Make My Vote Count

The campaign for voter choice and a more representative parliament

 Skip navigation

Cincinnati – the experience of fighting an electoral reform referendum

There were some good wins for the electoral reform movement in the US on 4th November. Most notably, Memphis (Tennessee), where 70% voted for electing city officials by Instant Run-Off Voting [ie. the Alternative Vote].

Cincinnati (Ohio) was the other main focus of activity. There local FairVote activists, together with the city’s NAACP chapter, put forward a ballot initiative (essentially a local referendum added on to the ballot paper, as is done in many States) seeking to change the way city councillors were elected from winner-takes-all to Single Transferable Vote. It was Issue 8 on the ballot – not to be confused with the gay marriage ban proposal in California, which coincidentally was number eight on the Californian ballot.

Currently for electoral purposes the city is one large nine multi-member ward, and the candidates with the most Xs win. The reformers’ proposal was to keep that ‘at large’ configuration, but simply allow greater voter choice and fairer representation through ranking candidates, and using the standard format of transferring votes from winning / bottom candidates to determine who gets elected. 

 
  

The electoral reform proposition was sadly narrowly defeated: 60,943 (53.65%) voted No and 52,660 (46.35%) voted Yes. Among those people who voted early, there was a slight majority in favour. But more than countering that, there was a well-financed late flurry of negative advertising and campaigning by the no campaign, which ultimately proved decisive. There were also 20,797 ‘undervotes’ - i.e. people who returned a ballot but did not record a preference in this referendum. As my colleague Lewis comments: “it was a very half-hearted endorsement of the status quo – if more people had been enthusiastic about what they have, there would have been fewer undervotes and more No votes. But it also suggests that there was a lack of understanding about the proposition.” 

Malcolm Clark was over in Cincinnati for the final few days of the campaign, and on the morning of election day itself.  He was there in a personal, voluntary capacity – observing and campaigning both for the Obama campaign and for Issue 8. He's also  written up for the blog some of the lessons to consider should we find ourselves in the position of having a referendum on voting reform, whether at a local or national level.  Below are some of his main experiences and reflections:

 - Amy, Ev and Anthony (FairVote’s team on the ground) worked extremely hard on the campaign, and for them to come so close to winning, despite the obstacles in their path, is a considerable achievement.  The result was much closer than previous attempts in Cincinnati to gain a yes vote on electoral reform.

- I was taken aback by the negativity and nastiness and threats of the no campaign, but – as John Prescott’s personal vitriol against Robin Cook on PR showed – we are not totally immune to it here. But this was on another level altogether: outrageous and irrelevant personal attacks, the threatening of lawsuits and criminal proceedings, bullying and lies – and that was just by one no vote campaigner (city councillor Jeff Berding) at a debate hosted by the University of Cincinnati.

- The cheap attack by issue 8 opponents on “out-of-state political operatives” [ie. FairVote] meant that it was harder for Lewis Baston (who had also come out from the UK) and I to take a more visible, vocal role in the campaign when we were there; as it might have given further ammunition for the opposition to exploit.

- The campaign was right to use the political momentum of Obama’s messages of change (see this web ad) and his mobilisation of the African-American community. But it was more of a challenge to find other  tangible ‘hooks', outrage or a sense of urgency which could be utilised to mobilise people or persuade them that this was a key issue to vote on.

- The efforts by Amy & others to do ‘visibility’ – the yard signs, street signs etc – were definitely worth it and made up a little for some of the lack of ground troops and other resources. My experience was that the more people found out about issue 8, the more they supported it. But given the much better financed and resourced presidential and congressional campaigns, it was always going to be a struggle to make the issue heard.

- The campaign was - rightly - pushed by parts of the African American community as a way of improving their current under-representation on the Council. That was where the most support was. It then, thanks to the efforts of Fairvote and some of the city elders, targeted white liberals and students. The GOTV effort on election day focused on the African American districts, aided by the local organising prowess of several black church leaders, plus the two Universities. But the campaign didn’t gain quite enough traction outside its core constituencies to win; although it did garner some important support within the local business community.

- Cincinnati’s unique history – it did have PR elections during part of the twentieth century – influenced the tone and messages of the campaign. While this had positives, it also meant the Yes on 8 campaign may have seemed to some as not so relevant to their lives today; instead harking back to a golden age of democracy (the PR period), and using historic figures and elder statesman to push the case for reform.  Much was done to overcome this impression, but it may have lingered in some people's minds. 

So that was the Cincinnati experience. All told, a great effort by local campaigners and FairVote staff.  A lot for both US and UK electoral reformers to take away and to build on.  Drawing a wider lesson from my time in the States, Obama’s historic election campaign and mobilisation efforts have raised the bar for the marketing of politics, and the utilising of different mediums to get the message, and the vote, out. If we are campaigning for a new type of politics, a new voting system that empowers and offers choice, tapping into those new grassroots mechanisms and networks is going to be important – both in terms of communicating our messages and also building support.

Posted: 17/11/08

<- Older