 seats (95.6%) were won by non-competitive victory margins of atleast 10%. 369 out of 435 seats (84.8%) were won by landslide marginsof at least 20%. More than 99% of incumbents outside of Texas won, withonly three (one Democrat and two Republicans) losing. (Four Democraticincumbents lost in Texas after being victimized by brutalgerrymandering, as detailed below, including two losing to Republicanincumbents.) Only one victorious incumbent won by less than 4%. Notethat these safe incumbents won in an election where the voter turnoutwas 50% higher than it had been in 2002 — but the new voters brokealong very similar partisan lines, based largely on the partisan natureof most districts.

– George Bush’s coattails were very limited.Outside of Texas (see below for more on the impact of that state’s 2003gerrymander), Republicans picked up only two seats in the U.S. Houseand lost four. Republicans defeated only one Democratic incumbent (by1,365 votes in a district that George Bush likely carried by more than45,000 votes) and gained only one open seat, winning by 31,000 in adistrict that Bush likely carried by 70,000 votes. All but two of theremaining Democratic incumbents won by margins of at least 10% — and those by the relatively comfortablemargins of 7% and 9%. Only five Democrats, including those defeatingincumbents and winning open seats, won by less than 7%, and only onewon by less than 4%. Republican targets among incumbents in 2006 arequite limited.

– Open seats went heavily to the party that had already been holding that seat– 29 of 33, with one of those seat changes in a much-changed districtin Texas. Of those 33 seats, 30 went to the candidate of the partywhose presidential candidate had carried the district in 2000.

-Tom Delay’s Texas gerrymander was immensely successful for Republicans.Democrats lost no seats in the 2002 elections after the 2002redistricting, resulting in a delegation that was 17-15 Democratic.Today, in the wake ofthis week’s elections in the 2003 plan, the delegation is 21-11Republican, a shift of six seats. Just as conceived by the plan’sarchitects, white congressional Democrats were decimated, reduced from10 in 2003 to three. Of these three, one (Edwards) won by just 4% inhis heavily Republican district, and the other two representLatino-majority districts. By 2012, it is quite possible that no whiteDemocrat will represent Texas in Congress.

– In November 2002,within days of the election, we issued our “Monopoly Politics”projections for November 2004 House races, for which we needed to knowabsolutely nothing about campaign financing, the quality of challengersand incumbent voting records and behavior. The only changes we havemade since then were factoring in the 33 open seats and the 32 seatschanged in the Texas redistricting plan. Once our one-size-fits-allformula was adjusted with that information, we projected 211 landslidewinners of at least 20% — and 210 indeed did win by landslide. Weprojected another 107 comfortable wins of at least 10% – and 105 indeeddid win. We projected another 33 winners – and 32 won. Yes, despitemissing only four projected margins out of 351, we did have two of ourprojected winners (Phil Crane in Illinois and the open seat inColorado’s CD-3) defeated – making three errors out of more than 1,600projected winners in the five House elections starting in 1996.

– Washington state voters adopted (even as California voters rejected) a versionof Louisiana’s “top two” system. This year’s elections were the latestexample of the quirks of this system. In Louisiana, all candidates runon the November ballot. If no candidate reaches 50%, the two topvote-getters face off in December. (In Washington, the first round willtake place in September, with the top two always facing off inNovember.) There will be two hotly contested runoffs this December incompetitive seats in Louisiana, both with one Democrat and oneRepublican.

In CD-3 all Republican candidates won a total of 59% of the vote and allDemocrats won a total of 41%. But the third-place Republican candidatefinished less than 2,100 behind the second-place Democrat, with another10,300 votes going to a Republican who lagged behind – the Decembercontest thus easily could have been between two Republicans. InWashington State, we suspect third party candidates will almost nevernow be able to contest the November election, and key races willregularly lack a candidate from one of the major parties.

* Women, racial minorities and third parties

– Women increased from holding 60 U.S. House seats to 64 seats, just shyof 15% of the House, A woman candidate has a solid chance of winningone of Louisiana’s two runoff elections in December. Women maintainedtheir 14% of U.S. Senate seats and will drop from nine gubernatorialseats to seven or eight depending on whether Christine Gregoire winsher undecided Washington State election.

– After gaining no U.S. House seats in 2002 after redistricting, African-Americansgained three new House seats in Texas, Missouri and Wisconsin. AsianAmericans gained a new seat in Louisiana, and Latinos a new seat inColorado. After six years without an African-American or Latino in theU.S. Senate, African American Barack Obama won in Illinois and LatinosKen Salazar and Mel Martinez won in Colorado and Florida. White men andwomen now hold 49 of 50 gubernatorial seats and 95 of 100 Senate seats.

-Third parties had a sharply reduced impact in the presidentialelection, with the total third party under 1%. Third parties also hadlimited impact oncongressional races, with only two victorious Senate and Housecandidates apparently held below 50%. Third parties increased theirnumber of seats in state legislatures, but primarily in Vermont, wherethe Progressives now hold six seats.

* Governors and state legislatures

-Gubernatorial elections continue to be the single-most competitivelevel of election in the United States. Fully half of all states havehad a governor from a new party in the past four years. Four of the 10governor’s races that have been decided changes parties – the 11th racein Washington is too close to call.

-According to the NationalConference of State Legislators, Democrats gained 76 state legislativeseats around the nation and picked up more legislative chambers thantheir Republican counterparts. As a reflection of a 50-50 nation,Democrats lead by just 12 seats out of a total of 7,382 seats. Wereported this fall that only 61% of state legislative seats were evencontested by both major parties See:
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2004/pr041103a.htm (NCSL news release)
http://archive.fairvote.org/reports/uncontestedraces.htm (uncontested races)

* Voter turnout

-According to Curtis Gans and the Committee on the Study of the AmericanElectorate (CSAE), voter turnout (not counting those who made mistakesin their votes for president) will likely end up being more than 120million adults, which is 59.6% of eligible citizens – the highest since1968, when 61.9% of turnout and up from 2000 (54.3%), 1996 (51.5%) and1992 (58.1%). Voter turnout rose in all but one state (Arizona). Wewill post CSAE’s report on Friday, November 5.

– Turnout in thepresidential battleground states increased by 6.3%. Turnout in theother states increased by only 3.8%. Turnout in noncompetitive New Yorkrose by only 0.8%, while in hotly contested Florida and Ohio it rose bymore than 8%.

At least three states voted at higher rates thanthe part of the United States that in 2000 and most other recent yearshas had the highest turnout in the nation: Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico isnot allowed to vote for president despite its people being Americancitizens, but it again had a hotly contested race for governor,resulting in turnout of 70.5% of eligible voters. According to CSAE,this year’s turnout was only higher in Minnesota (76.5), Wisconsin(73.7%) and New Hampshire (71.6%) and may ultimately be iin Oregon andMaine. Helping to explain its high turnout, Puerto Rico makes voting aholiday and has legislative elections that allow small parties to winseats through full representation. Minnesota, Maine, Wisconsin and NewHampshire all have election day registration. Oregon has vote-by-mail.

Thanks for reading, and stay tuned.

Rob