Jump to content

User:Lanem1234/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Lanem1234

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jessesl66 (talk | contribs) at 18:39, 25 March 2014 (→National Popular Vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Mission

FairVote seeks to form a more representative democracy "in which most Americans can elect representatives and hold them accountable, in which city voters are as important as suburban voters, in which people of color and women are as likely to win representation as white men and in which campaigns provide opportunities for substantive debate about a full range of policy ideas."[1] 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.[2] The organization's agenda falls into three broad categories: fair access to participation, fair elections, and fair representation. To that end, it supports such policies as universal voter registration, a constitutionally protected right to vote, a national popular vote for president, and instant runoff voting for single winner elections, and proportional voting in local, state, and national elections.[3] Other programs include the Democracy Secretary of State (SoS) Project that scrutinizes practices obstructing the voting process while proposing solutions to hold electoral officials accountable for their actions. Similarly, the Engaging Millennials project extends outreach to young voters.[4][5] In scholarship, members of FairVote regularly write blogs, provide commentary in interviews, and offer internships for interested youth.[6]

About

Founding

FairVote was originally founded in 1992 in Cincinnati, Ohio, as the Citizens for Proportional Representation by an eclectic group of scholars, grassroots activists, civic leaders, and politicians.[7] The result of a merge of several smaller groups all promoting proportional representation reform into a single, nationalized advocacy group, it originally consisted of Rob Richie as executive director, Matthew Cossolotto as president, and former Congressman and presidential candidate John Anderson head of the national advisory board.[8] The CPR ended its founding year with around 200 members and operated in Alexandria, Virginia.

History

Since its founding, the CPR (now FairVote) has expanded their reach and expressed their platforms to both the public and all levels of government through blogs, newsletters, lobbying, interviews, amicus curiae briefs, and other media outlets. Several noted events include:

  • 1992: Ted Berry, the first African-American mayor of Cincinnati, conducts a welcoming speech at the opening convention of the CPR. 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.[9]
  • 1993: The Citizens for Proportional Representation changed its name to the Center for Voting and Democracy to avoid the negative and often inaccurate connotations many voters associated with the term "proportional representation" and to reflect support of other such reforms as instant runoff voting and universal voter registration. The Center for Voting and Democracy relocated to Washington, D.C.[10]
  • 1994: Rob Richie appears on national radio to explain a federal judge's ruling of using cumulative voting to settle a voting rights case in Worcester County, Maryland.[11] The Center for Voting and Democracy releases the first Dubious Democracy, its biannual report on the state of democracy in congressional elections.[12]
  • 1997: The Center releases Monopoly Politics, a report on the undemocratic elements of the single winner plurality system.[13] The Center's news conference is filmed on C-SPAN, and Rob Richie's opinion appears in the New York Times.[14]
  • 1999: Instant runoff voting for statewide elections in Vermont shows strong support and passes in the New Mexico State Senate.[15]
  • 2002: San Francisco becomes the first major city to adopt instant runoff voting for certain city-wide elections (mayor, city attorney, Board of Supervisors and five additional citywide offices).[16]

Presently, the Center for Voting and Democracy operates under the name FairVote and is headquartered in Takoma Park, Maryland.

Staff and Leadership

National Office Staff

The current national office staff is comprised of:

  • Rob Richie, Executive Director and founding member[17]
  • Cynthia Terrell, Member Relations and founding member[18]

Board of Directors

The current Board of Directors[19] is comprised of:

  • Krist Novoselic, Chair, former bass player of Nirvana[20]
  • Edward Hailes, Vice-Chair[21]
  • Cynthia Terrell, Secretary, member of the American Friends Service Committee[22]
  • William Redpath, Treasurer
  • John Anderson, former Republican U.S. Congressman, former independent presidential candidate[23]
  • Hendrik Hertzberg, Senior Editor of The New Yorker
  • David Wilner
  • Katie Ghose
  • Paul Jacob*
  • Esperanza Tervalon-Daumont*
  • Tim Hayes*

Advisory Committee

The current Advisory Committee[24] is comprised of:

  • Nikolas Bowie, Harvard law student
  • Kahlil Byrd, President of StudentsFirst
  • Erin Bowser, former Executive Director of Environment Ohio
  • Antonio Gonzalez, President of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project
  • Malia Lazu, Executive Director of Future Boston Alliance
  • Laura Liswood, CEO of Council on Women's World Leaders
  • Pete Martineau, Board Member of Californians for Electoral Reform
  • Nina Moseley, former Executive Director of Democracy South
  • Clay Mulford, COO of National Math and Science Initiative
  • Rashad Robinson, Executive Director at Color or Change
  • Katherine Spillar, Executive Editor of Ms. Magazine

Proposed Reforms

Instant Runoff Voting

FairVote has advocated the use of instant-runoff voting (IRV) in elections[25] . Under this system, voters rank candidates in order of preference, in contrast to a plurality voting system.

In 2002, FairVote backed a San Francisco ballot initiative amending Section 13.102 of the city charter to allow instant-runoff voting in local elections. [26][27] [28] The city began using IRV to elect local officials on November 2, 2004.[29] Subsequent ballot initiatives supported by FairVote have since allowed the use of IRV in the following cities (listed with first year of use) :

  • Minneapolis, Minnesota (2009) [30] [31]
  • Oakland, California (2010) [32]
  • Portland, Maine (2010) [33] [34]
  • San Leandro, California (2010) [35]
  • St. Paul, Minnesota (2011) [36]
  • Springfield, Illinois (2011)
  • Takoma Park, Maryland (2012)
  • Telluride, Colorado (2011)
  • Memphis, Tennessee (Not in use, scheduled for use in 2015)
  • Santa Fe, New Mexico (Not in use, scheduled for use in 2016)

FairVote supports the replacement of the Electoral College with a national popular vote in the United States presidential election.[37] FairVote advocates the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, [38] an agreement between several states and the District of Columbia to award their electoral votes to the candidate with the highest popular vote total.[39]

FairVote has played an active role in lobbying state officials to join the compact. In New York, assemblyman Fred Thiele claimed to have first proposed New York's entrance into the compact after being approached by FairVote.[40]

Proportional Representation

FairVote supports the use of proportional representation in multi-seat assembly and council elections throughout the United States. [41] In this system, each candidate or party controls a share of the 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, [42] as well as the California and Michigan state assemblies.[43] [44]

Right to Vote Amendment

FairVote has backed the proposed Right to Vote Amendment (House Joint Resolution 44), sponsored by congressmen Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) (under which citizens would be guaranteed a constitutional right to vote.[45] FairVote filed a policy brief in support of the legislation, stating that "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." [46]

Universal Voter Registration

FairVote advocates universal voter registration, a system in which all citizens of legal voting age would be registered to vote automatically.[47]

Research and Projects

Presidential Elections

Presidential Tracker

FairVote has completed Presidential Election research mainly with respect to the effects of the Electoral College on activity and spending in certain states. For the 2012 Election, their analysis included disparities in both time and money spent in "swing states" as compared to the rest of the country.[48] In addition, after the 2008 election, FairVote tracked the movements of President Obama and released data on his spending the majority of his out-of-DC-time in states that would be crucial to him in his re-election.[49]

Congressional Elections

Monopoly Politics

Every Congressional election cycle, FairVote produces a Monopoly Politics document, which contains predictions and analysis for each seat.[50] For each seat, FairVote predicts what percentage of the vote the Democratic and Republican candidates will get. In addition, they categorize each seat according to its competitiveness; seats are deemed to be "Safe Democratic, Likely Democratic, Lean Democratic, Toss Up, Lean Republic, Likely Republican, or Safe Republican."[51] FairVote also provides analysis of the partisanship of the district given past elections, as well as the relationship between the party the district votes for in the Presidential election compared to the Congressional election. Finally, the document predicts aggregate incumbent winning percentages. For example, in the 2014 mid term elections, incumbents are predicted to fare 4.5% better than they did in 2012.[52]

Dubious Democracy

Using data from 1982 to the present, FairVote produces a Dubious Democracy report every two years.[53]The report contains analysis of aggregated Congressional races during that time period. Included in the report are seat-to-vote ratios and the ratio of competitive to noncompetitive districts, as well as voter turnout and wasted votes. In addition, the report breaks down the elections on a scale of competitiveness, from Tight (<5% margin of victory) to No Contest (>40% margin of victory). Lastly, the report tracks incumbent re-election success.[54]

Spoiler Candidates

FairVote's Congressional Election research tends to focus on the need for IRV. After the 2010 mid term elections, the group released data on the impact of third party and spoiler candidates, who created districts in which Representatives were elected with a minority of the vote. As well, the report focused on races in which independents received a sizeable percentage of the vote.[55]

Voting Rights

Promote Our Vote

Promote Our Vote was created by FairVote in order 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 aims to try and create support for a constitutional right to vote amendment by building up support at the local level--focusing mainly on college campuses.[56][57]

Democracy SOS

Democracy SOS is a FairVote project that aims to raise awareness and provide attention to voting rights issues.[58] The project has issued reports on election preparedness in swing states, interviewed election officials, and published voter guides that focus on election reform policies and promises. As well, Democracy SOS hopes to popularize its candidate surveys, which include questions about election planning and integrity. The project focuses on familiarizing voters with the role of state Secretary of States (hence, Democracy SOS) and the election power they hold.[59]

Female Representation

Representation 2020

Representation 2020 is a project that hopes to achieve parity between the number of men and women serving in elected office.[60] The project consists of 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. [61][62]

Reform 2020

Released in 2013, Reform 2020 is a set of four goals that the group hopes to reach by 2020. [63][64] The goals are:

  • Fair Representation Voting
  • Ranked Choice Voting
  • Constitutional Right to Vote
  • National Popular Vote

Amicus Briefs

FairVote has participated in a number of amicus briefs for electoral reform. They have advocated in some notable cases:

  1. Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2007) [65] [66]
  2. Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis (2009) [67] [68]
  3. United States v. Village of Port Chester (2010) [69] [70]
  4. Libertarian Party of North Carolina v. State of North Carolina (2011) [71]
  5. Jauregi v. City of Palmdale (2014) [72]

Involvement in Court Cases

Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2007)

Along with Kathay Feng for California Common Cause, Fairvote submitted an amicus brief in favor of the plaintiffs. Fairvote's main argument was that winner-take-all at-large voting systems caused vote dilution in jurisdictions affected by racially polarized voting, even where minority voters cannot form a majority in a single member district. They continued to argue that the CVRA required courts to fashion effective remedies to cure vote dilution affecting smaller and dispersed minority populations. Advocating for Choice Voting and viewing benefits of modified at-large voting systems as remedies for vote dilution, Fairvote concluded that the CVRA is an important piece of good government reform that the Court should uphold against the instant constitutional challenge. [73]

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis (2009)

Fairvote Minnesota served as intervenor-respondent, siding with the City of Minneapolis. Fairvote argued that appellants bore a "heavy burden of persuasion" because they brought a facial challenge to the constitutionality of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). They argued that the Court should not apply strict scrutiny to IRV and that the District Court correctly determined that IRV weighed and counted all votes equally in accordance with the US and Minnesota constitutions. [74] After the result, Jeanne Massey applauded the Minnesota Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of Minneapolis’ ranked choice voting (RCV) law. RCV is a system by which voters rank candidates in order of preference, ensuring majority winners in single-winner races where there are more than two candidates on the ballot. Under RCV, voters cast their vote for their favorite candidate knowing that if he or she doesn’t gather enough votes to be one of the top two finishers, their votes will count toward their second choice. Votes cast for the least popular candidate are not "wasted", but rather redistributed to more popular candidates, based on the voters' second choices, until one candidate emerges with a majority of votes. In multi-winner elections, like the Minneapolis Park Board, ranked choice voting ensures majority rule while empowering small groups of voters with greater opportunity to elect a candidate that represents them. [75]

United States v. Village of Port Chester (2010)

In December 2006, the Department of Justice filed a complaint against the Village of Port Chester alleging that Port Chester's at-large system of electing its board of trustees dilutes the voting strength of the Village's Hispanic citizens in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On January 17, 2008, the court issued a decision finding that the Village's at-large system did indeed violate the Voting Rights Act and requested remedial plans from the parties. The Defendants, 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. The Brennan Center, representing FairVote as amicus curiae, while supporting cumulative voting as a remedy, also proposed an alternative system known as "choice voting." In choice voting, voters maximize their vote's effectiveness by ranking candidates.The Defendants, 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. The Brennan Center, representing FairVote as amicus curiae, while supporting cumulative voting as a remedy, also proposed an alternative system known as "choice voting." In choice voting, voters maximize their vote's effectiveness by ranking candidates. [76]

Jauregi v. City of Palmdale (2014)

Working with attorneys from Hogan Lovells, FairVote on January 16, 2014 submitted an amicus brief explaining the merits and legality of fair representation voting methods such as ranked choice voting and cumulative voting. FairVote has advanced fair representation voting through several amicus briefs in cases brought under the California and federal Voting Rights Acts. Both Acts prohibit racial minority vote dilution, and FairVote has consistently argued in court and in scholarship that fair representation voting is a legal and effective (often the most effective) remedy to vote dilution. However, the California Court of Appeal denied their application for leave to file as amicus curiae, after the City of Palmdale opposed Fairvote's participation, principally because the City felt they would not have adequate time to reply. [77]

Law Reviews

In addition to amicus briefs, FairVote has partcipated in law reviews. [78]

The Right Choice for Elections (University of Richmond Law Review)

In 2013, FairVote executive director Rob Richie and staff attorney Drew Spencer co-authored a law review article arguing for ranked choice voting as a remedy to vote dilution and to democratic dysfunction more generally. Titled "THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR ELECTIONS: HOW CHOICE VOTING WILL END GERRYMANDERING AND EXPAND MINORITY VOTING RIGHTS, FROM CITY COUNCILS TO CONGRESS", the article was published under the University of Richmond Law Review. [79]

Public Perception

General Coverage

While FairVote has little popular name recognition, it has received significant media coverage. Many major news outlets--including the Washington Post, the New York Times, and NPR--have published or produced content related to the group. When referenced, FairVote tends to be cited as a non-partisan, voting rights advocacy group[80] [81] [82]. Other commonly used terms include: "voting rights organization," [83] "election reform advocacy group," [84] [85] "national reform organization," [86] and "election participation and reform group." [87] The Denver Post referred to the group as "election-protection campaigners." [88]

Alleged Liberal Bias

FairVote has occasionally been accused of having a liberal bias. Scott James of the New York Times referred to FairVote as a "left-wing group" who "have relentlessly berated people who have raised concerns."[89] Other writers claim that many FairVote policies, such as IRV, are popular in "liberal enclaves"[90] and supported by "populist groups" such as Common Cause, a liberal advocacy organization[91], and thus indirectly give the group a liberal tilt.[92] Some argue that any group supporting NPV will be perceived as liberal leaning because of Democratic anger with the Electoral College after the 2000 Presidential Election.[93]


References

  1. ^ "Who We Are". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  2. ^ "Research & Analysis". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  3. ^ "Who We Are". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  4. ^ "Democracy SOS Project". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  5. ^ "Engaging Millennials: Changing How We Vote and How We Organize". New York University. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  6. ^ "For Press". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  7. ^ Poundstone, William (2008). Gaming the vote : why elections aren't fair (and what we can do about it) (1st ed. ed.). New York: Hill and Wang. p. 262. ISBN 0809048930. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  8. ^ "Celebrating 10 Years of Seeking Fair Elections! A Special Anniversary Edition". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  9. ^ Laugle, Laura. "Proportional Representation in Cincinnati". University of Cincinnati. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  10. ^ "Celebrating 10 Years of Seeking Fair Elections!". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  11. ^ "Cane v. Worcester County, M.D." Leagle. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  12. ^ "Dubious Democracy". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  13. ^ Cook, Charles. "New Study Identifies 75 Seats That Should Be In Play for '98 Election". Roll Call. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  14. ^ Richie, Rob. "First, Reform Constitutional Convention Rules". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  15. ^ Langan, James (2005). "Instant Runoff Voting: A Cure That Is Likely Worse than the Disease". William and Mary Law Review. 46 (4). {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  16. ^ "Where Instant Runoff Voting Is Used". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  17. ^ "National Office Staff". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  18. ^ "National Office Staff". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  19. ^ "Board of Directors". FairVote.
  20. ^ "Krist Novoselic: Chair". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  21. ^ "Edward Hailes: Vice Chai". FairVote.
  22. ^ "Cynthia Terrell: Board Secretary". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  23. ^ "John B. Anderson: Chair Emeritus". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  24. ^ "Advisory Committees". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  25. ^ "FairVote.org | Instant Runoff Voting/Ranked Voting".
  26. ^ [www.sfrcv.com www.sfrcv.com]. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  27. ^ "City and County of San Francisco: Ranked-Choice Voting".
  28. ^ "American Legal Publishing - Online Library".
  29. ^ [www.sfrcv.com www.sfrcv.com]. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  30. ^ "Why RCV is Better | FairVote Minnesota".
  31. ^ "Measure to overhaul municipal races passes | Star Tribune".
  32. ^ "Oakland IRV: Yes on Measure O!".
  33. ^ "PortlandVotes123 – Home".
  34. ^ "Portland returns to electing its mayor | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram".
  35. ^ Katz-Lacabe, Mike (20 January 2010). "City Council Approves Ranked Choice Voting - Election is Nov. 2, 2010" (Web). Retrieved 25 March 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  36. ^ Melo, Frederick (5 November 2011). "For St. Paul's ranked-choice voting, it's showtime". St. Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota). Retrieved 25 March 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  37. ^ "FairVote.org | National Popular Vote".
  38. ^ "What is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?".
  39. ^ "The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote" (PDF).
  40. ^ "N.Y. Lawmakers Aim To Curb Electoral College". The New York Sun. 31 July 2006. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  41. ^ "Fair Voting/Proportional Representation".
  42. ^ Richie, Rob (18 Oct 2013). "Rebuilding the 'big tent'" (Web). The Washington Post. Retrieved 25 March 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  43. ^ "Competitive Elections & Fair Representation" (Web). FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  44. ^ "Independent Districting and Districts Plus: A Powerful Reform Combination" (PDF). FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  45. ^ "Pocan and Ellison Announce Right to Vote Amendment" (Web). 13 May 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  46. ^ Hailey, Mollie (24 June 2013). "A Constitutional Right to Vote: The Promise of House Joint Resolution 44" (PDF). FairVote Policy Perspective. Retrieved 25 March 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  47. ^ "Why Universal Registration?". FairVote. 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  48. ^ Carroll, Susan (December 2013). Gender and Elections. Cambridge University Press. p. 114. ISBN 9781107026049.
  49. ^ "Presidential Tracker". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  50. ^ "Have the Midterm Elections Already Been Decided?". MSNBC. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  51. ^ Carroll, Susan (December 2013). Gender and Elections. Cambridge University Press. p. 114. ISBN 9781107026049.
  52. ^ "Monopoly Politics 2014 Projections". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  53. ^ "Dubious Democracy 1982-2010". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  54. ^ "FairVote's "Dubious Democracy" report about United States House of Representatives elections". Ballotopedia. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  55. ^ "Non-Majority Winners and Spoliers in 2010 Elections". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  56. ^ "US Needs Amendment To Protect Voting Rights For All". Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  57. ^ "Promote Our Vote". The Right to Be Heard. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  58. ^ "Getting Ready For Election Day". State Innovation. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  59. ^ "Introducing Democracy SoS". Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  60. ^ "Forum On the State of Women's Representation". New York University. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  61. ^ "Looking At Gender Parity". CSPAN. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  62. ^ Moyers, Bill. "Why Does the US Still Have So Few Women In Office?". Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  63. ^ "Music And Activism Draw Crowd". Bethesda Gazette. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  64. ^ "Our Goals". Reform 2020. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  65. ^ "Brief of Amici Curiae California Common Cause and Fairvote in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants" (PDF). Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  66. ^ "Sanchez v. City of Modesto". LexisNexis Academic. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  67. ^ "Brief of Intervenor-Respondent" (PDF). State of Minnesota Supreme Court. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  68. ^ "Minn. Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis". LexisNexis Academic. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  69. ^ "United States v. Village of Port Chester". Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  70. ^ "United States v. Vill. of Port Chester". LexisNexis Academic. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  71. ^ "Libertarian Party v. State". LexisNexis Academic. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  72. ^ "Fairvote's Brief on Fair Representation Voting in Palmdale Case". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  73. ^ "Brief of Amici Curiae California Common Cause and Fairvote in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants" (PDF). Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  74. ^ "Brief of Intervenor-Respondent" (PDF). State of Minnesota Supreme Court. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  75. ^ "FairVote Minnesota Applauds Supreme Court Decision on Ranked Choice Voting". FairVote Minnesota. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  76. ^ "United States v. Village of Port Chester". Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  77. ^ "Fairvote's Brief on Fair Representation Voting in Palmdale Case". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  78. ^ "Fairvote's Major New Publications and Opeds". FairVote. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  79. ^ "The Right Choice for Elections" (PDF). University of Richmond Law Review. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  80. ^ Segal, David (January 24, 2009). "Don't Name That Senator". New York Times. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  81. ^ Urbina, Ian (July 21, 2008). "Influx of New Voters Expected to Test New Technology". New York Times. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  82. ^ Anderson, John (September 28, 2007). "Let The Most Popular Candidate Win". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  83. ^ Steinhauer, Jennifer (August 11, 2007). "States Try To Alter How Presidents Are Elected". New York Times. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  84. ^ Judkis, Maura (March 3, 2014). "Republic's live music events begin March 9 with Krist Novoselic". The Washington Post. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  85. ^ Levien, Andrea (November 29, 2013). "In Va. Politics, The Glass Ceiling Has Few Cracks". The Washington Post. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  86. ^ 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.
  87. ^ Khadaroo, Stacy (January 6, 2012). "The Ron Paul Effect". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  88. ^ Fender, Jessica (October 14, 2008). "Cracking the CoDA: Liberal Web Effective". The Denver Post. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  89. ^ James, Scott (October 6, 2011). "A Critical Spotlight Shines on Ranked Choice Voting". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  90. ^ Brandt, Steve (November 20, 2010). "New Voting Not As Simple As 1-2-3". The Minneapolis Star Tribune. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  91. ^ "Common Cause". Wikipedia. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  92. ^ Avlon, John (March 7, 2006). "The Fight for Redistricting Reform". The New York Sun. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  93. ^ "Electoral Vote Reform: Is It An Idea Whose Time Has Come?". Roll Cal. May 10, 2006. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Lanem1234/sandbox&oldid=601230986"