Arizona House of Representatives

[Meeker]

So I'm reading this article about the races for the Arizona House this fall, and I was curious to learn about their method of election. There are 30 districts, and each district elects two members (top two vote-getters). However, every voter only gets to vote for one candidate.

So if a party manages to split their vote exactly right in some districts, they have the capability of electing two candidates. Making a concerted effort to split voting would be exceedingly difficult though. Alternatively, if they run just one candidate in some districts they'd be assured of winning one of the seats, but would be abandoning even making an effort on others. There are of course numerous different strategic ways besides this that a party could use to get more members.

So my question to you all is this: What is the most effective way of electing members to the State House under this system?

[Nutmeg]

Do you have a link to the article?

So it's basically a jungle primary, with all candidates from all parties on the general election ballot, and each voter chooses one candidate, and the top two are elected?

[Sensei]

this looks like it opens the door for third parties better than the usual system.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Single Non-Transferable Vote system. Awful, even worse than pure FPTP.

North Dakota uses the same two member system, but you get two votes. With only one vote, it simply comes down to which party can coordinate tactical voters better, or every seat gets one member from each party except for the absolute safest seats.

[Nutmeg]

Oh, that's a pretty terrible system.  Theoretically if there were, say, 8 members of the district's majority party running and only two members of the district's minority party, the two could win the seats with just over 20% of the total vote if all 10 candidates split the vote roughly equally.  But this is certainly better than if, say, three members were elected per district, because each additional representative elected adds exponentially to the screwiness.

In response to the original question: So a party's best strategy would be to run two candidates - no more and no less - per friendly district and one candidate - and no more - per unfriendly district, where you'd want that candidate to finish (at least) second (which is as good as first).  The tricky thing would be in a marginal district whether you'd want to run one or two candidates; it would be a gamble between going for both seats or conceding one and boosting your chances at the other.

[Meeker]

My understanding is that only two candidates from each party can appear on the general election ballot. The top two candidates from each party primary advance to the general election.

[Nutmeg]

My understanding is that only two candidates from each party can appear on the general election ballot. The top two candidates from each party primary advance to the general election.

Oh, that does make things more fair.

Still, in unfriendly districts, a party would want to run only one candidate, regardless.

[Bacon King]

Wow. Contrary to what I had assumed, only five of the thirty districts have a split delegation.

[Хahar 🤔]

Good old-fashioned SNTV. Ugly, ugly, ugly. Just as two-member constituencies are in general.

[jimrtex]

So I'm reading this article about the races for the Arizona House this fall, and I was curious to learn about their method of election. There are 30 districts, and each district elects two members (top two vote-getters). However, every voter only gets to vote for one candidate.

So if a party manages to split their vote exactly right in some districts, they have the capability of electing two candidates. Making a concerted effort to split voting would be exceedingly difficult though. Alternatively, if they run just one candidate in some districts they'd be assured of winning one of the seats, but would be abandoning even making an effort on others. There are of course numerous different strategic ways besides this that a party could use to get more members.

So my question to you all is this: What is the most effective way of electing members to the State House under this system?

Looking at the 2004 and 2006 results, and comparing Senate and House results, I'm pretty sure that voters may vote for two candidates.  All members in both houses are elected every 2 years from 30 legislative districts, one senator and two house members.  So it is similar to Washington, except that senators are elected to 2 year terms, and thus there is a senate race in every LD

A second difference is that the house members are not elected by position, but rather in a single contest where a voter may cast two votes, and the top 2 candidates are elected.  If you compare the total vote in each house race to the total vote in the senate race for the same LD, the ratio is much greater than one, but remarkably less than two.  On a partisan basis, in districts where both major parties ran a senate candidate and two house candidates, the ratio is typically in the 1.6 to 1.8 range.  The vote for the two house candidates of a party are typically similar, and too close together to be the result of voters casting a single vote (unless the Republican and Democratic parties in Arizona are as disciplined as Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland).

By comparing results, it appears that there are a large share of partisans voters, but many of these do not vote for two candidates of their party.  On top of this there are some bi-partisan/independent voters.  I would suspect that some deliberately choose one candidate from each party.

In reasonably close districts, if most of the single-vote partisans vote for one of their two party's nominees, it can result in the leading candidate getting 20-30% more votes.   This may be enough for the leading candidate from the minority party to defeat the 2nd candidate for the majority party.

It appears that there may a tactical advantage for the minority party to run a single candidate.  This forces its partisans to vote for that one candidate, even if they only use one vote.  It also forces deliberate bi-partisans to vote for that single candidate.

So let's say that a district has a 50-10-40 D-I-R partisan balance.  But that is further split:

30% 2-vote Democrats.
20% 1-vote Democrats.
10% 2-vote deliberate bipartisans.
25% 2-vote Republicans.
15% 1-vote Republicans.

And let's say that that the 1-vote Democrats vote heavily for Don Key, while the bipartisans split their Democrat vote between Don Key and Betty Blue.   Meanwhile the 1-vote Republicans, and the bipartisans split their Republican vote between Ellie Funt and Rick Red.

If there are 1000 voters, the vote might be broken down among 2-vote partisans, Democrat 1-vote partisans, Republican 1-vote partisans, and 2-vote bipartisans.

Don Key:     300 + 150  +    0 + 50 = 500
Betty Blue:  300 +   50  +    0 + 50 = 400
Ellie Funt:    250 +     0  +  75 + 50 = 375
Rick Red:     250 +     0  +  75 + 50 = 375

Don Key is easily elected, but Betty Blue has only a narrow lead over Ellie Funt and Rick Red.  If Rick Red were not on the ballot, then Ellie Funt might get another 125 votes and also be elected (very few 2-vote partisans will use their 2nd vote to vote for a candidate of the other party).

Meanwhile Betty Blue has to encourage more Democrats to either vote twice, or to vote for her instead of Don Key, and also to encourage bipartisans to vote for her rather than Don Key.

In 2006, there were:

9 LDs with 2 Republican and 2 Democrat candidates:

4 DD-RR (2 Democrats elected)
3 RR-DD (2 Republicans elected)
1 RD-RD (split delegation with GOP 1st and 3rd)
1 DR-DR (split delegation with Dems 1st and 3rd)

9 LDs with 2 Republican and 1 Democrat candidates

7 RR-D (2 Republicans elected)
2 RD-R (split delegation)

6 LDs with 2 Democrat and 1 Republican candiates,

6 DD-R (2 Democrats elected)

5 LDs with 2 unopposed candidates - other than 3rd party

4 RR- (2 Republicans elected)
1 DD- (2 Democrats elected)

1 LD had one R and one D candidate, resulting in a split delegation

1 RD-

So of the 24 contested LD's, 4 elected split delegations.  Several of the others were reasonably close.  The 4 split house delegations were among the 12 LD's where the senate race was within a 60-40 margin.

For details see the 2006 senate and house results for LD 10, 11, 25, and 26.  Also LDs 5, 23, and 24.

2006 Arizona General election.

[jimrtex]

My understanding is that only two candidates from each party can appear on the general election ballot. The top two candidates from each party primary advance to the general election.

This is true.  But as in the general election, many voters only vote for one candidate.  In the September 2008 primary, there were 4 LD's that had contested Republican races for the senate nomination.  In the 2 LD's that had 2 Republicans vying for the 2 house nominations, the number of house votes were 1.38 and 1.48 times the senate turnout (here the house primary was meaningless).

In the other two LD's there was a 4-candidate and a 3-candidate race for the 2 GOP house nominations.  Turnout for the house races was 1.69 and 1.55 times that of the senate turnout, respectively.  IOW, assuming as many voters participate in the house contest as voted in the senate contest (remember that these elections cover identical territory), then only 55 to 69% of GOP voters used their 2nd vote.

[CARLHAYDEN]

So I'm reading this article about the races for the Arizona House this fall, and I was curious to learn about their method of election. There are 30 districts, and each district elects two members (top two vote-getters). However, every voter only gets to vote for one candidate.

So if a party manages to split their vote exactly right in some districts, they have the capability of electing two candidates. Making a concerted effort to split voting would be exceedingly difficult though. Alternatively, if they run just one candidate in some districts they'd be assured of winning one of the seats, but would be abandoning even making an effort on others. There are of course numerous different strategic ways besides this that a party could use to get more members.

So my question to you all is this: What is the most effective way of electing members to the State House under this system?

Wherever you are reading that material, let me assure you it is incorrect.

While there are two state representatives from each district, a registered Arizona voter gets to vote for two (not one)>

[Meeker]

So I'm reading this article about the races for the Arizona House this fall, and I was curious to learn about their method of election. There are 30 districts, and each district elects two members (top two vote-getters). However, every voter only gets to vote for one candidate.

So if a party manages to split their vote exactly right in some districts, they have the capability of electing two candidates. Making a concerted effort to split voting would be exceedingly difficult though. Alternatively, if they run just one candidate in some districts they'd be assured of winning one of the seats, but would be abandoning even making an effort on others. There are of course numerous different strategic ways besides this that a party could use to get more members.

So my question to you all is this: What is the most effective way of electing members to the State House under this system?

Wherever you are reading that material, let me assure you it is incorrect.

While there are two state representatives from each district, a registered Arizona voter gets to vote for two (not one)>

Ah, thank you Carl. Corporate media fails me again

[Хahar 🤔]

So I'm reading this article about the races for the Arizona House this fall, and I was curious to learn about their method of election. There are 30 districts, and each district elects two members (top two vote-getters). However, every voter only gets to vote for one candidate.

So if a party manages to split their vote exactly right in some districts, they have the capability of electing two candidates. Making a concerted effort to split voting would be exceedingly difficult though. Alternatively, if they run just one candidate in some districts they'd be assured of winning one of the seats, but would be abandoning even making an effort on others. There are of course numerous different strategic ways besides this that a party could use to get more members.

So my question to you all is this: What is the most effective way of electing members to the State House under this system?

Looking at the 2004 and 2006 results, and comparing Senate and House results, I'm pretty sure that voters may vote for two candidates.  All members in both houses are elected every 2 years from 30 legislative districts, one senator and two house members.  So it is similar to Washington, except that senators are elected to 2 year terms, and thus there is a senate race in every LD

A second difference is that the house members are not elected by position, but rather in a single contest where a voter may cast two votes, and the top 2 candidates are elected.  If you compare the total vote in each house race to the total vote in the senate race for the same LD, the ratio is much greater than one, but remarkably less than two.  On a partisan basis, in districts where both major parties ran a senate candidate and two house candidates, the ratio is typically in the 1.6 to 1.8 range.  The vote for the two house candidates of a party are typically similar, and too close together to be the result of voters casting a single vote (unless the Republican and Democratic parties in Arizona are as disciplined as Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland).

By comparing results, it appears that there are a large share of partisans voters, but many of these do not vote for two candidates of their party.  On top of this there are some bi-partisan/independent voters.  I would suspect that some deliberately choose one candidate from each party.

In reasonably close districts, if most of the single-vote partisans vote for one of their two party's nominees, it can result in the leading candidate getting 20-30% more votes.   This may be enough for the leading candidate from the minority party to defeat the 2nd candidate for the majority party.

It appears that there may a tactical advantage for the minority party to run a single candidate.  This forces its partisans to vote for that one candidate, even if they only use one vote.  It also forces deliberate bi-partisans to vote for that single candidate.

So let's say that a district has a 50-10-40 D-I-R partisan balance.  But that is further split:

30% 2-vote Democrats.
20% 1-vote Democrats.
10% 2-vote deliberate bipartisans.
25% 2-vote Republicans.
15% 1-vote Republicans.

And let's say that that the 1-vote Democrats vote heavily for Don Key, while the bipartisans split their Democrat vote between Don Key and Betty Blue.   Meanwhile the 1-vote Republicans, and the bipartisans split their Republican vote between Ellie Funt and Rick Red.

If there are 1000 voters, the vote might be broken down among 2-vote partisans, Democrat 1-vote partisans, Republican 1-vote partisans, and 2-vote bipartisans.

Don Key:     300 + 150  +    0 + 50 = 500
Betty Blue:  300 +   50  +    0 + 50 = 400
Ellie Funt:    250 +     0  +  75 + 50 = 375
Rick Red:     250 +     0  +  75 + 50 = 375

Don Key is easily elected, but Betty Blue has only a narrow lead over Ellie Funt and Rick Red.  If Rick Red were not on the ballot, then Ellie Funt might get another 125 votes and also be elected (very few 2-vote partisans will use their 2nd vote to vote for a candidate of the other party).

Meanwhile Betty Blue has to encourage more Democrats to either vote twice, or to vote for her instead of Don Key, and also to encourage bipartisans to vote for her rather than Don Key.

In 2006, there were:

9 LDs with 2 Republican and 2 Democrat candidates:

4 DD-RR (2 Democrats elected)
3 RR-DD (2 Republicans elected)
1 RD-RD (split delegation with GOP 1st and 3rd)
1 DR-DR (split delegation with Dems 1st and 3rd)

9 LDs with 2 Republican and 1 Democrat candidates

7 RR-D (2 Republicans elected)
2 RD-R (split delegation)

6 LDs with 2 Democrat and 1 Republican candiates,

6 DD-R (2 Democrats elected)

5 LDs with 2 unopposed candidates - other than 3rd party

4 RR- (2 Republicans elected)
1 DD- (2 Democrats elected)

1 LD had one R and one D candidate, resulting in a split delegation

1 RD-

So of the 24 contested LD's, 4 elected split delegations.  Several of the others were reasonably close.  The 4 split house delegations were among the 12 LD's where the senate race was within a 60-40 margin.

For details see the 2006 senate and house results for LD 10, 11, 25, and 26.  Also LDs 5, 23, and 24.

2006 Arizona General election.

Jim, I'm certain you're a robot.

[Kevinstat]

So Arizona's no different than North Dakota (and perhaps some other states) as far as how the two representatives from each Senate district are elected.  Idaho and Washington State (and perhaps some other states) elect each representative in their two-representative districts in separate contests.  New Hampshire does the same as North Dakota and Arizona in its multi-member House districts.  I'm not sure how Maryland (whose Senate districts can be divided into three single-member house districts, a single-member and a 2-member house district, or serve as a 3-member house district) elects its Representatives in its multi-member districts, in separate contests or in plurality block voting.  I'm sure it isn't a proportional method.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

So Arizona's no different than North Dakota (and perhaps some other states) as far as how the two representatives from each Senate district are elected.  Idaho and Washington State (and perhaps some other states) elect each representative in their two-representative districts in separate contests.  New Hampshire does the same as North Dakota and Arizona in its multi-member House districts.  I'm not sure how Maryland (whose Senate districts can be divided into three single-member house districts, a single-member and a 2-member house district, or serve as a 3-member house district) elects its Representatives in its multi-member districts, in separate contests or in plurality block voting.  I'm sure it isn't a proportional method.

Maryland is like the rest mentioned -- if you live in a 2 or 3-member district, they all run on the same ticket and you get 2 or 3 votes, respectively. That's one of the reasons why Maryland has such a heavily-Democratic State House; Montgomery and PG Counties are representated 100% by Democrats.

Going back to the original, mistaken assumption, it doesn't seem to me that the idea you could only have one vote in a two-representative district. That doesn't sound constitutional.

[Verily]

So I'm reading this article about the races for the Arizona House this fall, and I was curious to learn about their method of election. There are 30 districts, and each district elects two members (top two vote-getters). However, every voter only gets to vote for one candidate.

So if a party manages to split their vote exactly right in some districts, they have the capability of electing two candidates. Making a concerted effort to split voting would be exceedingly difficult though. Alternatively, if they run just one candidate in some districts they'd be assured of winning one of the seats, but would be abandoning even making an effort on others. There are of course numerous different strategic ways besides this that a party could use to get more members.

So my question to you all is this: What is the most effective way of electing members to the State House under this system?

Wherever you are reading that material, let me assure you it is incorrect.

While there are two state representatives from each district, a registered Arizona voter gets to vote for two (not one)>

Ah, thank you Carl. Corporate media fails me again

Okay, that makes sense. New Jersey uses multiple voting, too. I don't like it, but it's not a total sham the way SNTV is.

[Kevinstat]

So Arizona's no different than North Dakota (and perhaps some other states) as far as how the two representatives from each Senate district are elected.  Idaho and Washington State (and perhaps some other states) elect each representative in their two-representative districts in separate contests.  New Hampshire does the same as North Dakota and Arizona in its multi-member House districts.  I'm not sure how Maryland (whose Senate districts can be divided into three single-member house districts, a single-member and a 2-member house district, or serve as a 3-member house district) elects its Representatives in its multi-member districts, in separate contests or in plurality block voting.  I'm sure it isn't a proportional method.

Maryland is like the rest mentioned -- if you live in a 2 or 3-member district, they all run on the same ticket and you get 2 or 3 votes, respectively. That's one of the reasons why Maryland has such a heavily-Democratic State House; Montgomery and PG Counties are representated 100% by Democrats.

Going back to the original, mistaken assumption, it doesn't seem to me that the idea you could only have one vote in a two-representative district. That doesn't sound constitutional.

Limited voting (where voters don't have as many votes as there are seats to be filled, but potentially more than the one they have in SNTV) is used for most municipal offices in Connecticut, some county commissions in Pennsylvania, and in more than 20 municipalities in Alabama in North Carolina as an alternative to drawing majority-minority districts, according to Wikipedia.

One could argue it's unfair (although the courts have ruled it is constitutional, even in conjunction with single-member districts, to a point at least) to allow people to cast more than one vote in a contest but forbid them from casting more than one vote for the same candidate, as is done for State Representative in all of these states (except for Idaho and Washington State where the two State House positions in each district are filled in separate contests).

[minionofmidas]

I would think the election system as described by Meeker, while bad, beats the actual Arizona (and some other states') setup hands down in the reasonableness department.

[jimrtex]

So Arizona's no different than North Dakota (and perhaps some other states) as far as how the two representatives from each Senate district are elected.  Idaho and Washington State (and perhaps some other states) elect each representative in their two-representative districts in separate contests.  New Hampshire does the same as North Dakota and Arizona in its multi-member House districts.  I'm not sure how Maryland (whose Senate districts can be divided into three single-member house districts, a single-member and a 2-member house district, or serve as a 3-member house district) elects its Representatives in its multi-member districts, in separate contests or in plurality block voting.  I'm sure it isn't a proportional method.

North Dakotans appear to handle the vote for 2 candidates a bit better than Arizonans.  Typically, the house vote is about 1.85 times the senate vote.   There appears to be a senate-house cross-over effect, where the senate races were usually much more lopsided, and the house races closer, as if some voters would vote for a Democrat senator and 2 Republican representatives or vice versa.  In Arizona it seemed to be more the case that some voters would voter for one Democrat and one Republican representative.

There may be more of a personal effect in North Dakota.  With a small population and 47 legislative districts, more voters will actually know their represtatives.  It would make sense that the senator might have been longer serving, and a sitting house member less likely to challenge a sitting senator of the same or opposite party.  It may be easier for a voter to conceptualize a race between two candidates as being between two individuals, where if the race is between Rick and Rhoda the Republicans v. Dave and Donna the Democrats, it might be harder to distinguish between party and individual.

North Dakota, like Arizona elects the senator and both representatives for a Legislative District at the same election.  But in North Dakota, legislators are elected to 4 year terms, while in Arizona they are elected to 2 year terms.  North Dakota elects legislators in odd-numbered districts in one election (2006, etc.) and even-numbered districts in the even-numbered districts (2008, etc.) the next. 

They continue this pattern even through redistricting, so that the legislature in 2003 was composed of 1/2 members elected in 2000 using the 1990's districts, and 1/2 elected in 2002 using the new districts.   I then came across a curious note that because of redistricting, that District 26 elected a senator and a representative in 2002 - even though it was the odd-numbered districts year.

Basically there is no legal requirement that North Dakota elect their legislature the way they do.  There is a requirement that one senator along with two or more representatives be elected from each senate district.   But there is a provision that permits combining senate districts to avoid splitting federal installations, and in the past that has been used to avoid splitting Minot AFB and Grand Forks AFB between more than one senate district, creating senate districts electing 2 senators and 4 representatives.

It is likely the equal population requirements under the US Constitution would prevent senate districts having different number of representatives, and limits on the number of senators and representativs in the  North Dakota constitution effectively limits the number of representatives per senated district to 2.

The North Dakota constitution explicitly permits representatives to be elected from subdistricts, so that if the legislature chose to do so, the elections would be more like Washington.   In the past there have been suggestions that subdistricts be used in senated districts containing indian reservatins, or in large rural senate districts, or even across the state.   This probably hasn't been done due to inertia, concerns that some voters could only vote for one representative if not done universally, and probably in urban areas that this might create tiny districts (6000 persons, 2-3,000 votes) which might remove incumbents because of a requirement to live in the district from which one is elected.  Fargo has 9 senate districts, and would have to have 18 representative subdistricts.   And even towns like Williston, Dickinson, and Jamestown have senate districts drawn tightly around the towns that would have to be split into subdistricts.

As a part of redistricting, North Dakota does make adjustments to terms and elections, so that if an incument from an odd-numbered district was placed into an even-numbered district, the even-numbered district would hold an election in 2002 for a 2-year term.  But the incument from the odd-numbered district could agree that the incumbent from the even-numbered district could continue to serve the remainder of his 4-term to which he was originally elected.

There doesn't appear to be any account made for voters who were shifted from an odd-numbered district to an even-numbered district, and thus were unable to vote for any legislator for 6 years (1998 to 2004).

[Kevinstat]

States that use four-year staggered terms should have all Legislators elected in the first Legislative election after redistricting.