What happened:
As a historian, I see this election fitting squarely within American political history. We have a long tradition of supporting presidential candidates with very aggressive personalities, so many that this personality type is historically associated with being a good president.
Voters often reflexively support these candidates because we have been conditioned to associate aggressiveness with problem-solving and governing.
John Adams, Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Donald Trump, to name just a few, fit within this category.
To overcome this mindset, a presidential candidate with a different personality style must have actionable plans and the means to enact those plans. Action is seen as assertive, which can replace being aggressive.
Franklin D. Roosevelt and his wife, Eleanor, are prime examples. Voters elected them four times to reward both for being very action-oriented. I include Eleanor because FDR depended on her in many ways.
Franklin and Eleanor were successful not only because of New Deal promises and outcomes but also because of their ability and willingness to act assertively.
Under these circumstances, Vice President Harris had an arduous path to the White House. With what some voters perceive as an economy in crisis and without bold plans coupled with the power to act, enough voters either did not vote or chose the aggressive personality.
But why did voters also reject open primaries and ranked-choice voting?
The anti-Ballot Question 3 consultants worked hard to simulate an aggressive personality type to trigger acceptance of the status quo. Their mailers and ads were commands, often based on fear.
The anti-Ballot Question 3 message aggressively attacked ranked choice voting as threatening the status quo, which it does. The messaging failed to include that it is a threat because it dismantles a system that rewards consultants who prefer electing candidates by leaning into aggression.
Opponents said they could not accept ranked choice voting because it was too confusing. We can discuss later why “confusing” is unacceptable when describing someone else’s learning ability. As an educator and someone with a child with a learning disability, I find the way that word was used offensive.
The official Yes on Ballot Question 3 campaign consultants also focused on the open primary component because that’s where they found the most support. They largely ignored ranked choice voting and utterly failed to defend it or challenge the discriminatory intent behind saying it is confusing for some people.
I can also frame the BQ3 loss this way: A majority of voters sided with an aggressive and very male approach to politics and rejected a more civil and female approach. Many women have been elected under ranked-choice voting systems, so the evidence of the differences in approaches is pretty clear.
Where do we go from here if we want to reform the status quo?
First, we jettison paid consultants, which seems to be the root of the problem. We can handle this as Nevadans.
Second, we must advocate for a top-two open primary bill to pass in the 2025 legislative session. If BQ3 opponents claim to support a top-two open primary, we can help them pass that reform now.
Senator Ben Kieckhefer submitted an open primary bill in the 2021 legislative session, but the Democratic majority refused to give it a hearing. If Democrats have changed their minds and will pass an open primary bill, then let’s ask our legislators to support passing SB121 in the next legislative session. You can read SB121 here https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/81st2021/Bill/7459/Overview
Third, let’s redouble our outreach to voters, especially Gen Z, who aren’t voting. As you can see in this chart, many young voters in Clark County are not voting. We need their voices in our elections to provide balance. Look at how many young voters opted out in this election:
Younger voters are much less likely to support aggressive and belligerent candidates due to their experience with mental health-triggering events. After many school shootings and a pandemic, younger voters tend to reject experiences that feel like an attack on their well-being.
Uncoincidentally, many young voters are registered nonpartisan and reject belonging to one of the political parties, which can be very aggressive and combative. This is even more true if a young person hasn’t grown up in a politically active family.
To attract young voters’ attention, our message must emphasize the inclusivity of an open primary and how rank-choice voting rewards candidates who are civil, collaborative, and willing to compromise.
We need face-to-face conversations and positive social media messages that include educational content without being patronizing. All our messaging should align with positive mental health practices, which our current political rhetoric does not.
The official Yes on BQ3 campaign tried to shame older voters into voting to open the primaries, which may seem less aggressive. But by also excluding ranked-choice voting, they failed to speak to thousands of young voters who are seeking an antidote to a political system that feels like a mental illness.
We can talk about ranked-choice voting positively. I have information about ranked-choice voting here on the Vote Nevada Blog: https://vote-nevada-blog.org/
Ultimately, empowering voters willing to change the status quo will create the change we need.
If you agree, let’s start now.
We can start planning our assertive path forward at the next Vote Nevada meeting on Saturday, November 16th, at 6 pm via Zoom. RSVP: https://vote-nevada.news/Democracy-Project-2025
Sondra
Vote Nevada 