Norway held a parliamentary election on September 9, 2013. The election provided for a pilot project, in which 250,159 voters in twelve municipalities were able to vote on the internet. The OSCE (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights), the outgrowth of the Helsinki Accords, analyzes the entire Norwegian election in this 19-page report. For the analysis of the internet voting experiment, see pages 9-10.

The entire report is interesting. Norway uses proportional representation and that is described also. Norway uses electronic poll-books, so that voters can vote in any precinct. Individuals need not register to vote; the government prepares a list of all registered voters using data already available. Voters can vote as many times as they wish, but only their last vote counts. This reduces the fear that someone else is watching the voter cast a vote, perhaps because the other individual is attempting to bribe the voter. If the voter does feel intimidated, the voter is free to cast another ballot later, eliminating the first ballot. Thanks to Bill Kelleher for the link.

Dan Schnur will run for California Secretary of State as an independent candidate in 2014. He was active in Republican Party politics in California in the past, and became a registered independent in 2011. See this story. He will be the first independent candidate for Secretary of State in the history of government-printed ballots in California, which began in 1891. Here is another story.

Schnur has been a supporter of Proposition 14, the top-two system, ever since it passed in 2010. I have tried to communicate with Mr. Schnur over the past year about the deficiencies of Proposition 14, including the point that Proposition 14 and its implementing legislation deprived independent candidates of the ability to have “independent” on the ballot. He and other independent candidates must have “no party preference” on the ballot, which is less appealing than “independent.” Research from around the U.S. was published in the August 1, 2013 B.A.N., showing that independent candidates who have the label “independent” do better than independent candidates who use other terms, such as “no party preference”, “non-partisan”, “unaffiliated”, or no label at all.

Many large newspapers in California are bemoaning the very low turnout in special U.S. House and legislative elections recently. Some newspapers are editorializing in favor of eliminating special elections for the legislature, and advocating that the Constitution be changed to let the Governor appoint legislators to fill vacant seats. See this Los Angeles Times editorial, and this Santa Rosa Press Democrat editorial.

The newspapers are correct that voter turnout in recent special elections has been low. Ever since the top-two rules were in force, starting in 2011, the median voter turnout in California special legislative and U.S. House elections has been 13.84%. The average has been 15.80%. There have been 19 special elections under top-two rules.

If one looks at special elections for U.S. House and legislature in the period just before top-two rules went into effect, one notes that the median turnout was 20.27% and the average turnout was 21.93%. That covers the special elections held in 2009 and 2010, and also the special election held January 4, 2011, because it was held under the old rules.

Thus, whether one uses the median turnout, or the average turnout, turnout is approximately one-third lower under the top-two rules than in the corresponding period of time before it went into effect. One reason for lower turnout is that top-two makes it impossible for minor party candidates to get into the run-off, if there is one. Under the old rules for special elections, which were blanket primary elections, the top vote-getter from each party went into the run-off, if there was one (and there usually was a run-off). This encouraged minor party members to run, because they could campaign for a longer period of time. Also, under the old rules, minor party members only needed 150 signatures to avoid paying the filing fee, but now they need either 3,000 or 1,500, depending on whether they are running for U.S. House/State Senate, or Assembly.

The new rules also discourage independent candidates. Under the old rules, they were always included in the run-off, if there was one. Also, under the old rules, they could have the word “independent” on the ballot; now they have the less-appealing “no party preference.” And under the old rules, write-in space was on the run-off ballot, but that is no longer true.

Minor parties sometimes did well in special elections, under the old rules. An American Independent Party nominee got 10.2% in the State Senate 37th run-off held June 8, 2010. A Peace & Freedom Party nominee got 8.45% in the State Senate 26th run-off held May 19, 2009. A Green got 6.2% in the Assembly 72nd run-off on January 12, 2010. A Libertarian got 5.2% in the US House 32nd run-off on July 14, 2009.

The calculations above do not include the two instances in which a special election was held simultaneously with a regularly-scheduled general election, because obviously the turnout for that special election was unusually high simply because it was held on a regular election day.