Equal Vote Coalition

Last updated
The Equal Vote Coalition
Type 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
PurposePromoting electoral reform in the United States
Website equal.vote

The Equal Vote Coalition is a nonpartisan American electoral reform group that advocates for voting methods including STAR Voting, Approval Voting, and Condorcet voting. [1] [2]

Contents

The Equal Vote Coalition argues that Choose One Plurality voting is inherently unequal, leading to an outsized influence of money in politics, hyper-partisan rancor, and widespread electoral disenchantment. [3]

The Equal Vote Coalition is a 501c3 nonprofit with a small staff, a board of directors, and engaged volunteer base. Their work focuses on education on voting methods and voting reform issues, coalition building in the voting reform movement, and conducts and supports research into social choice theory and electoral reform. The coalition hosts events such as webinars, monthly chapter meetings, and informational events to engage and mobilize activists.

History

The Equal Vote Coalition was established in 2014 by Mark Frohnmayer [4] following his 2014 voting reform campaign to implement the Unified Primary [5] system in Oregon, which incorporated a nonpartisan Approval Voting primary with a top-two runoff. [6] The Unified Primary system has since been adopted in St. Louis. [7]

As its first event, the Equal Vote Coalition hosted an Equal Vote Conference [8] at the University of Oregon which included leading advocates for Approval Voting, Ranked Choice Voting, Score Voting, and leaders in the Oregon voting reform movement including advocates for Oregon's Vote by Mail initiative. At the time, the reform community was very split between advocates for ordinal voting methods and cardinal voting methods, with both sides arguing that the other side's proposals were unworkable. The debate led to the idea for what is now known as the STAR Voting method, which is a hybrid of the two approaches.

In 2017, preliminary studies modeling Voter Satisfaction Efficiency from the Center For Election Science showed STAR Voting significantly outperforming both Ranked Choice and Approval Voting in both producing accurate outcomes and incentivizing honest non-strategic voting. The models also showed that a 0-5 ballot performed as well as larger scales, which led the Equal Vote Coalition to adopt the 0-5 star ballot and to name the method STAR Voting. Shortly after, the Equal Vote Coalition coalitioned with a number of other Oregon electoral reform organizations which had voted to support STAR Voting, including RCV Oregon, and the Oregon chapter of Represent.Us, and launched twin ballot initiatives to implement STAR Voting in Lane County [9] and Multnomah County, respectively. [10]

The Equal Vote Coalition was incorporated as a 501c3 nonprofit in 2019. [2] by Sara Wolk, Alan Zundel, and Mark Frohnmayer. Initially focused in Oregon, the coalition has since expanded its efforts across the United States and internationally, engaging with researchers and activists to promote voting equality. [11] In 2020 the STAR Voting Action 501c4 nonprofit was founded to focus on advocacy and campaigns for STAR Voting more specifically.

Primary initiatives

Social choice theory

STAR voting

STAR (Score Then Automatic Runoff) voting is the flagship initiative of the Equal Vote Coalition. In STAR Voting, voters score candidates from 5 stars (best) to 0 stars (worst). The two highest-scoring candidates overall proceed to an automatic runoff in which each voter's vote automatically goes to the finalist that voter preferred. The finalist with the most votes wins. This method aims to eliminate vote splitting, which they argue will encourage more positive campaigning and fairer elections. [12] [3]

Other Voting Methods

In addition to STAR, the Equal Vote Coalition supports other voting methods that align with its core principles and that maximize its five pillars for electoral reform; Equality, Accuracy, Honesty, Expression, and Simplicity. [13] These include Approval Voting and certain Condorcet methods such as Ranked Robin. [14] The group argues these methods can help achieve a more equal and representative voting system while promoting competition. [15] Equal Vote has also advocated for the unified primary system, which consists of an approval voting primary election followed by a top two runoff general election. [16]

Voter Education and Consulting

The Equal Vote Coalition offers voter education and consulting services to groups and organizations interested in learning more about electoral reform or taking a position on voting reform, offering consulting, presentations, and a slate of education and voter engagement resources.

Election Implementation

The Equal Vote Coalition works with organizations interested in adopting and using recommended voting methods, offering consulting and election hosting services. [17] STAR Voting has been adopted and used by the Multnomah County Democratic Party for all internal elections, [18] the Democratic Party of Oregon for presidential delegate elections, and the Independent Party of Oregon for use in primary elections. [19] [20]

Under the STAR Elections Project, the Equal Vote Coalition offers online voting resources where users can try STAR voting, including quick and easy online polls at the star.vote website, [21] elections using Google Forms, [22] and elections and polls using a variety of voting methods at the BetterVoting.org website. [23]

Research

In 2013, Equal Vote Executive Director Sara Wolk, board director Jameson Quinn, PhD, and member Marcus Ogren published a peer-reviewed paper titled "STAR Voting, Equality of Voice, and Voter Satisfaction: Considerations for Voting Reform" [24] in the journal Constitutional Political Economy.

Marcus Ogren went on to publish another peer-reviewed paper titled "Candidate incentive distributions: How voting methods shape electoral incentives" in 2024 [25] in the Electoral Studies journal from Elsevier.

Equal Vote Production Lead Arend Castelein in May, 2024 released a new Equal Vote webpage, RcvChangedAlaska.com, that analyzes, models, and visualizes Ranked Choice Voting elections using real world election data, including the controversial 2022 Alaska Special Election for US House. The page is interactive and allows users to determine which elections suffered from common pathologies and how these elections lived up to common talking points for Ranked Choice Voting.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Approval voting</span> Single-winner electoral system

Approval voting is a single-winner electoral system in which voters mark all the candidates they support, instead of just choosing one. The candidate with the highest approval rating is elected. Approval voting is currently in use for government elections in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, Fargo, North Dakota, USA, and in the United Nations to elect the Secretary General.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Plurality voting</span> Type of electoral system

Plurality voting refers to electoral systems in which the candidates in an electoral district who poll more than any other are elected.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Score voting</span> Single-winner rated voting system

Score voting, sometimes called range voting, is an electoral system for single-seat elections. Voters give each candidate a numerical score, and the candidate with the highest average score is elected. Score voting includes the well-known approval voting, but also lets voters give partial (in-between) approval ratings to candidates.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Two-round system</span> Voting system

The two-round system, also called ballotage, top-two runoff, or two-round plurality, is a single winner voting method. It is sometimes called plurality-runoff, although this term can also be used for other, closely-related systems such as instant-runoff voting or the exhaustive ballot. It falls under the class of plurality-based voting rules, together with instant-runoff and first-past-the-post (FPP). In a two-round system, if no candidate receives a majority of the vote in the first round, the two candidates with the most votes in the first round proceed to a second round where all other candidates are excluded. Both rounds are held under choose-one voting, where the voter marks a single favored candidate.

Strategic or tactical voting is voting in consideration of possible ballots cast by other voters in order to maximize one's satisfaction with the election's results.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Negative responsiveness paradox</span> Property of electoral systems

In social choice, the negative responsiveness, perversity, or additional support paradox is a pathological behavior of some voting rules, where a candidate loses as a result of having "too much support" from some voters, or wins because they had "too much opposition". In other words, increasing (decreasing) a candidate's ranking or rating causes that candidate to lose (win). Electoral systems that do not exhibit perversity are said to satisfy the positive response or monotonicitycriterion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">No-show paradox</span> When voting for a candidate makes them lose

In social choice, a no-show paradox is a surprising behavior in some voting rules, where a candidate loses an election as a result of having too many supporters. More formally, a no-show paradox occurs when adding voters who prefer Alice to Bob causes Alice to lose the election to Bob. Voting systems without the no-show paradox are said to satisfy the participation criterion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">FairVote</span> U.S. electoral reform organization

FairVote is a 501(c)(3) organization and lobbying group in the United States. It was founded in 1992 as Citizens for Proportional Representation to support the implementation of proportional representation in American elections. Its focus changed over time to emphasize instant-runoff voting (IRV), a national popular vote, and universal voter registration. It changed its name to the Center for Voting and Democracy in 1993 and to FairVote in 2004.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bullet voting</span> Vote supporting only a single candidate

Bullet, single-shot, or plump voting is when a voter supports only a single candidate, typically to show strong support for a single favorite.

Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a ranked voting method used in single-winner elections. IRV is also known outside the US as the alternative vote (AV). Today it is in use at a national level to elect the Australian House of Representatives, the National Parliament of Papua New Guinea, the President of Ireland and President of India. In Australia it is also used for elections to the legislative assemblies of all states and territories except Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory, and for the Tasmanian Legislative Council.

Later-no-harm is a property of some ranked-choice voting systems, first described by Douglas Woodall. In later-no-harm systems, increasing the rating or rank of a candidate ranked below the winner of an election cannot cause a higher-ranked candidate to lose. It is a common property in the plurality-rule family of voting systems.

Electoral reform in the United States refers to the efforts of change for American elections and the electoral system used in the US.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ranked-choice voting in the United States</span> Electoral system used in some cities and states

Ranked-choice voting (RCV) can refer to one of several ranked voting methods used in some cities and states in the United States. The term is not strictly defined, but most often refers to instant-runoff voting (IRV) or single transferable vote (STV), the main difference being whether only one winner or multiple winners are elected.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electoral system</span> Method by which voters make a choice between options

An electoral or voting system is a set of rules used to determine the results of an election. Electoral systems are used in politics to elect governments, while non-political elections may take place in business, non-profit organisations and informal organisations. These rules govern all aspects of the voting process: when elections occur, who is allowed to vote, who can stand as a candidate, how ballots are marked and cast, how the ballots are counted, how votes translate into the election outcome, limits on campaign spending, and other factors that can affect the result. Political electoral systems are defined by constitutions and electoral laws, are typically conducted by election commissions, and can use multiple types of elections for different offices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unified primary</span> Single-winner electoral system

A unified primary is an electoral system for narrowing the field of candidates for a single-winner election, similar to a nonpartisan blanket primary, but using approval voting for the first round, advancing the top-two candidates, allowing voters to confirm the majority-supported candidate in the general election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">STAR voting</span> Single-winner electoral system

STAR voting is an electoral system for single-seat elections. The name stands for "Score Then Automatic Runoff", referring to the fact that this system is a combination of score voting, to pick two finalists with the highest total scores, followed by an "automatic runoff" in which the finalist who is preferred on more ballots wins. It is a type of cardinal voting electoral system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social utility efficiency</span>

Social utility efficiency (SUE) or voter satisfaction efficiency (VSE) is a metric for comparing voting methods which compares them based on the average well-being of voters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Center for Election Science</span> American nonprofit organization

The Center for Election Science is an American 501(c)(3) organization that focuses on voter education and promoting election science. The organization promotes cardinal voting methods such as approval and score voting. They have their early roots in effective altruism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sincere favorite criterion</span> Criterion that prevents lesser-evil voting

The sincere favorite or no favorite-betrayal criterion is a property of some voting systems that says voters should have no incentive to vote for someone else over their favorite. It protects voters from having to engage in lesser-evil voting or a strategy called "decapitation".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Top-four primary</span> Nonpartisan blanket primary

A final-four or final-five primary is an electoral system using a nonpartisan primary by multi-winner plurality in the first step.

References

  1. ↑ "About Us". Equal Vote Coalition. Retrieved 2024-10-02.
  2. 1 2 "Equal Vote – Citizen Connect". citizenconnect.us. Retrieved 2024-07-26.
  3. 1 2 "About Us". Equal Vote Coalition. Retrieved 2024-07-26.
  4. ↑ "Changing the Ballot – Eugene Weekly" . Retrieved 2020-08-30.
  5. ↑ Oregonian/OregonLive, Jeff Mapes | The (2013-10-11). "Dave Frohnmayer's son proposes radical change in Oregon primary system". oregonlive. Retrieved 2024-10-02.
  6. ↑ "Oregon Unified Primary Elections Initiative (2014)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 2024-10-02.
  7. ↑ "St. Louis, Missouri, Proposition D, Approval Voting Initiative (November 2020)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 2024-10-02.
  8. ↑ "Equal Vote Conference". 2020-10-20. Archived from the original on 2020-10-20. Retrieved 2024-10-02.
  9. ↑ "Lane County, Oregon, Measure 20-290, Score Then Automatic Runoff Voting Method (November 2018)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 2024-10-02.
  10. ↑ "Portland/ Multnomah County Chapter". STAR Voting. Retrieved 2024-10-02.
  11. ↑ "Campaigns". STAR Voting. Retrieved 2024-07-26.
  12. ↑ "Equal Vote and STAR Voting Blog". STAR Voting. Retrieved 2024-07-26.
  13. ↑ "Comparing Leading Voting Methods". Equal Vote Coalition. Retrieved 2024-10-02.
  14. ↑ "Ranked Robin". Equal Vote Coalition. Retrieved 2024-10-02.
  15. ↑ "Equal Vote Coalition Offers A Fresh Take On the Voting Reform Movement". Great.com. Retrieved 2024-07-26.
  16. ↑ "About The Equal Vote Coalition". Equal Vote Coalition. Retrieved 2019-11-06.
  17. ↑ "Elections". STAR Voting. Retrieved 2024-10-02.
  18. ↑ Barker, Joel (2019-10-01). "Multnomah County Democrats Adopt STAR voting for internal party elections". Multnomah County Democrats. Retrieved 2020-08-30.
  19. ↑ "Independent Party of Oregon to utilize STAR system for primary". Herald and News. 8 April 2020. Retrieved 2020-08-30.
  20. ↑ "Pro-Voter Groups Stand Up for Safer, Fairer Elections in This Crisis | Independent Voter News". ivn.us. 8 April 2020. Retrieved 2020-08-30.
  21. ↑ "★.✓". star.vote. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
  22. ↑ "STAR Voting on Google Forms". STAR Voting. Retrieved 2024-10-02.
  23. ↑ "BetterVoting | Create elections & polls that don't spoil the vote". bettervoting.com. Retrieved 2024-10-02.
  24. ↑ Wolk, Sara; Quinn, Jameson; Ogren, Marcus (September 2023). "STAR Voting, equality of voice, and voter satisfaction: considerations for voting method reform". Constitutional Political Economy. 34 (3): 310–334. doi:10.1007/s10602-022-09389-3. ISSN   1043-4062.
  25. ↑ Ogren, Marcus (2024-08-01). "Candidate incentive distributions: How voting methods shape electoral incentives". Electoral Studies. 90: 102799. arXiv: 2306.07147 . doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102799. ISSN   0261-3794.

Category:501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.