Latest news with #votingreform
Telegraph
a day ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Labour's shameful electoral manipulations have doomed the capital
Sir Keir Starmer appears to be learning from his party's newfound unpopularity. Having watched Labour slide in the polls and Reform and rival Left-wing parties surge, the Government now seems to be taking steps to ward off potential electoral setbacks. Regrettably, however, rather than simply governing well, its choice of tactic appears to be constitutional tweaks that benefit its candidates. The somewhat misleadingly named 'English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill' is set to scrap the use of first past the post voting in mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections, replacing the system with the 'Supplementary Vote' used before 2022. Before its reintroduction, we should recall why this system was abandoned in the first place. No voting system is perfect, but the 2021 London Mayoral election saw 114,000 votes – 5 per cent of the total – rejected as voters appeared to be confused by an overly complicated system. In other words, a Bill supposedly intended to 'empower' voters will do so by introducing a system that is likely to mean that a large number accidentally lose their say – and, indeed, in a manner which the Labour Party seems curiously uninterested in introducing for Westminster seats, where it benefits from the division of votes between the Conservatives and Reform. It is difficult not to suspect that this move, instead, reflects growing concern over the potential for a Corbyn-style candidate to derail Labour's attempt to secure yet another victory in London's Mayoral election. This would be a setback for a capital that has suffered under the last decade of Sadiq Khan's misrule. A culture of arrogance and entitlement in City Hall has seen standards slip, from the woeful performance of the Metropolitan Police to the leadership of Transport for London, which accused public-spirited campaigners of daubing graffiti on trains they had filmed themselves cleaning. The imposition of the Ulez expansion and the generalised war on cars has coincided with a 10-year high in store closures across the capital, this year's Wimbledon tournament being branded an 'international embarrassment' as London's transport system has failed to cope, and rampant fare-dodging – with Robert Jenrick seemingly doing more to combat the problem in his spare time than the Mayor in his years in office. The costs of these failures are borne by Londoners, those who commute into the city, and those who visit it. So, too, are the costs of the inflated salaries of Mr Khan and his senior staff. London deserves better, and the opportunity to obtain it. Labour's shameful manipulations may well deny it the chance.
New York Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
A Primer on Primaries for New Yorkers
Good morning. It's Wednesday. Today we'll look at how open primaries would work in New York City, as a special panel appointed by Mayor Eric Adams considers the idea. New York City's mayoral race has certainly been eventful to say the least. After Zohran Mamdani's primary win, some Democrats are strategizing to find ways to defeat him. And a city panel is considering overhauling the whole primary system. Let's get into it. A special city panel appointed by Mayor Eric Adams is considering asking voters to approve an open primary system to allow those who aren't registered with a party to vote in primary elections, according to my colleague Emma Fitzsimmons. The panel, a charter revision commission, released a 135-page report outlining the proposal, along with several others that could be on the ballot in November. New Yorkers may be wondering, what's with all these changes? Ranked-choice voting came on the scene in 2021. If the panel places an open primary system on the ballot in November and voters approve it, it would take effect in 2029. Hold tight, there's more. The charter commission is also considering moving elections to even years to align with presidential elections. If a majority of voters approve that proposal, it would require a change to the State Constitution. Right now, only New Yorkers who are registered as Democrat and Republican are able to vote in New York City primaries, and only in their party's primary. The open primary would allow all registered voters to cast their ballots, and the top two candidates would battle it out in the general election. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A new study disproves Democrats' most cherished delusion
Colorado Democrats were feeling triumphant. After a decade of organizing, the state party was in a strong position. The demographics were trending their way. And so, in 2013, they prepared the coup de grâce for the state's beleaguered Republican Party: a new voting law. The law dramatically expanded voting access, mandating that mail ballots be sent to every registered voter for most elections, creating new polling centers where anyone could cast a ballot and allowing voters to register on Election Day, among other things. When everyone votes, Democrats win, as members of the party often say, and now it seemed like nearly everyone in Colorado would be able to vote. On Election Day the next year, they voted. And Democrats lost. While the Democratic governor who signed the law won re-election, the boost in turnout from the voting reforms helped Republicans win races for attorney general, secretary of state, state treasurer and, most significantly, U.S. senator, as Cory Gardner defeated Sen. Mark Udall, member of a political dynasty with strong roots in Colorado, in a surprise win. It was the high-water mark for Republicans in the state, which has since definitively become a blue state. And Democrats had only themselves to blame. They had fallen for the oldest and hoariest political myth in politics, one used by Republicans to justify passing restrictive laws on voting and by Democrats to cope with unexpected losses. But time and again, research has shown that it's just not true. The latest evidence came in a study from the Pew Research Center of the 2024 election. Donald Trump won that election by 1.5 percentage points, but any Democrat who muttered that new restrictions on voting in red states skewed the result has to contend with this study, which involved surveying 9,000 voters after the election and then painstakingly verifying which ones actually voted — and which didn't. What they found: If everyone who was eligible had voted, Trump's winning margin would have been twice as large. That's not a fluke. While both Democrats and Republicans believed that the expansion of vote by mail during the pandemic in 2020 helped Joe Biden beat Trump, studies repeatedly undermined the central tenets of that belief: A study by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research found that states that made it easier to vote in 2020 didn't see larger increases in turnout or any partisan advantage. A study by the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia found that states that made it easier to vote may have seen higher turnout, but it didn't help either Trump or Biden. A study by the Public Policy Institute of California found that making it easier to vote may have boosted turnout, but it either had no effect or slightly boosted Trump. I could keep going. I wouldn't normally get this deep in the weeds on research, but I want to stress how definitive the research is — and this is over an election that saw one of the most dramatic expansions in voting access in recent history. That's not to say that voting laws don't matter. It's just that our understanding of how they work tends to be static and they are really much more dynamic. Pass a strict voter ID law and campaigns will spend more time helping voters get the right identification. Pass a vote-by-mail law and campaigns will do more outreach to make sure they return their ballots. Expand early voting and campaigns will spend more time locking down those votes. Nothing is fixed. Every now and then, one party will get caught flat-footed and lose a winnable race because it didn't understand the new rules. (Failing to strategize around ranked choice voting hurt Andrew Cuomo in the New York mayoral election, for example.) The losers learn quickly, though, and the advantage doesn't last. When Coke introduced a zero-sugar cola in 2005, Pepsi didn't just give up and go out of business; it launched its own version two years later. Political parties follow the same competitive logic. There's no question that the recent Republican efforts to restrict voting access are motivated by a belief that it will help their party. While they typically pitch these laws as being about voter integrity and confidence, every now and then someone slips, as when a Republican lawmaker in Wisconsin said that Trump would win the state in 2016 because of a new voter ID law. But that doesn't mean they are correct, just as Colorado Democrats were wrong in 2013 when they thought making it easier to vote would help them. I understand the impulse to argue against these laws by zeroing in on that premise. But in doing so, Democrats risk giving themselves an out on the hard work of figuring out why so many Americans preferred Trump in 2024 and what they can do about it in the future. On this much, we can agree: Everyone should be allowed to vote. And when everyone votes, we all win. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Oklahoma Supreme Court begins oral arguments on State Question 836
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) – Voters in Oklahoma could see a change in their voting process as oral deliberations begin in the Oklahoma Supreme Court regarding State Question 836. State Question 836 aims to reform the state's primary election system, allowing all registered voters, regardless of party affiliation, to participate in primary elections. Oklahoma Standard: Thunder celebration comes full circle 30 years after OKC bombing Currently, voters are only allowed to vote for their designated registered party, with Independents voting in Democratic primaries. Republicans are asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to intervene, claiming open primaries could potentially spark confusion. Oklahoma Standard: Thunder celebration comes full circle 30 years after OKC bombing Supporters of SQ 836 are looking to score the Supreme Court's favor and begin gathering signatures for Oklahomans to vote on the matter. Tony Stobbe, a proponent for SQ 836, an independent voter and a retired U.S. Coast Guard Commander, witnessing the proceedings, says, 'This is not a partisan issue,' said Stobbe. 'Let the people vote. That's all we're asking. The only reason party insiders are trying to block SQ 836 in court is because they know it has real momentum. Oklahomans are ready for a system where every voter gets to vote in every election—and the political elites are clearly scared of that.' For more information or to support the campaign, visit This story is developing. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Daily Mail
25-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
ANDREW PIERCE: Is a Reform row brewing over voting changes?
Even though he's forging ahead in the polls, Nigel Farage remains committed to ending the first past the post voting system. 'It's unfair,' says Farage, whose Reform UK had five MPs elected last year on 14 per cent of the vote, compared to the Lib Dems ' 72 MPs on 12 per cent. But it seems, there is a split in Reform UK. Zia Yusuf, the party chairman, is adamant they should abandon reforming the voting system. 'I firmly believe – and I'm speaking personally here – I think if PR was ever instituted in this country, we will end up in a state of gridlock. We will not be able to do the frankly quite ambitious, and in some cases radical, things by the time we get to 2029 that we're going to need to do to unshackle the British economy from crazy over-regulation.' He's changed his tune. He derided the outcome of the last election as 'the second most disproportionate result of any advanced democracy in history'. I-spy: Locked in conversation at a Westminster reception, Michael Portillo, once the golden boy of the Conservative Party, and Ethan Thoburn, who is Nigel Farage's chief of staff at Reform UK. Portillo would be quite the catch for Reform. Maggie's still standing in the West End Sir Elton John 's hit I'm Still Standing is reinvented as a stand-up row between Bob Geldof and Margaret Thatcher in a new West End musical about Live Aid called Just One Day. The row was over the Treasury's refusal to reimburse VAT costs to the charity. Geldof says: 'There was an argument between Thatcher and myself and it's central to the show, so the scene needed a real dynamism. 'I thought it should be Gilbert and Sullivan meets Hamilton.' The confrontation ends in a hip-hop 'dance off' – though in real life, Mrs Thatcher succumbed and agreed to stump up. Bulbous-nosed bumbler Lord Foulkes laid into parliamentary sketch writers and political columnists last week for being 'all over the place' and for making factual errors. Labour's Foulkes then made a howler himself, complaining that journalist Allison Pearson 'lives in Dubai'. Wrong! She resides in fair Essex. Just for clarity, Foulkes committed the mistake before lunch. Labour-run Camden council forecasts a deficit of around £40 million, meaning millions of pounds of cuts. They could start with slashing the £230,000 salary of new chief executive Jon Rowney. Camden MP Sir Keir Starmer is paid £172,000 as Prime Minister. Political observation of the week: Former Tory MP Sir Michael Fabricant notes: 'How strange, all the fish in the English Channel belong to the EU. All the humans found in the English Channel belong to the UK!' The EU handed out photos of the signing of the PM's surrender deal with a caption referring to Rodney Starmer. Rodney happens to be the Prime Minister's middle name. A GUTSY PERFORMANCE The annual Festival of the London Welsh Chorale has dedicated a young musician's prize in memory of Glenys Kinnock. Her widower Neil, the former Labour leader, said she always admired the bravery of young solo performers. 'She knew about that in her childhood and early teens,' he wrote in the New Statesman. 'Overcoming terror to give angelic voice to religious and folk songs. All that came before she gathered the supreme courage to tell her family she was a humanist and would no longer perform. 'That took real guts.'
