[EM] FWD - Update from the Center for Voting and Democracy

[Donald E Davison]

  ------------ Forwarded Update ------------
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:43:47 -0500
From: Rob Richie <FairVote at compuserve.com>
Subject: Flash: John Anderson for President?
Sender: Rob Richie <FairVote at compuserve.com>
To: Blind.Copy.Receiver at compuserve.com

11/19/99

To:   Center for Voting and Democracy
Fr:   Rob Richie, CVD Executive Director, http://www.fairvote.org
Re: - CVD Chair John Anderson Contemplates Bid for Presidency in 2000
        - Election '99 Commentaries in Washington Post,
          New York Times and USA Today
       - IRV News -- Big Vote in San Francisco on Monday
       - John Adams on Need for Proportional Representation

Our Center is non-partisan, of course, and cannot support any
particular candidate for President. But I wanted to draw your
attention to a news development of particular interest to us:
John Anderson is considering another run for the presidency.
Below is a news release and John's commentary that today is
being  circulated around the country.

Following John's commentary  is one example of several
important pieces on the need for electoral reform that appeared
at the time of the November 1999 elections -- this one by Stephen
Medvic and me ran in the Washington Post. For excellent
commentaries in USA Today (editorial) and the New York
Times (by Gail Collins), please visit "What's New" in our web
site at: http://www.fairvote.org

Note in addition that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
on Monday will vote on whether to place on the March 2000
ballot a measure to enact instant runoff voting for most San
Francisco elections, including the mayor's race -- an San
Francisco Chronicle op-ed by two members of the Board
of Supervisors is below.  An initiative to enact IRV for all
federal and state elections has been launched in Alaska,
and legislation is being crafted by in such states as New
Mexico, Utah and Vermont. Note that voters in Vancouver,
Washington this year approved a stand-alone charter amendment
to allow instant runoff voting to be adopted in the future; local
activist John Gear did remarkable work in winning endorsements
for the measure from most key political forces in the city.

Finally,  the update ends with a quote from John Adams, second
president of the United States. Adams suggests that legislatures
"should be in miniature an exact portrait of the people at large.
It should think, feel, reason and act like them."

#########

For Immediate Release                 Contact: Rob Richie
November 19, 1999                                (301) 270-4616

John Anderson: Preidential Run in 2000?

       1980 Independent Candidate Explains Potential Bid
       for Reform Party Nomination in New Commentary

       Proportional Representation and Instant Runoffs
       Highlighted in Former Congressman's Platform

Today the Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service circulated a
commentary by 1980 presidential candidate John B. Anderson
in which the former congressman reveals he is considering
another bid for the presidency.

A law professor and president of two non-profit organizations,
Mr. Anderson writes: "The complexity of our global society
and the degeneration of our democracy demand boldness,
innovation and frank talk."

Mr. Anderson is considered by many third party proponents to
be the father of today's increasingly active third party
movement. He stresses the need for independent and minor
party candidacies, writing that consultants to the major party
nominees will "urge them to focus on safe generalities and a
handful of wedge issues to pry support away from their
opponents. Move to the center, they say, but their center is a
void rather than the progressive spirit at the heart of the
American people."

Mr. Anderson, 77, represented Rockford, IL, in the U.S. House
of Representatives from 1961 to 1981, where he was in the
leadership of the Republican party. He currently is a
distinguished visiting professor at Nova Southeastern Law
Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He also is president of the
Center for Voting and Democracy in Takoma Park, Maryland
and the World Federalist Association in Washington, D.C.

[Note that the Center for Voting and Democracy is a non-
profit, non-partisan organization which studies the impact of
electoral systems and redistricting on voter turnout,
representation and governance. Its web site (www.fairvote.org)
has additional information about proportional representation,
instant runoff voting and non-partisan redistricting, all of which
are touted by Mr. Anderson in his commentary. For information
on these issues, please contact Rob Richie, (301) 270-4616.]

##########

"A Time for Principle"
By John B. Anderson

       In 1980, I ran for president. Many of those who
supported that effort have approached me about another
campaign. Let me explain why I am compelled to listen.

       On the brink of a new century, we cannot afford
complacency. The complexity of our global society and the
degeneration of our democracy demand boldness, innovation
and frank talk.

       But let me make a prediction about next year's
presidential election. After winning their respective
nominations, the Democratic and Republican nominees will
spend far more time avoiding substantive debate than
addressing the challenges facing us.

       I cast no aspersions on the leading contenders. They
include several admirable public servants. But in the zero-sum
world of winner-take-all elections, their consultants urge them
to focus on safe generalities and a handful of wedge issues to
pry support away from their opponents. "Move to the center,"
they say, but their center is a void rather than the progressive
spirit at the heart of the American people.

       Elections have too much promise for galvanizing citizen
participation and promoting new ideas to be left to pollsters
and focus groups. We need authentic voices offering real
choices.

       Turning to other parties is the obvious solution. Indeed,
I have spent much of the last two decades promoting a multi-
party democracy in the United States. That is why I
passionately support fair access to the ballot, public financing
of elections, non-partisan redistricting, instant runoff voting and
proportional representation.

       Yet the party best positioned to challenge the Democrats
and Republicans is in disarray. Building on Ross Perot's
campaigns of 1992 and 1996, the Reform Party has great
potential to bring Americans together around a package of
issues drawing from the best of all parties, including fiscal
responsibility, environmental protection, global problem-
solving, responsive government and competitive elections.

       Neither of the leading contenders for the Reform Party
nomination, commentator Pat Buchanan and businessman
Donald Trump, seem well-prepared to offer the optimistic,
forward-looking message that is so important to building a
lasting third party movement in America.

       My 1980 campaign as an independent stands in contrast.
Although unsuccessful in the short-term, my campaign inspired
many people to challenge the two-party system.

       The movement for a multi-party democracy in the
United States has grown steadily ever since. In the 1990s,
more minor party candidates have run for Congress than in
decades. Four states have elected governors running outside the
major parties. Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura's victory
was due in no small part to supporters of my 1980 bid.

       To gain a lasting foothold in American politics, new
parties must address the future, not the past. Let me provide
three examples.

       First, we must urge full participation in the global
community, seeing the world as the first astronauts saw it years
ago: one world whose political lines fade in the face of such
issues as global warming, population growth, fair trade, conflict
resolution and nuclear proliferation. Making the United Nations
and other global bodies a success is imperative for those
wanting a secure future.

       Second, we must create a more muscular, participatory
democracy. Major party candidates might support
democratically financed elections, but actually winning real
campaign finance reform in Congress will demand a true
outsider ready to challenge the leaders of both major parties.

       Third, despite shocking declines in voter participation,
particularly among young people, no candidate is talking about
the key to bringing people back to electoral politics: systems of
proportional representation that promote a free marketplace of
ideas, principled candidacies and a fair share of seats for any
political grouping able to mobilize support.

      It is imperative that we find a candidate willing to
promote such an agenda. We cannot afford silence in the
face of demands for a better world and more vital democracy.

      [John B. Anderson served 20 years in the U.S. House of
Representatives. He currently is a distinguished visiting
professor at Nova Southeastern Law Center: 3305 College
Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314.]

#######

"A Lock On Elections In Virginia"
By Rob Richie and Stephen K. Medvic
Washington Post. Sunday, October 31, 1999; Page B8

The partisan stakes in Virginia's legislative elections
on Tuesday have never been higher. After losing the
governor's mansion and the state Senate, Democrats
are fighting to keep a one-seat majority in the House
of Delegates. Republicans seek to sweep state
government for the first time since Reconstruction.

But behind a torrent of political ads lies a disturbing
reality: sixty-one delegate races out of 100 already
are decided with no major party opposition.

Why would the parties give up on nearly two-thirds
of the seats when a single seat change could shift
control of the legislature? They know that Virginia's
electoral rules make most races lopsided and
voters irrelevant.

If even 10 Virginia races are decided by victory margins
of less than 10 percent, it will be a surprise. In the
1990s three of four delegate races have been won
 by margins of at least 20 percent.

Since 1991 only 3 percent of the 300 delegate races
have resulted in a partisan shift. Republicans control
every seat they held in 1991 -- and have advanced
on Democrats one seat at a time.

Some blame this near-stasis on incumbency. Indeed,
only four incumbents have been defeated since 1991,
but most open seats also stay comfortably with one
party. In 1997 only one of nine open seats changed hands.

A better explanation for lack of competitiveness is that
most delegate districts are designed for one party. In
2001 Virginia will join the rest of the nation in drawing
new district lines -- including those for congressional
seats, where the closest race since 1994 was won
by 22 percentage points.

Redistricting means that incumbents will get to choose
their constituents before their constituents can choose
their representatives. Sen. Chuck Robb (D-Va.) admitted
recently, "How we vote this fall will determine who gets
to draw the lines -- and determine who gets elected to
the General Assembly for the next 10 years."

One result is that few legislative elections offer voters
real choice. Because Democrats controlled redistricting
in 1991, they were able to shield the house from
Republican control even as Republicans rolled up big
gubernatorial wins in 1993 and 1997.

But under the sheer size of Republican gains, that
shield is cracking. A loss of one more seat will mean
Republican control of redistricting in 2001 -- and that
is likely to cement GOP domination of the legislature
until the next redistricting in 2011. In short, most
Virginians' representation in 2009 will have far more
to do with which party wins two or three delegate races
in 1999 than with their votes in 2009.

So what can be done? Options range from the modest
to the profound:

* Make the redistricting process more public, with
increased media coverage and citizen input. Better yet,
 turn redistricting over to commissions not driven by
partisan concerns. Iowa's use of this approach has
resulted in more competitive elections.

Elect legislators in three-seat districts with an alternative
voting system. From 1870 to 1980, Illinois elected its lower
house by cumulative voting, which led to two-party
representation in nearly every district. Under this system,
voters can divide their three votes in any way they choose,
giving two votes to one candidate and one to another, for
example, or giving all three votes to a single candidate.
The result is more voter choice and more balanced
policy-making. Restoration of cumulative voting in Illinois
is supported by a bipartisan coalition.

Adopt a proportional representation system. Proportional
systems are used by most of the world's established
democracies because they give everyone a fair share
of representation, with seats earned by political groupings
in proportion to votes received. More voters participate,
and policy more closely reflects majority interests.
Gerrymandering is nearly impossible.

We should not dismiss the rising number of nonvoters
as apathetic rather than victims of a stagnant election
process. On the brink of a new century, it is time we
returned the power of decision and representation to
where it belongs -- with the voters.

[Rob Richie and  Stephen K. Medvic
are, respectively, the executive director of the Center for
Voting and Democracy and an assistant professor of
political science at Old Dominion University in Norfolk. ]

########

San Francisco Chronicle  
Tuesday, November 9, 1999      Page A25

Let's Try Instant Runoffs
By Mark Leno, Michael Yaki  

MANY SAN FRANCISCANS breathed a sigh of relief
after the November 2 elections.

But guess what? We have to do it again. San Francisco
uses a December runoff election when no candidate
receives 50 percent of the vote plus one, so the elections
for mayor and district attorney have another six weeks
to go. That means six more weeks of campaigning,
sound bites and doorways littered with campaign
literature as Willie Brown and Tom Ammiano try to
woo voters in their bid for the mayor's office, and
Terence Hallinan and Bill Fazio battle over the district
attorney job. That means the Department of Elections
must spend an estimated $1 million to set up all
the polling stations around the city, mail voter
pamphlets, train poll workers and count the votes.

With district elections for the Board of Supervisors
looming in November 2000, San Francisco voters
face the prospect of runoff elections every December.
The last time San Francisco used runoff elections
for the Board of Supervisors was in 1979, and five
out of six of the races required runoff elections. Five
out of the last six mayoral races have required
runoffs as well.

Fortunately, there is a faster, better and less
expensive alternative. It's called the instant runoff.

The instant runoff works just like a regular runoff,
except that voters don't have to return to the polls
in December to cast their runoff vote because
they have the option of ranking a first choice, a
second choice and a third choice in the general
election.

Then, if no candidate receives a majority of the
first choice votes, the instant runoff takes place.
The last-place candidate doesn't make the runoff,
and the ballots of voters who supported that
candidate get counted for whichever candidate
the voter listed second. This process of eliminating
the last-place candidate and transferring the votes
continues until one candidate gets a majority.

It's as simple as 1-2-3, and it ensures that every
voter gets to support a candidate with a chance
of winning. It also saves the taxpayer an estimated
$1 million per election cycle.

There are other benefits to the instant runoff. It
makes the November election the decisive one,
which is important because voter turnout has
dropped in four out of five of the last mayoral
runoff elec tions in San Francisco. Voters know
the election outcome sooner, campaigns don't
drag on and candidates don't have to scrape
together more money for a second election.

The instant runoff allows voters to express their
support for a favorite candidate, rather than being
forced to choose the ``lesser of two evils,'' because
voters have the option of ranking a ``realistic
candidate'' second on their ballot. Organizations
can form coalitions to support each other's
candidates. Voters can get excited about voting,
and even campaigning, for their favorite candidates
again.

The instant runoff can also improve the quality
of campaign debate. Candidates who know that
winning might require being the second or third
choice of those supporting rival candidates will
be less inclined to attack opponents and more
inclined to promote their own views and build
coalitions. Last year, voters in Santa Clara County
amended their county charter to permit, but not
require, the use of instant runoffs, and last Tuesday,
voters in Vancouver, Wash., approved a similar
measure. Instant runoffs have been used for more
than 70 years in Ireland and Australia, and the
mayor of London will be elected this way starting
next year. The same method is used to elect the
president of the American Political Science
Association, which knows a thing or two about elections.

The goal of the December runoff election is laudable:
to guarantee that a winner commands majority voter
support. That's one of democracy's fundamental
demands. But the alternative of instant runoffs offers
a faster, better and less expensive way to achieve
that goal. The estimated million dollars saved could
be better spent.

We think the instant runoff has enough merits that
it should be placed on the March 2000 ballot for San
Francisco voters to decide if they wish to elect their
local representatives in this way.

[Mark Leno and Michael Yaki are members of the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors. ]

########

JOHN ADAMS ON REPRESENTATION

"The principle difficulty lies, and the greatest care should
be employed in constituting this representative assembly.
It should be in miniature an exact portrait of the people at
large. It should think, feel, reason and act like them. That
it may be the interest of the assembly to do strict justice
at all times, it should be an equal representation, or, in
other words, equal interests among the people should have
equal interests in it. Great care should be take to effect this,
and to prevent unfair, partial and corrupt elections."
       - John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776