CfER Candidate Survey Responses - United States Representative

This page lists responses to the Californians for Electoral Reform's survey of candidates for the United States House of Representatives in the November 2002 general election. An empty box in the table indicates either that the candidate did not respond to our survey or that the candidate's response has not yet been compiled.

A bold "I" in parentheses next to a candidate's name indicates that he or she is an incumbent. A single asterisk next to a candidate's name indicates that he or she won the election by a plurality (with less than fifty percent of the votes plus one). Two asterisks next to a candidate's name indicate that he or she won the election by a majority (with more than fifty percent of the votes). Three asterisks next to a candidate's name indicate that he or she won the election by a substantial majority (with fifty-five percent or more of the votes). Four asterisks next to a candidate's name indicate that he or she won the election by a landslide (with sixty percent or more of the votes).

Survey Questions

Many states have difficulty satisfying the conflicting requirements of the Voting Rights Act and recent Supreme Court decisions declaring that race cannot be used as a primary factor when drawing districts. The use of proportional or semi-proportional systems in multi-member districts would allow states to satisfy both the VRA and recent Supreme Court decisions, yet 2 USC 2c prevents states from using the multi-member Congressional districts required to make proportional and semi-proportional systems work.

1 (Voters Choice Act):
Do you support legislation that would allow states to use proportional or semi-proportional systems to elect their Congressional delegations?

Many states and localities are considering replacing plurality elections and/or two-round runoffs with Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) as a way to obtain (or maintain) majority winners while reducing election costs and preventing low-turnout second elections. However, not all voting equipment can easily accommodate the ranked ballots that IRV requires.

2 (IRV compatible equipment):
Do you support legislation requiring all equipment purchased with federal funds to handle ranked ballots?

3 (elect President without popular plurality):
What are your views on an election system that allows the winner of the Presidential contest to come in second in the popular vote, as happened in 2000?

4 (elect President without popular majority):
What are your views on an election system that allows the winner of the Presidential contest to have less than a majority of the popular vote, as happened in 1992 and 1996 (as well as 2000)?

Extended Answers

Answer to Q1 (Maad Abu-Ghazalah):
Yes -- states should be allowed to decide whether to use proportional or semi-proportional systems for electing their representatives to Congress. Proportional election systems will let the voters of politically diverse states -- such as California -- send a delegation that better reflects the attitudes and concerns of its populace.

Answer to Q2 (Maad Abu-Ghazalah):
Yes -- if states use federal funds to purchase voting equipment, that equipment ought to be compatible with ranked ballots. The ability to handle ranked ballots is a major step in true electoral reform. That ability lets states choose election systems that determine majority winners in a single election thus eliminating the need for costly run-offs.

Answer to Q3 (Maad Abu-Ghazalah):
An election system which lets the winner of the popular vote lose is flawed. What happened in 2000 illustrated many problems on how we elect the President. One problem is that the Electoral College method for electing the President gives individual voters in large population states -- like California -- disproportionately less say in who is going to be President.

Answer to Q4 (Maad Abu-Ghazalah):
The President ought to be determined using a system which ensures that the winner has the support from a majority of voters in a direct election. THere is something wrong when the current system forces people into strategic voting rather than voting for whom they believe is the best candidate.

Answer to Q1 (Christina Avalos):
I understand the difficulties of our electoral systems and would push for electoral reform. I will work to find the best way to resolve these problems.

Answer to Q2 (Christina Avalos):
If federal funding allows diversity not control, it appears advisable.

Answer to Q3 (Christina Avalos):
The difference in the popular vote is less than the number of votes involved in mis-counting, under-counting, fraud and intimidation. We need to address and correct this before working on another system; otherwise we will be dealing with these same problems.

Answer to Q4 (Christina Avalos):
Same answer as above.

Answer to Q1 (Kevin Bastian):
Yes, I would definitely support such a system that would, as you say, solve a number of problems. Minorities would be far better represented in Congress, more in line with their proportion of the population. When I say minorities, I don't just mean racial minorities, of course. I also mean political views as well. We need to have a more diverse set of views in Congress than we do now, and this would be an excellent and fair way to accomplish that.

I'm no constitutional authority, but I just reread Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and I don't see anywhere that it precludes representatives being selected from multi-member districts. I would support any legislation required to make this option available to the states.

Answer to Q2 (Kevin Bastian):
Yes, definitely. I would consider going further and requiring that all federal elections employ IRV. I'm not a fan of the federal government dictating how states and localities operate, but I believe that it is extremely important to the health of our nation that we increase voter participation, break the two-party stranglehold, and ensure that all elected officials are elected by a majority of voters. IRV would accomplish all three of these objectives, so I would be open to any idea that would help implement it at all levels of government. If one-time federal funds were required to assist in setting up such systems, I would even be open to that. It's that important.

If all federal elections had to employ IRV, I believe people in most states and localities would soon see the beauty of the system and would demand it for their state/local elections as well.

Answer to Q3 (Kevin Bastian):
Actually, I have no problem with that and believe that far too much has been made of it. The candidate with the majority of electoral votes wins the presidency. That has always been the system. To complain afterwards that the candidate with the most popular votes didn't win is like complaining that the football team with the most first downs didn't win. Those aren't the rules! Just as football teams would use different strategies if they knew first downs would decide the winner, so both Bush and Gore would have run different campaigns if they'd thought that national popular vote was what mattered. The federal government was created by the states, and considerable effort was given by the founding fathers to ensuring that the states were represented fairly in this government. There was great concern that residents of the smaller states would lose much of their say in their government if the president were elected by direct popular vote. Thus, the system was created where each state selects its electors, ensuring that smaller states still have a voice in choosing the president. I believe direct popular vote is not the best way to elect a president. I would continue the electoral vote system where each state's popular vote determines its electoral votes and the winner of a majority of electoral votes becomes president.

Answer to Q4 (Kevin Bastian):
As stated above, I don't believe this is inherently a problem, so long as the winner received the majority of the electoral votes. However there are two problems here. First, I believe that all federal elections should employ IRV. Thus, the winner of each state's electoral votes would have received the majority of the state's popular votes via the IRV process. The other problem is the way in which elections are resolved by Congress if no candate receives a majority of the electoral votes. I would support amending the Constitution to employ a form of IRV at the Electoral College level. If no candidate received a majority, the one with the least electoral votes would be eliminated, and the candidate coming in second in those states would receive their electoral votes. Thus, we'd avoid the potential for back-room deal-making and would always have a majority president, at least from an Electoral College perspective.

I realize this proplsal is complicated, and as a congressman I would welcome suggestions on how best to implement it.

Answer to Q1 (Howard Beeman):
Yes. Proportional systems provide for representative government and I support most any change that makes government more responsive and democratic.

Answer to Q2 (Howard Beeman):
I am a big supporter of IRV and will support all efforts towards the implementation of this improved system.

Answer to Q3 (Howard Beeman):
THe Electoral College unfairly allows the voters in small states more say in deciding who will be president. I support the concept of one person, one vote and the Electoral College hinders the realization of this ideal.

Answer to Q4 (Howard Beeman):
Instant Runoff Voting would solve this.

Additional comments from candidate Howard Beeman:
[Mr. Beeman also sent a copy of his election flyer "Beeman for Congress", which does not directly address any of our questions. It does, however, briefly discuss campaign finance issues:]

... Winning elections with large amounts of money has poisoned the process, corrupting otherwise well-intentioned public servants. I want this to change.

...

Without campaign finance reform, candidates who want independence must continue to rely on engaging citizens in a grassroots campaign. ...

Answer to Q4 (Michael Benoit):
Does not matter when it's the less of two evils

Answer to Q3 (Ted Brown):
It makes sense from an historic point of view. The electoral college seems archaic, but would probably work if it was by congressional district, instead of winner-take-all by state.

Answer to Q4 (Ted Brown):
This happens quite a bit throughout history. Since such a small percentage of the eligible voters vote anyway, it probably doesn't make much difference. But I do favor IRV as a means of broadening our political choices.

Answer to Q3 (Andrew B. Carver):
I think it's ok.

Answer to Q4 (Andrew B. Carver):
It's ok, but IRV would benefit America.

Answer to Q3 (Joe Michael Cobb):
No problem with this. (There is nothing "mystical" about the "Deimos", but I would like to see the Electoral College elected proportionately in each State.)

Answer to Q4 (Joe Michael Cobb):
No problem -- see above.

Answer to Q3 (Frank M. Consolo, Jr.):
It's not palatable and the public isn't happy.

Answer to Q4 (Frank M. Consolo, Jr.):
These situations lead to a representative democracy that ignores "our" (we the people) wishes, and reveals how we are not "really" represented.

Additional comments from candidate Phill Courtney:
[Mr. Courtney sent us a copy of a commentary he wrote titled "The Evil of Two Lessers: Ending the Two Party duopoly", which appeared in the November 1, 2000, edition of the _Perris Progress_. He also sent a copy of his campaign brochure "Why vote for Phill Courtney" by Herb Ruhs, which does not directly address electoral form but discusses why one should vote for third party candidates and includes a photo of Mr. Courtney with CVD Chairperson John Anderson captioned "Phill with 1980 independent Presidential candidate John Anderson at the Green Party national convention in 2000. Phill worked for John in 1980."]

Answer to Q2 (Al Cuperus):
Yes, with a provision, that states compensate the federal government for the use of that equipment when used in a non-federal election.

Answer to Q3 (Al Cuperus):
I believe it helps clear up a popular misconception, that we are not a democracy, and never have been. We are a representative republic. The Founding Fathers had no intention of allowing the general populace to elect a president. Instead, they were to select members to the Electoral College that they believed represented their views, and to vote accordingly. Unfortunately, that instance was one of the few times in recent memory in which the Constitution was actually upheld.

Answer to Q4 (Al Cuperus):
Considering that it's somehting in the past that can't be changed, I don't have a problem with it. But I do think that if the IRV system can be put in place, it's a concern that won't have to be dealt with again.

Answer to Q2 (Karl W. Dietrich):
Yes. IRV is a great idea -- used successfully in Nevada! Also, all elected positions should include "none of the above".

Answer to Q3 (Karl W. Dietrich):
Get rid of the Electoral College! This is an antiquated system that should have been thrown out thirty years ago when computers proved capable of counting all votes.

Answer to Q4 (Karl W. Dietrich):
See 3 above!

Answer to Q3 (Paul L. Erickson):
This system holds this country together.

Answer to Q4 (Paul L. Erickson):
We survived Bill Clinton. Ross Perot had the right to run.

Answer to Q2 (Richard Frankhuizen):
I would like to see voting go electronic via the Internet. Machines and individual cards are subject ot fraud.

Answer to Q3 (Richard Frankhuizen):
This would not have been an issue with electonic voting. The Electoral College creates this separation. There are pros and cons for both. I am undecided at this present time.

Answer to Q4 (Richard Frankhuizen):
As long as there is no incentive to vote and governors and the court ignore the will of the people, fewer and fewer people will vote.

Answer to Q1 (Gary Harber):
I do not know what is meant by "proportional system".; therefore I cannot answer this question affirmatively. Proportional to what? If you mean proportional to Libertarians, I would favor it. If you are referring to race, I am opposed. We should ignore race in every matter. What would you say, for example, of someone who is half black and half white, hispanic, etc. These are very real examples that cannot be dealt with in old world terms.

Answer to Q2 (Gary Harber):
No. I believe the states should decide the method by which their representatives are elected.

Answer to Q3 (Gary Harber):
This question refers to the electoral college. I believe the electoral college could be replaced by ordinary direct vote in modern times. However, I am anxious to admit that I am not sure what would be the consequences, expecially when combined with instant runoff voting, although I find the prospect exciting. I would favor such an experiment.

Answer to Q4 (Gary Harber):
This question seems to be similar to #3, expecially when considering instant runoff voting. There has never been a runoff election for the office of President, because of the electoral college. I am not extremely bothered by the mathematical outcome of past elections. If one political party holds a majority in both houses of Congress, having a minority of voters selecting the President is not as significant in many aspects of our government, though very significant in others, such as nominating judges and justices, veto power and war powers. Nevertheless, the Congress is responsible for exercising oversight on all of these.

Answer to Q1 (Mike Honda):
I am a strong supporter of electoral reform. We need a system that more accurately represents the interests of our diverse citizenry. The makeup of the current legislature does not accurately reflect minorities or women. I am interested in learning more about the impact proportional and semi-proportional systems would have on our government and its implementation.

Answer to Q2 (Mike Honda):
I would be interested in learning about the results of a pilot project that employs Instant Runoff Voting in a local election. IRV seems to be a promising and efficient way to obtain majority winners and at the same time reduce election costs. All new balloting machines should accurately and securely count every ballot.

Answer to Q3 (Mike Honda):
The 2000 Presidential election reflected the serious need for electoral reform in America. A number of different improvements need to be made before the system can accurately reflect the will of the people.

Answer to Q4 (Mike Honda):
The low voter turnout in our nation is reflective of a systemic problem that needs to be addressed. I support California's Proposition 52 that allows Election-Day Registration, which I believe will significantly increase voter turnout. However, other reforms are also needed to rectify this problem.

Generic answer from candidate Stuart Johnson:
[Mr. Johnson sent two pieces of campaign literature, a general mailer titled "Stuart Johnson for Congress: Strengthen. Reform. Simplify." and a booklet titled "Stuart Johnson on the Issues...", neither of which directly address the questions in our survey or closely related issues.]

Answer to Q1 (Jeffrey S. Keup):
I am not a supporter of new legislation, especially if the old legislation works fine.

Answer to Q2 (Jeffrey S. Keup):
I support IRV because it allows a 50%+1 vote majority to win. This is much better than the old system and more approaches the one used for passing bills in the House and Senate. I am not in favor of using federal funds to support this program....

Answer to Q3 (Jeffrey S. Keup):
Let's go back and re-read the constitution and see what the founding fathers said about this -- if they even addressed the issue.

Answer to Q4 (Jeffrey S. Keup):
I am against winning with less than a convincing number of supporters, especially if this person or persons is supposed to be representative of the people.

Answer to Q1 (Jascha Lee):
Though I do not support the racist goals of those supporting PR, I do support PR (and am in fact a member of your organization).

Answer to Q2 (Jascha Lee):
No. Although federal funding is an effective way to impose top down control, I prefer such control to remain as local as possible.

Answer to Q3 (Jascha Lee):
The Electoral College is an effective check on majoritarianism (tyranny by the majority). As such, I support it and the protection it offers small states. I do not relish the homogeneity that results from a strong Federal / weak States model of government.

Answer to Q4 (Jascha Lee):
Although it would be in my narrow self interest to support a popular vote model (California being one of the tiny number of states that would decide all such elections), I prefer a weak Federal / strong States model of government (and a not too strong State at that).

Answer to Q1 (Charles R. Martin):
I do not have sufficient knowledge to answer this question.

Answer to Q2 (Charles R. Martin):
Seems the prudent thing to do.

Answer to Q3 (Charles R. Martin):
The nation seems to be fine with the Electoral College in place. 2000 was not the only time this occurred.

Answer to Q4 (Charles R. Martin):
With the growth of third parties this will become the norm. I have no problem with this. One cannot expect the two parties in power to sponsor reforms.

Answer to Q1 (Patrick Lee Mc Hargue):
I support IRV, but I am not sure about PR. I can say that I am open to discussion about it on the way toward making an informed decision.

Answer to Q3 (Patrick Lee Mc Hargue):
I am certainly open to discussions about the Electoral College system, but I am not convinced that it needs to be changed.

Answer to Q4 (Patrick Lee Mc Hargue):
See my answerr for 3.

Answer to Q1 (Ethel M. Mohler):
I neither support nor oppose such legislation. If I had my choice, I would simply encourage the use of computer programs to determine districts of roughly equal geographical size and population. Anything else, while it might serve certain social goals (insuring representation by underprivileged groups as defined by either ethnicity or income) is easily subject to gerrymandering by state legislatures. Until they show that they can responsibly create districts without reference to party interests (I'm not holding my breath), I think any other solution invites corruption. But I will add here that our current situation is no better than your proposed reform, so between the two, I remain neutral.

Answer to Q2 (Ethel M. Mohler):
Again, I have no real position on this issue, and think it is handled best on the local level. What I oppose, however, are electronic ballot machines that are supposedly "self monitoring." I think especially in light of recent charges of corruption in Florida (both with the last Presidential campaign and the recent Democratic primary for the governor's race) that such machines could easily be programmed to give a false vote tally, and the lack of a paper trail would invite such actions. I think Orange County and Riverside made a mistake in getting such machines, and I will fight their introduction elsewhere, whether I am elected or not.

Answer to Q3 (Ethel M. Mohler):
[See answer to 4 below]

Answer to Q4 (Ethel M. Mohler):

Questions 3 and 4 both ask essentially the same thing: should a President be elected with less than a clear majority of the popular vote? This has havppened at various times in US history, and it has often been followed with a serious discussion of changing the system and reform. I remain unconvinced, however, that such results are necessarily bad. The republic has survived, and even prospered, under Presidents as varied as John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Bill Clinton. So I don't see any pressing need for reform. I do think having the elections decided by popular vote, as opposed to the electoral college, would have some interesting consequences. One is that currently elections are contested only in certain key states, which easily swing from one party to the other. This actually limits the amount of money spent on campaigns. If, on the other hand, elections were decided by popular vote, campaigns would be truly national in scope, and it is likely that they would cost considerably more.

I'm particularly concerned by the implication of question 4, that an election is somehow compromised when a person receives less than the majority of votes because of the participation of one or more third party candidates. Republicans in particular were very bitter that President Clinton received less than 50% of the vote thanks to the efforts of Ross Perot, and many Democrats seemed to resent the campaign of Ralph Nader in 2000. I may be biased as a third party candidate, but I think its perfectly OK for significant numbrs of people to vote third party. This tells major party candidates they are dissatisfied, and want to see serious changes before they rejoin the mainstream political process. In my opinion, this is healthy, and serves to remind major parties that they represent, not merely govern, the people of this country.

Additional comments from candidate Ethel M. Mohler:
Thank you for your thoughtful questions regarding elections and possible reforms. I shall try to answer them on this letter to the best of my ability. Before I begin, however, I would like to point out that in general, Libertarians favor limited government and individual freedom. Our views are predicated on the natural rights of people, and therefore, questions about the mechanics of government are really secondary for us. A parliamentary democracy for example, would be superior to our form of representation if taxes were low, and citizens were not subjected to a "war on drugs" that even limited their access to pain medications. On the other hand, even a pure democracy, such as Athens, could be very tyrannical. So we favor limited government, regardless of the particular form it takes.

Answer to Q2 (Kelley L. Ross):
Yes, but Libertarians do not support federal funds for any such purposes at all.

Answer to Q3 (Kelley L. Ross):
I support the Electoral College, which is that system, except "winner take all" state elections are not necessarily required for it: proportional Electoral votes would be good.

Answer to Q4 (Kelley L. Ross):
Same answer.

Answer to Q3 (Mark W. Stroberg):
I oppose the Electoral College system. I support direct election of all elective offices.

Answer to Q4 (Mark W. Stroberg):
As long as there is no system such as IRV, it may be necessary to allow a non-majority winner, as there are always more than two presidential candidates on most state ballots. If IRV is implemented, I would support a requirement that the winner have a majority of the popular vote.