The state of small "d" democracy in Kansas

With the August 5 primary a few days away, some thoughts of the state of democracy in Kansas seem appropriate. An article in Friday's Wichita Eagle predicting  low turnout for Tuesday's primary, despite heated US Senate and House Republican primaries, indicates that there is a real problem. Here are some thoughts.

 The biggest issue, in my opinion, is the restrictive voter identification laws enacted by Secretary of Sate Kris Kobach, but there are others.

Another problem is outsider dark money which has poured into Kansas elections at the last minute with minimal transparency, minimal honesty, and minimal respect for the facts.

Kansas has a closed primary, only one of 12 in the nation.  That means that you have to be a registered Democrat or Republican to vote in the respective primary.  However, the chair of the party can allow independents to vote in their primary. In recent elections Democrats had allowed this. This year the KDP, at its February state convention,  joined the Republicans in adopting the more restrictive policy.

The Kansas legislature at the prodding of Kris Kobach made it more difficult for voters to change party registration. In the past this could be done up to 21 days before the election. This year the deadline was moved back to July 1 and in future elections it will be June 1. If I understand correctly, there will be different deadlines to change party registration and to change from unaffiliated to a party.

CORRECTION August 4: Unaffiliated voters can still chose a Democratic or Republican ballot at the polling place on election day. and thereby register for that party.  That hasn't changed.
  

Kansas Democrats have filed a full Federal and state-wide slate.  In 2010, Democrats had no candidate in the prohibitively Republican Big First District and no candidate in the potential swing 3rd Congressional District. (The 3rd gave Obama 48.8 percent in 2008 and 44.3 percent in 2012.)

Far too many Kansas voters won't have a choice on their ballot for the state legislature this November. Forty-seven seats, nearly 40 percent of the state's 125 House seats, will  have only one candidate on the ballot.  This includes 38 Republicans.  And, of these, only 16 have a Republican primary challenger.  Also, two Republicans will face only a Libertarian challenger.  Nine Democrats will face no challenger, and two will have only a Libertarian challenger.

The same problem crops up in the State Board of Eduction races where Democrats filed candidates for only one of the five seats up this year; they filed for only two when the same set of seats were up in 2010. And, for three of the different set of five seats up in 2012.

It would take a detailed analysis to figure out what is behind this low state of competitive elections.  From what I can tell it's not just a Kansas problem and it's not new.  A 2005 article reported that "state legislative races were even less competitive [than Congressional races.] Nationwide, 40 percent of the more than 7,000 races were uncontested."

Parties can put energy into recruiting as many candidates as possible, even in districts that are very strongly partisan for the other party.  Or, they can concentrate resources on a smaller number of swing districts. I don't know if a switch like can explain the poor number of Democratic candidates, but it is certainly possible.

Campaign finance reform, some form of public financing of legislative campaigns might increase the number of districts with races.  One possibility, for example, has had a system where candidates can get public financing after they show a basis of support, raising, say, $50 each for 100 district voters. Arizona has a system somewhat like this.

Ballot access for parties and candidates is the other side of the right to vote.  On the positive side, the Kansas legislature passed a law allowing out of state canvassers for petition drives.  (It is not obvious to me that this is a good development, but courts have been ruling this way so it seems a positive.)

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach changed the interpretation of state law making it more difficult for minor parties to remain on the ballot and ruled the Reform Party off the ballot. In 2012, Kobach argued successfully that Kansas did not have to allow voters register in unqualified parties that are active in the state.

To be established as a new political party in Kansas, the group must present petitions must be signed by qualified electors equal in number to at least two percent of the total vote cast for all candidates for governor at the last preceding general election. In Kansas, currently, that would mean 16,777 valid petition signatures.

To nominate an independent candidate for statewide evidence takes just 5,000 signatures.

To maintain party ballot status, a qualified party must get one percent of the vote in the lowest voted race it contests. In 2010, that threshold would have been 6,772 in the Commissioner of Insurance race.

If a minor party gets five percent of the vote in the Governor's race it will become a "major party" and thereby hold primaries instead of conventions.  That is a major goal of Kansas Libertarians  in the belief that being port of a statewide primary along with Republicans and Democrats will give them the potential for further growth. They may be helped by the demise of the Reform Party as there have been several statewide races where the LP +RP vote came to 4.4 percent (2010 Governor) or 4.2 percent (2006 Secretary of State).  Libertarian Patrick Wilber received 4.2 percent in the three-way 2006 Insurance Commissioner race.  With Libertarian nominee Keen A. Umbehr drawing five percent in the latest SurveyUSA poll that Libertarian goal doesn't appear unreasonable, although there is usually a fall off from polls to election results.

Perhaps if the Libertarian Party achieved "major party" status (with five percent of the vote) they might field more than seven legislative candidates they have in 2012. And, that could increase participation.

Perhaps if there were additional parties--a Moderate Party,  Constitution Party, a Working Families Party, or others there might be more competitive elections, a higher turnout, and better state government.

But, I think, there is a limit to the potential of additional minor parties to enhance participation and increase democracy.  Kansas is one of a vast majority of states that ban fusion voting.  By allowing a candidate to aggregate votes on more than party line, fusion voting avoids the spoiler affect when voting for a more conservative (liberal) candidate takes votes away from a slightly less conservative (liberal) candidate and thereby elects a third more liberal (conservative) candidate.   Fusion enables minor parties to influence election results and policy by offering to endorse or nominate a major party's candidate.

 Wichita activists have gathered signatures to place a referendum on the ballot to decriminalize marijuana possession.  This could have the potential to increase turnout among voters who usually stay at home during off-year elections.

The real path to improving Kansas democracy will be based on re-invigorating the Democratic Party, the growth of grass-roots progressive organizations like Kansas People's Action, and a more creative and energized political effort by teachers and other unions.

Dueling Kansas Gov Polls: who to Believe

There are now two recent polls with very contrasting results out on the Kansas Governors race. A poll from Survey USA showed the Democratic team of Paul Davis and Jill Docking with a 48-40 lead over incumbent Republican Governor Sam Brownback and Lt. Governor Jeff Coyler. Then, on Sunday a poll done by British YouGov polling firm for the New York Times and CBS News showed Brownback with 47 to 37 lead, and including leaners at 52 to 40 lead.

Naturally, this has prompted some questions. How can such divergent results, around a 20 percent swing, be explained? Which poll is most reliable?

The first thing I noticed is that the YouGov poll didn't include Libertarian candidate Keen Umbehr who draws about 5 percent of the vote in the Survey USA poll.

The NYT/CBS/YouGov poll is part of massive national poll of every Gubernatorial and Senate race in every state, with over 100,000 taking part.

Taniel at DailyKos notes

In 2012, the margin of YouGov's final polls favored Republicans by an average 5 points, including large errors in competitive races in Nevada, Wisconsin, Connecticut, and Virginia—all in the GOP's favor.

YouGov doesn't use the same random-digit dialing use by Survey USA and traditional pollsters. Instead they use a panel of respondents, who aren't random selected. In a scientifically valid poll every voter should have an equal chance of being randomly selected, making the sample representative.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times observes:

 YouGov attempts to build a large, diverse panel and then match its panelists to demographically similar respondents from the American Community Survey, an extremely rigorous probability survey conducted by the Census Bureau. This step is intended to mimic probability sampling. But it can require significant assumptions about the composition of the electorate, including partisanship. These assumptions are contestable and based on varying amounts of evidence.

Some groups tend to be underrepresented in web panels: the less educated, the less affluent, Hispanics and those over age 65. You Gov then blows up the under represented groups. So those in the subgroups in the panel, if they have unrepresentative views can skew the entire poll.

Comparing Internals/Crosstabs

Let's peer underneath the topline to understand the differences and see if there are signs that one or another poll is implausible.

 Black voters. One of the more implausible results in the YouGov poll is its claim that black voters prefer Davis by only a 53-46 margin.  There is no "race" breakdown in the latest Survey USA poll, but a November 2013 had Davis up by 65-21 margin.  I think the YouGov result  is implausible and quite likely that Davis-Docking will carry the black vote by a bigger margin.

If blacks are five percent of the electorate, the difference between a 50-50 split and a 90-10 split would be about 4 percent, about one-third of YouGov's Brownback edge.

By the way, YouGov interviewed only 31 black out of 1274, or 2.4% of the panel. In contrast blacks are estimated to have been 5 percent of the 2012 electorate.

YouGov also interviewed only 25 Hispanics.  

Women voters. Incredibly, the YouGov poll has Brownback leading Davis 50-41, while Survey USA has Davis up 51 to 35.

A news report on an exit poll for the Kansas 2012 said that among women Obama was almost equal, while 69 percent of men favored Romney. That is a gender gap of about 20 points in 2012, compared to a YouGov gender gap of 6 and a Survey USA of 13 points.

Republicans.  YouGov, in contrast to Survey USA has Brownback doing exceptionally well with Republican voters grabbing 82 percent to only 9 for Davis. In contrast, Survey USA has Davis getting an impressive 29 percent of Republican voters, compared to only 60 percent for Brownback. It may just be a coincidence, but the Survey USA poll shows "some dudete" symbolic candidate Jennifer Winn drawing 30 percent in the Republican primary.

Independents.  YouGov shows this segment, breaking narrowly for Brownback 46 to 43, while Survey USA has Davis leading 48 to 27. (Independents are 36% of the YG panel and 24% of Survey USA.)

Senior Voters.  YouGov has Brownback leading 57-39, Survey USA has Davis on top 56-36. (65+ voters are  projected to be about 29% of voters.)

Summing up: YouGov has a historical +5 GOP bias, excluding the Libertarian candidate likely gives another +5 bias for Brownback.  Adding in the very suspicious cross tabs for blacks (and Hispanics) and women, not to mention the other categories, makes a strong case that the Survey USA poll is closer to the truth and that the Davis-Docking team is very well positioned to win in November.