FairVote

FairVote (formerly the Center for Voting and Democracy) is a 501(c)(3) organization that advocates electoral reform in the United States.[3]

FairVote
FormationJune 1992 (1992-06) (as Citizens for Proportional Representation)
Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.
Type501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
PurposePromoting electoral reform in the United States
HeadquartersTakoma Park, Maryland, U.S.
President and CEO
Robert Richie[1]
Revenue
$4.3 million (2019)[2]
Staff
26[2]
Websitefairvote.org
Formerly called
The Center for Voting and Democracy, Citizens for Proportional Representation

Founded in 1992 as Citizens for Proportional Representation to support the implementation of proportional representation in American elections, the organization in 1993 became the Center for Voting and Democracy and in 2004 changed its name to FairVote to reflect its support of such platforms as instant-runoff voting (IRV), for single-winner elections, a national popular vote for president, a right to vote amendment to the Constitution, and universal voter registration.[4][5] FairVote releases regular publications on the state of the U.S. electoral system, including Dubious Democracy[6] and Monopoly Politics.[7]

Notable members of FairVote's board of directors include its chair, former Nirvana bassist Krist Novoselic. The previous chair was former Congressman and 1980 independent presidential candidate John Anderson.

About

Founding

FairVote was founded as Citizens for Proportional Representation (CPR) in 1992 in Cincinnati, Ohio, by a diverse group of scholars, grassroots activists, civic leaders, and politicians.[8]

The result of a merger of several smaller groups promoting proportional representation reform into a single, nationalized advocacy group, it originally had co-founder Robert Richie as executive director, co-founder Matthew Cossolotto as president and third co-founder Steven Hill as western regional director based in Seattle and later San Francisco. John Anderson was head of its national advisory board and in 1992 published a New York Times commentary advocating IRV in presidential elections.[9] The CPR ended its founding year operating in Alexandria, Virginia, with around 200 members.

Board of Directors, 2016[10]
Krist Novoselic, Chair
John B. Anderson, Chair Emeritus
Cynthia Richie Terrell
William Redpath
Hendrik Hertzberg
David Wilner
Katie Ghose
Paul Jacob
Tim Hayes
Michael Lind

History and timeline

Since its founding, FairVote has expanded its reach and expressed its platforms to both the public and all levels of government through campaigns, blogs, newsletters, lobbying, interviews, amicus curiae briefs, and numerous media outlets. Notable events include:

  • 1992: Ted Berry, the first African-American mayor of Cincinnati, conducts a welcoming speech at the CPR opening convention. Berry was a firm supporter of proportional representation and fought in the 1980s and 1990s to reinstate the practice in Cincinnati after its repeal in 1957.[11]
  • 1993: Citizens for Proportional Representation changes its name to the Center for Voting and Democracy to reflect support of other reforms, such as IRV and universal voter registration. The Center for Voting and Democracy relocates to Washington, D.C.[12]
  • 1994: Robert Richie appears on national radio to explain a federal judge's ruling that cumulative voting be used to settle a voting rights case in Cane vs. Worcester County, M.D.[13] The Center for Voting and Democracy releases the first Dubious Democracy, its biannual report on the state of democracy in congressional elections.[14]
  • 1996: Steven Hill runs the first campaign for electoral system reform in the US for several decades, a voter initiative to pass preference voting (proportional representation) in San Francisco. The campaign loses, 54-46%, but sets the stage for future victories.[15]
  • 1997: The Center releases Monopoly Politics, a report on the undemocratic elements of the single winner plurality system.[16] The Center's news conference is filmed on C-SPAN, and Rob Richie's opinion appears in The New York Times.[17]
  • 1999: IRV for statewide elections passes in the New Mexico State Senate.[18]
  • 2002: Led by western regional director Steven Hill, San Francisco becomes the first major city to pass a voter initiative, 54-46%, to adopt IRV for certain citywide elections[19]
  • 2002: Steven Hill's book Fixing Elections: the Failure of American's Winner Take All Elections[20] is published, making the case for electoral system reform in the United States.
  • 2004: San Francisco becomes the first city since Ann Arbor, Michigan, in 1975 to use IRV in public elections, after suing recalcitrant city officials to compel compliance with the law.
  • 2005: Arkansas institutes IRV for overseas military voters[21]
  • 2006: South Carolina institutes IRV for military and overseas voters and Oakland and Minneapolis pass it for city elections[22]
  • 2007: Maryland becomes the first state to pass the National Popular Vote plan for president[23]
  • 2010: Oakland, Berkeley and San Leandro, California, all use IRV for the first time to elect local offices.[24]
  • 2012: Robert Richie writes for The Huffington Post supporting a national popular vote for president[25]
  • 2013: Robert Richie coauthors the fourth edition of Every Vote Equal, a book explaining and supporting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[26]
  • 2014: New York lawmakers pass a national popular vote bill that will award the state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the majority of the popular vote[27]
  • 2015: FairVote co-hosts with the Washington College of Law a "Democracy Slam" with NBC's Chuck Todd and other leading journalists and professors, with its key reforms receiving high ratings.[28]
  • 2016: Maine becomes the first state to adopt IRV statewide, with FairVote having a FairVote Maine arm involved in the campaign.[29]

FairVote is headquartered in Takoma Park, Maryland.

Mission

The stated mission of FairVote is "a nonpartisan champion of electoral reforms that give voters greater choice, a stronger voice, and a representative democracy that works for all Americans."[30]

FairVote concentrates its efforts on electoral reform in the United States through research, education, outreach, and support of policies that foster equal representation and greater transparency within the electoral administration.[31]

The organization's projects fall into three broad categories: fair access to participation, fair elections, and fair representation. To that end, it sponsors programs like the Democracy Secretary of State (SoS) Project, which scrutinizes practices obstructing the voting process while proposing solutions to hold electoral officials accountable for their actions. The Promote Our Vote project focuses on local ideas to spur participation.[32][33]

Members of FairVote regularly write blogs, provide commentary in interviews, and offer internships for interested youth.[34]

Public perception

General coverage

FairVote has been covered by many major news outlets, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and NPR, which tend to call it a nonpartisan voting rights advocacy group.[35][36][37] Other commonly used terms include: "voting rights organization,"[38] "election reform advocacy group,"[39][40] "national reform organization,"[41] and "election participation and reform group."[42] The Denver Post referred to the group as "election-protection campaigners."[43]

Alleged liberal bias

In his New York Times profile of FairVote co-founder Steven Hill, Scott James called FairVote a "left-wing group".[44] Other writers have claimed that many FairVote policies, such as IRV, are popular in "liberal enclaves"[45] and supported by "populist groups" such as Common Cause, an advocacy organization,[46] and thus give the group a liberal tilt.[47] Louis Jacobson, a writer for Roll Call, argues that any group supporting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be perceived as liberal-leaning because of Democratic frustration with the Electoral College after the 2000 Presidential Election.[48] But Rob Richie, FairVote's president, has said, "[FairVote] is definitely not a Democratic stalking horse."[49] In addition, FairVote points to John Anderson, who was president of the organization's first advisory board and a current member of the Board of Directors, who ran for President as an Independent in 1980. In fact, before Anderson ran for President, he was a Republican Congressman from Illinois.

Proposed reforms

Released in 2013, Reform 2020 is a set of four goals that the group hoped to reach by 2020:[50][51]

Electoral procedure

FairVote advocates the use of instant-runoff voting (IRV) in single-winner elections.[52] Under this system, voters rank candidates in order of preference, in contrast to the more widely used plurality voting system. FairVote has spread the term "ranked-choice voting" (RCV) in the United States to describe single transferable vote and instant-runoff voting; the organization opposes Condorcet electoral systems, which are also ranked-choice voting systems.

In 2002, FairVote backed a San Francisco ballot initiative amending Section 13.102 of the city charter to allow IRV in local elections.[53][54][55] The city began using IRV to elect local officials on November 2, 2004.[53] Subsequent ballot initiatives supported by FairVote have allowed the use of IRV in the following cities (listed with first year of use):

FairVote supports modification of state laws governing the Electoral College so that the president is elected by national popular vote.[66] FairVote advocates the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,[67] an agreement among states and the District of Columbia to award their electoral votes to the candidate with the highest popular vote total in all 50 states and DC.[68] FairVote has played an active role in lobbying state officials to join the compact. New York Assemblyman Fred Thiele said he first proposed New York's entrance into the compact after being approached by FairVote.[69]

FairVote advocates the use of proportional representation (which they call "fair representation voting") in multi-seat assembly and council elections throughout the United States.[70] In this system, each candidate or party controls a share of seats equal to its share of the vote. The organization has proposed combining several congressional districts into one to allow for proportional representation in the United States Congress,[71] as well as in the California and Michigan state assemblies.[72][73] They advocate for several PR systems, including STV (which they also call "Ranked Choice Voting"),[74] cumulative voting,[75] unordered open list ("Open Ticket Voting"),[76] SNTV ("Single-Vote Method"),[75] and MMP ("Districts Plus").[77]

Voting rights

FairVote has backed the proposed Right to Vote Amendment (House Joint Resolution 44), sponsored by Representatives Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Keith Ellison (D-MN), under which citizens would be guaranteed a constitutional right to vote.[78] FairVote filed a policy brief in support of the legislation, stating, "We believe that the right to vote is a cornerstone of representative democracy that depends upon broadly defined voter eligibility, universal voter access to the polls, and election integrity."[79] FairVote has also advocated universal voter registration, a system in which all citizens of legal voting age would be registered to vote automatically.[80]

Research and reports

Election research

FairVote has conducted research on both presidential and Congressional elections. Most of its presidential election research focuses on the electoral college's effects on campaigning. In its 2012 Presidential Election analysis, FairVote documented the large disparity in both time and money spent in swing states (e.g., Florida) versus safe states (e.g., Maryland).[81] In addition, FairVote has begun publishing data on how much time sitting presidents spend in swing states.[82]

FairVote releases two main documents of Congressional research every election cycle. The first is "Monopoly Politics", which contains predictions and analysis for each race.[83] FairVote first categorizes each seat according to its competitiveness; seats are labeled Safe Democratic, Likely Democratic, Lean Democratic, Toss Up, Lean Republican, Likely Republican, or Safe Republican.[81] Relatedly, FairVote gives each district a partisanship ranking derived from previous elections. FairVote then predicts what percentage of the vote candidates will receive. Lastly, the research tries to predict incumbent winning percentages for the election cycle. For example, FairVote expects incumbents to do 4.5% better in 2014 than they did in 2012.[84]

The second major document is "Dubious Democracy", an assessment of Congressional elections' fairness.[85] By aggregating Congressional race data since 1982, the research attempts to highlight several elements of Congressional elections — the ratio of competitive to noncompetitive districts, the effects of gerrymandering, and voter turnout — that FairVote believes hurt the democratic process. In the report, every Congressional race is placed on a scale of competitiveness, from Tight (<5% margin of victory) to No Contest (>40% margin of victory), and the percentage of races within each category is tracked over time. In addition, the research tracks voter turnout and wasted votes over time. Lastly, the report follows the success of incumbents in winning reelection over time.[86]

In addition to Monopoly Politics and Dubious Democracy, after the 2010 midterm elections FairVote released data on the effect of third-party and spoiler candidates. The report found that there were many districts in which the winning candidate did not receive a majority of the vote, a fact the group finds problematic. In addition, the research highlighted races in which Independents garnered a sizable percentage of the vote.[87]

Finally, FairVote created Representation 2020, a project that hopes to achieve parity in the numbers of men and women serving in elected office.[88] The project has three main goals: institutionalizing changes in party rules to recruit and train more women to run for office, creating family-friendly legislative schedules, and replacing single-member districts with multi-member districts with proportional representation.[89][90] Representation2020 has since become a separate nonprofit called RepresentWomen; it is still closely aligned with FairVote.[91]

Voting rights

FairVote has created two projects that aim to expand and protect voting rights in the United States. The first, Promote Our Vote, tries to provide support and resources for groups focused on expanding voting rights. The group provides electoral research, legal analysis, and communications assistance. In addition, Promote Our Vote creates support for a constitutional right to vote amendment by building up support at the local level, focusing mainly on college campuses.[92][93]

The second project is Democracy SoS, which aims to familiarize voters with the important role of state-level Secretary of State officials.[94] To that end, the project has issued reports on state election preparedness, interviewed state election officials, and published voter guides that focus on election reform policies. The project also hopes to popularize its candidate surveys, which include questions about election planning and election integrity.[95]

Involvement in court cases

FairVote has participated in a number of recent court cases as amici curiae to advance fair representation voting, particularly under the California and federal Voting Rights Act.[96] Notable recent cases in which they have been involved include:

Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2007)

Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2007) dealt with the constitutionality of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA).[97]

After the California Superior Court of Stanislaus County declared the CVRA unconstitutional in favor of the City of Modesto, plaintiffs Enrique Sanchez, Emma Pinedo and Salvador Vera appealed to the Fifth Appellate District of the Court of Appeal of California.[97]

Along with Kathay Feng from the organization California Common Cause, FairVote submitted an amicus curiae brief in favor of the plaintiffs.[98]

FairVote argued that winner-take-all at-large voting systems caused "vote dilutions in jurisdictions affected by racially polarized voting, even where minority voters cannot form a majority in a single member district."[99]

Supporting the CVRA, FairVote viewed the law requiring courts to "fashion effective remedies to cure vote dilution affecting smaller and dispersed minority populations."[100]

Asserting that the CVRA allows California to become more representative of the people, FairVote concluded that the CVRA was an important and constitutional piece of government reform.[101] The Court of Appeal applied rational basis review to CVRA and declared the law constitutional, reversing the lower court's decision.[97]

United States v. Village of Port Chester (2008)

In December 2006, the United States Department of Justice alleged that Port Chester's at-large system of electing its board of trustees violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The US government claimed that the at-large electoral system denied the Hispanic population "an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice."[102]

In United States v. Village of Port Chester (2008), US District Judge Stephen Robinson of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision that the Village's election system violated the Voting Rights Act and ordered remedial plans from all parties.[102]

The Defendants of the case, the Village of Port Chester, proposed cumulative voting as a remedy, which "allows citizens to cast multiple votes for a given candidate for a given seat."[103]

In 2007, the Brennan Center, representing FairVote as amicus curiae, submitted a brief supporting cumulative voting as a remedy, but also proposing another system known as "choice voting", a process of ranking candidates.[103] FairVote argued that "cumulative and choice voting avoid the necessity for deliberately drawing districts along racial lines" and that a winner-take-all system would not allow the Hispanic minority population to gain representation.[104]

FairVote also argued that cumulative voting is appropriate under the Voting Rights Act, as it "ensures the equal principle of "one-person, one vote"", is race-neutral, and that it is supported by case law and history.[105] On November 6, 2009, the Court did not accept choice voting but accepted Port Chester's remedy of cumulative voting. On June 16, 2010, Port Chester elected its first Latino to the Board of Trustees.[103]

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis (2009)

FairVote Minnesota is an independent ally of FairVote.[106][107]

FairVote Minnesota, siding with the City of Minneapolis, served as intervenor-respondent in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis, a case that was attested at the Minnesota Supreme Court.[108]

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis dealt with the constitutionality of IRV, which was adopted by the City of Minneapolis for its municipal elections.[109]

Minnesota Voters Alliance, a non-profit organization who served as the appellants, argued that the "method violates their right to vote, to associate for political purposes, and to equal protection under both the United States and the Minnesota Constitutions".

Siding with the city, FairVote Minnesota stated that instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a form of RCV that allowed voters to rank multiple candidates on a single ballot.[110] They argued that this form of voting had legitimate policy reasons such as simplifying the election process, saving money, increasing voter turn-out, ensuring more diverse representation, and promoting civil election campaigns.[111]

In their defense of the City of Minneapolis, FairVote argued that the appellants bore a "heavy burden of persuasion" because they brought a facial challenge to the constitutionality of IRV"[112] and that "Minneapolis IRV is constitutional because it is supported by legitimate interests, imposes no burden on the right to vote, and applies to all voters".[113]

The Court affirmed the lower district court's ruling that IRV did not infringe on the appellants' constitutional rights, thus rejecting the Minnesota Voters Alliance's challenge to IRV.[109] After the result, Jeanne Massey, executive director of FairVote Minnesota, applauded the Minnesota Supreme Court decision and stated that the Court "blazed a path that every community in our state can follow toward better elections and a stronger democracy" and that the decision was "a resounding endorsement of ranked choice voting".[114]

Jauregi v. City of Palmdale (2014)

Juan Jauregui, the plaintiff, filed a complaint in April 2012 alleging that Palmdale's at-large method of electing members to its City Council resulted in vote dilution for Latino and African American residents.[115]

The lawsuit claimed that Palmdale's at-large method denied minority residents effective political participation and thus violated the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA).[115] The case was brought up to Judge Mooney of the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Los Angeles.

In July 2013, Judge Mooney declared that the CVRA vested the court in implementing appropriate remedies in favor of the plaintiffs.[116]

The City of Palmdale immediately appealed the decision, reasoning that in 2001 Palmdale residents voted for an at-large election system.[117] The case reached the California Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District.

On January 2014, FairVote submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs.[118]

FairVote argued that fair representation voting, unlike at-large systems, enhanced minority groups to elect at least one candidate of their choice.[119] FairVote advocated for a number of alternative methods, such as ranked choice voting, single voting, and cumulative voting.[120]

However, the City of Palmdale opposed FairVote's participation, arguing that the amicus brief "threatens significant prejudice to the City" as it would continue to delay the certification of the City's November 2013 election.[121] The California Court of Appeal has denied FairVote's application to file as amicus curiae.[96]

See also

References
  1. "National Office Staff". FairVote. Archived from the original on 5 March 2014. Retrieved 3 April 2014.
  2. "IRS Form 990". FairVote. Retrieved 16 December 2020.
  3. "Who We Are". FairVote. Retrieved 3 April 2014.
  4. "PR Web Sites". Mount Holyoke College. Retrieved 3 April 2014.
  5. "Reforms". FairVote. Retrieved 3 April 2014.
  6. "Dubious Democracy". FairVote. Retrieved 3 April 2014.
  7. "Monopoly Politics 2014". FairVote. Retrieved 3 April 2014.
  8. Poundstone, William (2008). Gaming the vote : why elections aren't fair (and what we can do about it) (1st ed.). New York: Hill and Wang. pp. 262. ISBN 0809048930. citizens for proportional representation founded 1992.
  9. "Celebrating 10 Years of Seeking Fair Elections! A Special Anniversary Edition". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  10. "Board of Directors". FairVote. Retrieved 3 April 2014.
  11. Laugle, Laura. "Proportional Representation in Cincinnati". University of Cincinnati. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  12. "Celebrating 10 Years of Seeking Fair Elections!". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  13. "Cane v. Worcester County, M.D." Leagle. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  14. "Dubious Democracy". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  15. "What's Your Preference? - October 23, 1996". SF Weekly. 1996-10-23. Retrieved 2019-01-15.
  16. Cook, Charles. "New Study Identifies 75 Seats That Should Be In Play for '98 Election". Roll Call. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  17. Richie, Rob. "First, Reform Constitutional Convention Rules". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  18. "HR 3232". 2001. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 4 March 2015. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  19. "Where Instant Runoff Voting Is Used". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  20. "FIXING ELECTIONS: THE FAILURE OF AMERICA'S WINNER-TAKE-ALL POLITICS by Steven Hill". www.fixingelections.org. Retrieved 2019-01-15.
  21. "IRV Bills Move Ahead". Ballot Access. Retrieved 5 April 2014.
  22. "BIG GAINS FOR INSTANT-RUNOFF VOTING IN VERMONT, SOUTH CAROLINA AND ALABAMA". Ballot Access. Retrieved 5 April 2014.
  23. "Maryland Legislature Passes Historic National Popular Vote Plan". FairVote. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
  24. "Oakland IRV: Yes on Measure O!". archive.fairvote.org. Retrieved 2019-01-15.
  25. Richie, Rob. "The Nonpartisan Case for National Popular Vote: Al Gore, not GOP Platform, Gets It Right". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 5 April 2014.
  26. Koza, John (December 2006). Every Vote Equal. Los Altos, CA: National Popular Vote Press. ISBN 978-0-9790107-0-5.
  27. "NY lawmakers approve 'National Popular Vote' bill". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 5 April 2014.
  28. "Democracy Slam 2015". Event Mobi. Retrieved 9 April 2017.
  29. "Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative, Question 5 (2016)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 12 May 2019.
  30. "About FairVote". FairVote. Retrieved 12 May 2019.
  31. "Research & Analysis". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  32. "Democracy SOS Project". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  33. "Engaging Millennials: Changing How We Vote and How We Organize". New York University. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  34. "FairVote: The Center for Voting and Democracy". Tufts University. Retrieved 3 April 2014.
  35. Segal, David (January 24, 2009). "Don't Name That Senator". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  36. Urbina, Ian (July 21, 2008). "Influx of New Voters Expected to Test New Technology". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  37. Anderson, John (September 28, 2007). "Let The Most Popular Candidate Win". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  38. Steinhauer, Jennifer (August 11, 2007). "States Try To Alter How Presidents Are Elected". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  39. Judkis, Maura (March 3, 2014). "Republic's live music events begin March 9 with Krist Novoselic". The Washington Post. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  40. Levien, Andrea (November 29, 2013). "In Va. Politics, The Glass Ceiling Has Few Cracks". The Washington Post. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  41. Shin, Annys (November 3, 2013). "Takoma Park 16-year-old Savors His History Making Moment at the Polls". The Washington Post. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  42. Khadaroo, Stacy (January 6, 2012). "The Ron Paul Effect". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  43. Fender, Jessica (October 14, 2008). "Cracking the CoDA: Liberal Web Effective". The Denver Post. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  44. James, Scott (October 6, 2011). "A Critical Spotlight Shines on Ranked Choice Voting". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  45. Brandt, Steve (November 20, 2010). "New Voting Not As Simple As 1-2-3". The Minneapolis Star Tribune. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  46. Common Cause
  47. Avlon, John (March 7, 2006). "The Fight for Redistricting Reform". The New York Sun. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  48. "Electoral Vote Reform: Is It An Idea Whose Time Has Come?". Roll Cal. May 10, 2006. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  49. "Rob Richie on the Election Process". CSPAN. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
  50. "Music And Activism Draw Crowd". Bethesda Gazette. Archived from the original on 22 April 2014. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  51. "Our Goals". Reform 2020. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  52. "FairVote.org | Instant Runoff Voting/Ranked Voting".
  53. "San Francisco Successfully Uses Ranked Choice Voting For Citywide Elections, Nov. 2005". Retrieved 20 April 2014.
  54. "City and County of San Francisco: Ranked-Choice Voting". Archived from the original on 2014-04-09. Retrieved 2014-04-21.
  55. "American Legal Publishing — Online Library".
  56. Richie, Rob (2014). "FairVote Survey Shows Support for Takoma Park Voting Reforms". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 20 April 2014.
  57. "Why RCV is Better | FairVote Minnesota". Archived from the original on 2014-04-23. Retrieved 2014-04-21.
  58. "Measure to overhaul municipal races passes | Star Tribune". Archived from the original on 2014-04-23. Retrieved 2014-04-21.
  59. "Oakland IRV: Yes on Measure O!".
  60. "PortlandVotes123 – Home".
  61. "Portland returns to electing its mayor | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram".
  62. Katz-Lacabe, Mike (20 January 2010). "City Council Approves Ranked Choice Voting — Election is Nov. 2, 2010" (Web). Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  63. Melo, Frederick (5 November 2011). "For St. Paul's ranked-choice voting, it's showtime". St. Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota). Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  64. "Illinois General Assembly – Full Text of SB0439". 2008. Retrieved 20 April 2014.
  65. Valenti, Jimy (2011). "Ranked voting will be on the ballot in Fort Collins". Retrieved 20 April 2014.
  66. "FairVote.org | National Popular Vote".
  67. "What is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?".
  68. "The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-10.
  69. "N.Y. Lawmakers Aim To Curb Electoral College". The New York Sun. 31 July 2006. Retrieved 4 March 2015.
  70. "Fair Voting/Proportional Representation".
  71. Richie, Rob; McCarthy, Devin (18 Oct 2013). "Rebuilding the 'big tent'" (Web). The Washington Post. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  72. "Competitive Elections & Fair Representation" (PDF). FairVote. Archived from the original (Web) on 6 September 2015. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  73. "Independent Districting and Districts Plus: A Powerful Reform Combination" (PDF). FairVote. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  74. FairVote.org. "How RCV Works". FairVote. Retrieved 2019-02-09. Note that when used to elect a multiple candidates to office, ranked choice voting is a form of fair representation voting, and it may be called single transferable vote or STV.
  75. "Other Fair Representation Voting Methods". FairVote. Retrieved 2019-02-09. This winner-take-all method can easily be made into a fair representation voting method by extending cumulative voting rights to the voters.
  76. FairVote.org. "Open Ticket Voting". FairVote. Retrieved 2019-02-09.
  77. FairVote.org. "Districts Plus". FairVote. Retrieved 2019-02-09. Districts Plus is a candidate-based form of voting known internationally as mixed-member proportional representation, or "MMP."
  78. "Pocan and Ellison Announce Right to Vote Amendment" (Web). 13 May 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  79. Hailey, Mollie (24 June 2013). "A Constitutional Right to Vote: The Promise of House Joint Resolution 44" (PDF). FairVote Policy Perspective. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  80. "Why Universal Registration?". FairVote. 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  81. Carroll, Susan (December 2013). Gender and Elections. Cambridge University Press. p. 114. ISBN 9781107026049.
  82. "Presidential Tracker". FairVote. Retrieved 23 December 2016.
  83. "Have the Midterm Elections Already Been Decided?". MSNBC. Archived from the original on 2 November 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  84. "Monopoly Politics 2014 Projections". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  85. "Dubious Democracy 1982-2010". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  86. "FairVote's "Dubious Democracy" report about United States House of Representatives elections". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  87. "Non-Majority Winners and Spoilers in 2010 Elections". FairVote. Archived from the original on 9 April 2014. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  88. "Forum On the State of Women's Representation". New York University. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  89. "Looking At Gender Parity". CSPAN. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  90. Moyers, Bill. "Why Does the US Still Have So Few Women In Office?". Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  91. Representation2020.com. "Frequently Asked Questions". RepresentWomen. Retrieved 2019-07-31.
  92. "US Needs Amendment To Protect Voting Rights For All". Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  93. "Promote Our Vote". The Right to Be Heard. Archived from the original on 22 April 2014. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  94. "Getting Ready For Election Day". State Innovation. Archived from the original on 22 April 2014. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  95. "Introducing Democracy SoS". Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  96. "Fairvote's Brief on Fair Representation Voting in Palmdale Case". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  97. "Sanchez v. City of Modesto". LexisNexis Academic. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  98. "Brief of Amici Curiae California Common Cause and Fairvote in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants — page 1" (PDF). California Common Cause and Fairvote. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
  99. "Brief of Amici Curiae California Common Cause and Fairvote in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants — page 4" (PDF). California Common Cause and Fairvote. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
  100. "Brief of Amici Curiae California Common Cause and Fairvote in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants — page 14" (PDF). California Common Cause and Fairvote. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
  101. "Brief of Amici Curiae California Common Cause and Fairvote in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants — page 34" (PDF). California Common Cause and Fairvote. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
  102. "United States v. Village of Port Chester (2008)". LexisNexis Academic. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  103. "United States v. Village of Port Chester". Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  104. "Brief of Amicus Curiae in United States of America v. Village of Port Chester" (PDF). FairVote. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  105. "Brief of Amicus Curiae in United States of America v. Village of Port Chester Page 11, 12, & 13" (PDF). FairVote. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  106. "Fairvote MN and Better Ballot Campaign 10-Year Gala". FairVote. Archived from the original on 22 April 2014. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  107. "Help FairVote MN's Ranked Choice Voting Video Win Thousands of Dollars For Fairer Elections!". FairVote. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  108. "Hennepin County Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al., vs. The City of Minneapolis" (PDF). Minnesota Supreme Court. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  109. "Hennepin County Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al., vs. The City of Minneapolis — Page 2" (PDF). Minnesota Supreme Court. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  110. "Brief of Intervenor-Respondent in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis — Page 1" (PDF). FairVote Minnesota. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  111. "Brief of Intervenor-Respondent in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis — Page 9 & 11" (PDF). FairVote Minnesota. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  112. "Brief of Intervenor-Respondent in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis — Page 12" (PDF). FairVote Minnesota. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  113. "Brief of Intervenor-Respondent in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis — Page 17" (PDF). FairVote Minnesota. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  114. "FairVote Minnesota Applauds Supreme Court Decision on Ranked Choice Voting". FairVote Minnesota. Archived from the original on 23 April 2014. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  115. "R. Rex Parris Joins Voting Rights Lawsuit Against Palmdale". GlobeNewswire. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  116. "Juan Juaregi v. City of Palmdale Statement and Decision" (PDF). Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles, Central District. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  117. "Palmdale to Appeal Voting Rights Act Decision". City of Palmdale. Archived from the original on 23 April 2014. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  118. "Fairvote's Amicus Curiae Brief In Support of Plaintiffs/Respondents" (PDF). FairVote. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  119. "Fairvote's Amicus Curiae Brief In Support of Plaintiffs/Respondents — Pages 3 & 4" (PDF). FairVote. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  120. "Fairvote's Amicus Curiae Brief In Support of Plaintiffs/Respondents — Pages 6,7, & 8" (PDF). FairVote. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
  121. "Appellant's Preliminary Opposition to Filing of Amicus Brief by FairVote" (PDF). City of Palmdale. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.