1. THE problem is the Divided Majority Problem – with 3 or more choices.

   26 AB
   25 BA
   49 Z
   100

   In real elections, both the majority and minority factions would be likely divided into multiple parts.
   ———
   IRV FAILS and is SUPER-Dangerous —

   34 LMR
   33 RML
   16 MLR
   16 MRL
   99

   With IRV, M loses. L 50 beats R 49.

   L = STALIN, R = HITLER, M – George Washington

   Means nothing to the IRV FANATICS since 1994 — a mere 20 years of math MORONS at work.
   —-
   Condorcet Head to Head math (around since the 1780s – repeat 1780s) –

   Test Winner(s) — Test Loser — Other Test Losers

   2nd or later choice votes of the OTL go to a TW or a TL.

   If a TW Wins [Loses] in ALL combinations, then he/she is a Condorcet Winner [Loser].

   May have some wins and loses in larger elections.
   A Tiebreaker is having YES/NO votes on all candidates.

2. FairVote is largely responsible for IRV in single-winner districts that have been implemented over the past two decades in peoples’ minds and in real state elections.

   That has resulted in one-party rule by requiring thresholds of 50% plus one vote in single-winner districts.

   At least in plurality elections there are random wins of smaller percentages.

   Now FairVote is promoting “top four” in single-winner elections?

   FairVote’s time-line for backing multi-winner elections appears to have been moved another twenty years into the future so I guess we’ll see another fifty years of that organization’s cementing of two-party system elections into place.

   In the age of instantaneous messaging, pure proportional representation (PR), could have been supported more strongly as the only democratically legitimate alternative.

   We’d do much better by checking out a book at the library on team psychology rather than considering anymore of these ill-advised excursions like a “top four” in single-winner districts.

   The 9th USA Parliament never made the mistake of promoting a faulty voting system, we’ve been using pure PR for 19 consecutive years and it works great!

   Won’t you join us?
   http://www.usparliament.org/signup.php

3. James Ogle

   How is top four better than top three or top two?
   I still thing the parties should have its choices
   in the general elections.

   Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg

4. Mark, the problem with your thinking is that your thinking is too small. The California Super-state Parliament has determined that 1000 heads are smarter than one several months ago.

   I am from a school of thought that bigger is better and more votes always trumps less votes.

   But no matter how many “top” people elected, one this is for sure; if you eliminate all but one person, then you’ll be smaller than any other quantity other than zero.

5. I have to respectfully disagree with Fairvote on “fixing” top two. It shouldn’t be fixed. In fact, it can’t be fixed. The underlying problem with top two is the notion of “voter nominated” candidates, which is exactly the part that Fairvote wants to keep. Even with four (or eight, or sixteen) candidates in the second round, top two would still cripple political parties. Fairvote’s proposal that parties as well as candidates have their “preferences” shown on the ballot doesn’t help much. How many voters are going to be able to read a ballot with two (sometimes different) party labels next to each candidate’s name.

   With respect to legislative elections, elaborate proposals for “fixing” top two have the additional problem that they divert attention from the need for proportional representation.

6. For emergency purposes there is also the lowest elimination method —

   Number Votes for all choices.

   The lowest votes in the M-1 columns loses.

   Example — 1 of 5 to be elected.
   Votes for — in cycle —

   4 of 5
   3 of 4
   2 of 3
   1 of 2

   Loser votes shift left after each elimination.
   The minorities get eliminated BUT can vote for the lesser of the evils among the majority.

7. CA-25: The Republican candidates had 65.3% of the vote to 31.6% for the Democratic candidates. View this as a swing district suggests that Fairvote favors the sorts of manipulations seen in the Hunger Games.

   There is often a slight bias toward Republican candidates for positions such as Controller, which is expected to be a watchdog position. A good case can be had for making it a non-partisan position. John Pérez was until recently, speaker of the Assembly, who handed out leadership positions on the basis of how much Assembly members could contribute to Democratic coffers. He is term-limited, and other positions are filled up. He’ll likely run for the state senate in two years. Betty Yee had the misfortune to have the same last name as an indicted gun-runner senator who was running for Secretary of State. Fairvote apparently beliefs controllers should be elected based on foreign policy positions of the national parties, rather than the qualifications of the candidates.

   Fairvote does not understand the difference between causality and correlation. The low turnout was not caused by Top 2, but the lackluster contests at the top of the ticket. Jerry Brown is reasonably well liked, and is term-limited in 2018, so most candidates held off running. There was no senate races, and California blocks initiatives from the June primary now.

   In 1982, there were open seats for both senate and governor, and candidates included Jerry Bron, Pete Wilson, Gore Vidal, Pete McCloskey, Tom Bradley, and George Deukmejian. Turnout for the primary was 52.7%. By 1994, 2002, and 2006, turnout had dropped for 35.1%, 34.6%, and 33.6%. A slightly higher 42.5% occurred in 1998, the first blanket primary (there was no senate race, and the gubernatorial candidates were Gray Davie and Dan Lungren were unlikely to draw voters out).

   2010 was no better at 33.1% despite bazillions of $$$dollars$$$ from Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina in the senate and gubernatorial races.

   Registration has been growing faster than the eligible population. This is likely due to failure to purge voting rolls, which falsely depressed turnout; and registration of the voters least likely to vote, particularly in a state primary.

   In California, there is a huge difference between vote-by-mail voters and others in turnout. VBM voters are more likely to be older and having stable lives, such that the mail ballot will reach them. Voters living in apartments may not trust the mail, or no that they are quite unlikely to be living at the same address in future elections. The postal mailbox may be going the way of the land-line phone. Los Angeles County has exceptionally low shares of mail voters, and horrific turnout. Some precincts in Bell Gardens had under 2% turnout.

   In 2010, 43 of 53 congressional races were won by more than 20%, only 4 were within 4%. It is naive to think that this will be changed by the electoral system, it is cynical to suggest that it is caused by Top 2.

   Under the blanket primary in 1998 and 2000, 3rd party candidates did better in the primary than in the general election when there was no contested nominations for a district. When there were contested major party nominations, the 3rd party candidates did better in the general election. Why? Because the State of California kneecapped candidates who had far more electoral support than the 3rd party candidate. If 20% of the total vote went for a Republican or Democrat who finished second for the nomination, some will switch to a 3rd Party candidate even if they are wearing a flower-pot on their head.

   In 2012, incumbent Joe Baca led challenger Gloria Negrete McCloud by 9% in the primary. She won by 12% in the general.

   In 2012, incumbent Fortney “Pete, I live in Maryland” Stark led Eric Swawell by 6% in the primary, but lost the general by 4%.

   In 2012, incumbent Lucille Roybal-Allard led David Sanchez by 30% in the primary. This was closed to 18% in the general.

   In 2012, incumbent Maxine Waters led Bob Flores by 30% in the primary. She extended this to 42% in the general election. She is the sole incumbent facing a same-party challenger, to improve her position, likely due to black voters coming out to vote for President Obama.

   While Honda and McClintock may be re-elected, I doubt very much that they will extend their lead.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.