Voice For Liberty

Tag: Voting

  • Cost of Voting and State Politics

    Cost of Voting and State Politics

    Examining the relationship between state voting laws and political sentiment.

    The Cost of Voting Index is an ongoing analysis by Michael J. Pomante II, Ph.D., a political scientist. It “examines election laws and policies and calculates a single measure of the relative difficulty of voting for each state. States with smaller values make voting more accessible than states with larger values.” Data and accompanying peer-reviewed papers are available on the Cost of Voting Index website.

    Briefly, “The COVI measures the time and effort required to vote, encompassing criteria such as registration requirements, voter identification laws, early voting availability, and absentee voting procedures.” (1)Pomante II, Michael J. (2024). “The Cost of Voting in the American States: 2024.” Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy. DOI: 10.1089/elj.2024.0037. Available from https://costofvotingindex.com/publications I’ve taken the data for 2024 and plotted it against the percent of Donald Trump voting in the states. Chart 1 shows this. (click for larger charts)

    I asked ChatGPT to perform a regression analysis and explain. The summary was: “This analysis examines how the difficulty of voting (measured by the “Cost of Voting Index”) varies with a state’s political leanings and population. The results suggest that states with a higher percentage of Trump voters in 2024 tend to have stricter voting laws (higher cost of voting). However, state population size does not seem to have a meaningful impact on voting difficulty.” In more detail:

    We performed a multiple linear regression to examine the relationship between:

    • Independent variables:
      • Share of Trump Vote in 2024 (X1)
      • State Population (X2)
    • Dependent variable:
      • Cost of Voting Index (Y)

    Key Findings from the Regression:
    – R-squared (0.425): This indicates that approximately 42.5% of the variation in the Cost of Voting Index can be explained by the Share of Trump Vote and State Population.
    – Share of Trump Vote (Coefficient = 8.5481, p-value < 0.001): A statistically significant predictor of the Cost of Voting Index, suggesting that as the share of Trump votes increases, the Cost of Voting Index also tends to increase.
    – State Population (Coefficient = 0.8143, p-value = 0.751): This variable is not statistically significant, meaning there is no strong evidence that population size affects the Cost of Voting Index.

    I also examined voter turnout rate as a function of the Cost of Voting Index. Chart 2 illustrates this:

    As before, I asked ChatGPT for a regression analysis: “Think of this as trying to understand what factors influence how many people show up to vote in each state. We looked at whether making voting harder (higher Cost of Voting Index) or having a larger population affects turnout. The results suggest that voter turnout may slightly drop when voting is harder, but the effect is weak. However, the population of a state does not seem to play a major role in voter turnout. The model itself doesn’t explain much of the variation, meaning there are likely other factors (like political engagement, campaign efforts, or demographics) that influence voter turnout more strongly.” In more detail:

    We performed a multiple linear regression analysis to determine the relationship between Voter Turnout (dependent variable) and two independent variables:

    1. Cost of Voting Index (measuring how easy or difficult it is to vote in a state)
    2. State Population (the number of residents in the state)

    Key Findings:
    – The R-squared value is 0.068, meaning that only 6.8% of the variation in voter turnout is explained by the Cost of Voting Index and State Population.
    – The Cost of Voting Index has a coefficient of -0.0123, suggesting that as voting becomes harder (higher cost index), voter turnout decreases slightly.
    – The State Population has a coefficient of -6.35e-10, indicating that population size has a negligible impact on voter turnout.
    – The P-value for Cost of Voting Index is 0.077, which means it’s not statistically significant at the typical 0.05 threshold but is close. This suggests a possible weak relationship between the difficulty of voting and turnout.
    – The P-value for State Population is 0.591, meaning there is no significant relationship between state population and voter turnout.

    References

    References
    ↑1Pomante II, Michael J. (2024). “The Cost of Voting in the American States: 2024.” Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy. DOI: 10.1089/elj.2024.0037. Available from https://costofvotingindex.com/publications

  • Republicans Will Encourage Voting Before Election Day

    This article, written by Walter Olson and published on Cato Institute, discusses a significant shift in the Republican Party’s stance on voting methods. Former President Donald Trump, who once criticized alternate voting methods as prone to fraud and urged Republicans to vote on Election Day, and the GOP are now encouraging the use of various balloting methods, including vote by mail, early in-person voting, and the use of drop boxes. This change is largely seen as positive, allowing campaigns to allocate resources more efficiently and appealing to a broader range of constituents. However, the article also raises concerns about the potential risks associated with third-party ballot collection, emphasizing the need to balance convenience in voting with maintaining the secrecy and security of ballots.

    Olson, Walter. “Republicans Will Encourage Voting Before Election Day.” Cato Institute, 22 Sep. 2023, https://www.cato.org/blog/republicans-will-encourage-voting-election-day

  • Wichita ethics code to be considered

    Wichita ethics code to be considered

    The Wichita city council will consider an ethics code that overlooks a simple and effective solution to a problem.

    This week the Wichita City Council will consider the final version of a proposed ethics code. It does not cover campaign finance. It does cover gifts to council members, which has been an issue in the past.

    Part of the problem with the proposal is the creation of a new board, the Ethics Advisory Board. Its members will be asked to judge things like whether a gift is “… intended or has the appearance or effect …” The board will be asked to judge intent. It will need to consider how things appear. This is all highly subjective.

    A further problem is that the new code requires disclosure of gifts, but on an annual basis. This means that by the time the public becomes aware of activity, it is likely past the time when awareness has value. If information about gifts has value in helping people make informed voting decisions, we need to have timely disclosure. This is also a problem with the disclosure of campaign contributions in Kansas.

    Rapid disclosure of gifts can help citizens judge the actions of elected officials. Disclosure should have these properties, and the propsed code has none:

    • Disclose everything. This means everything, except gifts from family. If someone buys lunch or coffee for an official, it must be disclosed.
    • Disclose rapidly. Something like filing a report each Monday covering activity during the previous week.
    • Disclose online.
    • Disclose effectively. This means information entered in a machine-readable format that can be downloaded in useful form.

    Some of the points that have caused disagreement include the meaning of friends. If we want to restrict the involvement of friends, how do we define the term? This is a problem with the current ethics ordinance in Wichita. City attorneys have told us that with no definition of the term friend, the ordinance can’t be enforced. See In Wichita, a problem with government ethics, Wichita fails ethics test, Wichita City Council can’t judge airport contract.

    Disclosing everything eliminates the issue of someone deciding the meaning of friend. Voters and others can make their own decisions. Elected officials’ opponents will help us learn this.

    (An old saw: “Why bother researching your family? Just go into politics, and your opponents will do that for you.”)

    Will disclosing all gifts rapidly be burdensome to officeholders and staff? Many employees file detailed expense reports so that they may be reimbursed. This is not a problem.

    Disclosing effectively is necessary to make use of information filed on these gift reports. The minimum requirement is that the information in reports be downloaded in machine-readable formats. Currently, for campaign finance reports in Sedgwick County, including for Wichita city offices, reports are filed in a variety of formats. The information is difficult to use, even if optical character recognition can be applied successfully. Some reports are filed in handwriting, and others appear to be faxed to the election office in such low quality that I believe the candidates want to avoid effective use of the information.

    Disclosing effectively means that analysis of the reports will be easier than it would be otherwise. Who will do this analysis? There are several sources, such as journalists and citizens such as myself. And, of course, candidates’ opponents.

    The agenda report for this item is here, and the code itself is here. Here are a few excepts from the code:

    “Avoid the appearance of improper influence and refrain from ever receiving, soliciting or accepting gifts, gratuities, hospitality, favors or anything of value for the official, or their family, valued over ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($150.00) from a specific donor over a one-year period ending on December 31, which is intended or has the appearance or effect of influencing the performance of the official duties of an official.”

    “Further, a public official shall report any offer or presentation of a gift or gratuity valued at fifty dollars ($50.00) or more on a yearly basis.”

  • All Kansas Republicans should have a voice

    All Kansas Republicans should have a voice

    A presidential nominating caucus or primary would allow Trump skeptics in Kansas to have their say. It could provide a safety valve, a way to release the pressure that builds up from being told they are traitors to not only their party but to the country as well.

    In September, leaders of the Kansas Republican Party decided to deny giving rank-and-file party members a voice in choosing its presidential nominee for 2020. In a release, the state party said : “The Kansas Republican Party will not organize a Caucus for the 2020 election because President Trump is an elected incumbent from the Republican Party.”

    The release gave a reason: “Every time an elected incumbent Republican has run for re-election, except in 1912, the Kansas Republican Party state convention adopted a resolution instructing all delegates to vote for the elected incumbent. This has been the same standard for the Kansas Republican Party dating back to President Lincoln’s reelection.”

    Recent correspondence with party leaders confirms this remains the current thinking of leadership. But it is not democratic. Kansas Republicans should have either a caucus or a primary election. To have neither, simply because the incumbent president is a Republican, deprives members of the Kansas GOP of a chance to make a decision.

    All Kansas Republicans need to be involved in making a decision about the party’s next nominee. As we learn more negative information about the Trump Administration, I can’t help but think that Kansas Republicans will want to have a say in choosing our next nominee. Any day there could be some revelation that is so strongly negative and powerful that even the most committed Trump supporters may decide they can no longer support him.

    I am a “Never Trump” Republican. Nonetheless, I remain a member of the party. While the numbers of Trump skeptics are not large, I think most of us feel we have no voice in the party. Any dissent is met with vile insults, as you can see on my Facebook and that of a handful of other Kansas Trump skeptics. I have been told that I am no Republican, that I ought to join the other party, and that I am mentally ill. Some of this comes from Republican officeholders and leaders.

    A presidential nominating caucus or primary would allow Trump skeptics in Kansas to have their say. It could provide a safety valve, a way to release the pressure that builds up from being told they are traitors to not only their party but to the country as well.

    I can hear the critics: “No one has a chance to beat Trump.” That’s hardly the point. Now, with Kansas and other states declining to hold nominating contests, this becomes self-fulfilling.

    Some expressed concern over the cost of a caucus or primary election. I wasn’t aware that we should be so concerned about the cost of democracy and its elections. On this issue, I repeat the observation of the National Review editors: “The president says he has nothing to do with these decisions, but also that holding primaries he is sure to win would be a waste of money. The susceptibility of this argument to abuse by a ruler ought to preclude its being made.” (emphasis added)

    By the way, should the situation change and Kansas Republicans decided they can lo longer support Trump as their nominee, who will decide the nominee? The answer is the same small group of party leaders that decided to do without a caucus or primary. That’s undemocratic.

    What conservative voices say

    After several states (including Kansas) decided to cancel or not schedule primary elections or caucuses, two noted conservative publications criticized these decisions. From the editors of National Review:

    The president says he has nothing to do with these decisions, but also that holding primaries he is sure to win would be a waste of money. The susceptibility of this argument to abuse by a ruler ought to preclude its being made.

    The vast majority of Republicans approve of what Trump has done on taxes, judges, regulation, and most other issues, though they also support electoral competition. Trump would be likely to win the primaries handily, demonstrating his strength among Republicans while the Democrats tussle. His allies should want to see that, rather than make it seem as though he is too weak to face competition. But regardless of how it works out for him, Republican primary voters are capable of making the decision among Trump and the others — who so far include William Weld and Joe Walsh as well as Sanford. They deserve to be able to do so. 1

    In its op-ed, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal concluded with this:

    When Mr. Trump won the GOP nomination in 2016, he disrupted a long tradition of Republican leadership and policy. He rejected GOP positions on trade and entitlement reform. In chief respects he abandoned the party’s hawkish stance on foreign policy. On guns and health care he has taken multiple positions, sometimes in the same week.

    And — how to put it delicately? — Mr. Trump has introduced a new standard of presidential behavior, by turns abrasive, funny and appalling. These and related matters are far from settled in Republican circles, and it seems unwise to prevent the rank-and-file from debating them. If Mr. Trump is as popular with Republicans as the polls say, he has nothing to fear from letting voters show it in primaries. 2

    At this time last year, the former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party wrote:

    … unprecedented action on the part of the RNC to consolidate the Trump re-election campaign with the traditionally primary-neutral party efforts into a single organization called “Trump Victory.” Everything from fundraising, to data, to electing convention delegates will now be organized in tandem between the party and the campaign. This is the definition of what Trump himself might once have called rigging the system. …

    The attempt to rig the system is, all on its own, an admission of Trump’s weakness. 3

    The arguments advanced by this party official and two stalwarts of conservative thought aren’t welcomed by some Kansas Republicans, especially the (nearly) 150 that are in leadership positions and voted to abstain from holding a caucus. After I shared these articles on Facebook, the reaction was almost universally negative. The consensus was that I should leave the Republican Party and find somewhere else to call home so I can vote in a caucus or primary. That doesn’t seem conducive to winning elections, and Kansas Republicans need to be concerned with winning, having lost the governorship, one congressional district, and barely winning another.

    Emblematic of the Trumpification of the Kansas Republican Party is this: I asked one person “And are you trying to attract people to the Republican Party, or drive them away?” The response was, “I would just as soon the Republican party would avoid attracting people such as yourself.”

    Of note: Kansas Democrats plan to hold a presidential primary using ranked-choice voting. As Kansas Democrats apply new methods to vote and choose candidates, Kansas Republicans regress to the smoke-filled room.

    Further, to give everyone an equal chance to have a voice, Kansas Republicans should abandon the caucus and hold a primary election. Participating in the caucus is difficult. Many people are not able to attend and cast their vote. No matter the cost to the party, Kansas should seek broad participation in its presidential nominating process. That means asking the people to make a selection, and it means a primary election instead of a caucus.

    Polling

    While Gallup reports Trump’s job approval rating among Republicans at 88 percent, there are signs of skepticism. A poll this week by Quinnipiac University found that 49 percent of Republicans support witness testimony. 4 This poll also found that many people are paying attention to impeachment. 5

    Click for larger.

    A poll by Ipsos/FiveThirtyEight last week found that the share of Republicans who support witnesses in the Senate trial has fallen to 41 percent. 6 The number has fallen, but it is still 41 percent.

    A Yahoo News/YouGov poll taken at near the same time found that 35 percent of Republicans wanted witnesses called. 7

    These figures are not majorities, and they are nationwide, not just Kansas Republicans. But they do not represent fringe minorities. Republicans need to keep these voters.

    —
    Notes

    1. Let Republican Voters Choose. September 12, 2019. Available at https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/republican-presidential-primaries-let-voters-choose/. ↩
    2. Don’t Cancel the GOP Primaries: Trump has nothing to fear if he’s as popular as the polls say. September 17, 2019. Available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-cancel-the-gop-primaries-11568753944. ↩
    3. Jennifer Horn. *RNC Signals Trump’s Weakness with Push to Endorse Him Now.* Available at https://thebulwark.com/rnc-signals-trumps-weakness-with-push-to-endorse-him-now/. ↩
    4. January 28, 2020 – 75% Of Voters Say Allow Witnesses In Senate Impeachment Trial, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; 53% Say President Trump Not Telling Truth About Ukraine. Available at https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3654. ↩
    5. “How much attention have you been paying to news about impeachment: a lot, some, only a little, or none at all?” A lot 57%, Some 29%, Only a little 11%, None at all 2%. ↩
    6. Republican Voters Increasingly Back The GOP’s Move To Block Impeachment Witnesses. Available at https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-voters-increasingly-back-the-gops-move-to-block-impeachment-witnesses/. ↩
    7. Yahoo News/YouGov poll shows two-thirds of voters want the Senate to call new impeachment witnesses. Available at https://news.yahoo.com/new-yahoo-news-you-gov-poll-shows-that-twothirds-of-voters-want-the-senate-to-call-new-impeachment-witnesses-225545827.html. ↩
  • Ranked-choice voting in Kansas

    Ranked-choice voting in Kansas

    A look at ranked-choice voting and how it might have worked in the Kansas Republican gubernatorial primary election in August 2018.

    Most elections in America utilize plurality voting. Wikipedia explains: “Plurality voting is an electoral system in which each voter is allowed to vote for only one candidate, and the candidate who polls the most among their counterparts (a plurality) is elected. In a system based on single-member districts, it may be called first-past-the-post (FPTP), single-choice voting, simple plurality or relative/simple majority.” 1

    Consider the recent primary election for the Republican party nomination for Kansas governor. It was close, with Governor Colyer at 40.513% of the vote and Secretary of State Kris Kobach at 40.622%. With 316,437 votes having been cast, the difference is like one vote out of every 372 votes cast.

    In a close election like this, there is intense campaigning, not only among the candidates, but also among their supporters. If there are more than two candidates — there were seven in this contest — campaigning may consist of persuading voters that if you don’t vote for my candidate, you’re just throwing your vote away. Other strategic voting arguments may be made. There is, however, a way to let everyone vote for who they really like.

    Simplify just a bit. Suppose there were three candidates: Jim Barnett, Jeff Colyer, and Kris Kobach. On the political landscape, Barnett is a (self-described, I believe) moderate. Kobach is far to the conservative spectrum. Colyer is somewhere between the two, at least according to Kobach supporters, as they regularly slam Colyer for not being conservative enough (whatever that means).

    In the pre-election polls Barnett showed much less support than Colyer or Kobach. Also, conventional wisdom was that Barnett and Colyer are more like each other than either is like Kobach.

    So, in a regular election, called a plurality election, how do voters decide? No doubt some voters prefer a specific candidate and would not consider voting for anyone else. Other voters may not be as committed, or are willing to express multiple preferences.

    As an example, suppose the preferences of voters — the true preference in their heart of hearts, without any thought of strategic voting, just who they really want to be governor — looks like this:

    Kobach: 40%
    Colyer: 35%
    Barnett: 25%
    Total: 100%

    Who wins this election, if every voter votes their true preference? Kobach.

    But remember, Barnett and Colyer are more like each other than they are similar to Kobach. So Colyer supporters are likely to be thinking “Look, our candidate is so different from Kobach, what if just a few Barnett voters had voted for Colyer?” The answer to that question is if 20% (plus one) of the Barnett voters had voted for Colyer, Kobach would lose to Colyer.

    This type of strategic voting is what the Colyer campaign recommended. A Colyer television ad advised ““A vote for [Jim Barnett or Ken Selzer] is essentially a vote for Kris Kobach, increasing his chance of victory” 2 Evidently, the Colyer campaign believed that the anti-Kobach vote is larger than the pro-Kobach vote, but is split between two candidates, with neither of them individually having more support than Kobach. (Ignore Ken Selzer for a moment, please.)

    So what if you prefer Barnett and really dislike Kobach? Do you vote your true preference, or do you vote strategically to deny Kobach the victory? Will that strategy really work? Why can’t I vote for someone rather than against someone?

    Your ballot instructions state “Select one candidate only.” But suppose the instructions were “Rank these candidates in order of preference, with 1 meaning most-preferred.” You might mark your ballot like this:

    Barnett: 1
    Colyer: 2
    Kobach: 3

    This voter is saying something like this: “I really like Jim Barnett, but if he doesn’t get a majority of votes, I prefer Jeff Colyer over Kris Kobach.”

    This is ranked-choice voting. In the example above, if everyone votes their true preferences without strategic voting, 40% of voters would have marked Kobach as their first preference. But 40% is not a majority, so using ranked-choice voting, here’s what happens:

    First, because Barnett has the lowest number of first preferences, he is eliminated from the contest.

    Then, the counters look at Barnett voters’ second preferences, either Colyer or Kobach, and assign votes accordingly. In the example ballot above, the voter selected Colyer as his second preference. Therefore, that vote is transferred from Barnett to Colyer. If the voter had ranked Kobach second, the vote would have been transferred to Kobach.

    In this example, since there are just three candidates, after the Barnett votes are transferred to Colyer or Kobach, the vote-counting is over and there is a winner, or a tie. (If a contest has just two candidates, there is no need for ranked-choice voting, unless there is an alternative to vote for “none of the above.”)

    Who would win in this example? If it true that Barnett is more like Colyer than Kobach, it is likely that Barnett voters mostly ranked Colyer as their second preference. So Colyer would have a majority, and wins.

    The actual situation in the Kansas Republican gubernatorial primary was more complex, with seven candidates. But ranked-choice voting works the same, although it may take several rounds of counting to determine the winner.

    The results of the Republican party primary are nearby. As you can see, the top four candidates received 97.8% of the vote. Were votes for candidates other than Colyer or Kobach wasted votes? What if those who voted for Barnett, Selzer, Kucera, Ruzich, or Tutera had been able to indicate their second preference?

    In the Kansas primary there were other major contests with multiple candidates: House of Representatives District 2 for Republicans, House of Representatives District 3 for Democrats, and governor for Republicans and Democrats. Looking forward to the general election, there will be five candidates for governor, one each from the Democratic, Libertarian, and Republican parties, and two independents.

    —
    Notes

    1. Wikipedia. Plurality voting. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting. ↩
    2. Stephen Koranda. Colyer Ad Says Some Candidates Could Spoil Race for Kansas Governor. Available at http://kansaspublicradio.org/kpr-news/colyer-ad-says-some-candidates-could-spoil-race-kansas-governor. ↩
  • WichitaLiberty.TV: John Fund, National Review Columnist

    WichitaLiberty.TV: John Fund, National Review Columnist

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: National Review columnist John Fund joins Bob Weeks and Karl Peterjohn to discuss elections and their security. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 168, broadcast October 8, 2017.

    Shownotes