On November 19, Alabama’s largest newspaper, and two other major newspapers, have an identical front page editorial urging voters to vote for Doug Jones, the Democratic nominee. The editorials also say if the voter cannot do that, the voter should cast a write-in vote. See this editorial from the Birmingham News, which is also in the Mobile Press-Register and the Huntsville Times.
It is conceivable that Roy Moore could change his mind and withdraw. There are precedents from Minnesota and New Jersey that the ballots could be reprinted, with a Republican Party substitute, even though some voters have already voted absentee. If Alabama election laws forbid that, the legislature could theoretically be called into special session to pass an emergency bill authorizing late substitution in case of a late withdrawal. But none of that can happen unless Moore withdraws first.
If Moore does withdraw, justice requires that the Republican Party should be permitted to substitute a new nominee.
A Gravis Poll released November 17 shows that Jones has 47%; Moore has 42%; and undecided or write-in has 11%.
BAN loves the division psychology of all pluality elections. The hopes here are that voters will be so divided and turned off that they will write in a different name.
So BAN will always love conflict in politics and never will ban want equal time and equal treatment.
Now there is another way of thinking in politics and it’s a new unity phenomena that’s sweeping the globe known as pure proportional representation.
When people work together for fair elections for all, that is set as a target for pluralists who cannot accept civil debate, equal time and fair treatment.
In the pluralists mind, proportionalists are a threat, who must be silenced and thwarted, as we see year after year the same treatment by the pluralists against the United Coalition.
Teamwork under pure proportional representation is foreign to pluralists but the United Coalition has been able to demonstrate collaboration successfully since 1995.
The United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation correctly for twenty-two consecutive years and it works fine.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
Dear James, if you were a registered voter in Alabama, what would you do on December 12?
Wow…That James, he might just be a bot. Thanks for the update Richard. That’s unprecedented for Alabama. Frankly, I really hope Jones wipes the floor with Moore.
What about the AL military folks / absentee voters on the front lines fighting anti-Democracy barbarians getting updated ballots in any of the nonstop machinations going on and on and on ???
Candidate/incumbent replacement lists for legislators NOW — 0ne more CRISIS const amdt.
REGULAR ORDER — NOT the current nonstop ANTI-Democracy chaos.
—
Abolish the USA gerrymander Senate.
PR and AppV
As I was born and raised 21 years in Alabama, many of my family and friends live there, so I am happy to reply on the matter as to what I would do.
I would do what I always do.
I ignore pluality single-winner elections because they have no value to me.
Ignore them, because bad publicity is good publicity for plurality elections, so I try to turn away from them and turn my focus on only what is right.
I am only interested in multi-winner elections and teams of multiple people working together under pure proportional representation.
In 1996 I was a candidate with the Free Parliamentary Party, a Green/Environmentalist coalition for pure proportional representation, and pure proportional representation is the only thing that matters to me.
But in 2012, even though I won the only state primary that allowed L Prez candidates, the L Party was not interested in my work and prohibited me from equal free speech time at their 2012 national convention, even though I won that Missouri primary.
Winger’s declared candidate was on the MO ballot too – as a Republican.
Invregards to Alabama, I am not like those who support pluralist elections, and I have higher principles, because I think everyone should have equal treatment, equal free speech time and the liberty to self-categorize under any party/categorize (or independent) as they wish as long as hate or slander is not used as a party name (no NAZIs allowed).
In 1994, I was defeated by NOTA in the CA primary for Green Party governor, the Green Party bosses built a campaign of bullying just like the LP in 2012, and bullying is acceptable to the Greens and Libertarians because they embrace plurality elections.
There is no need for teamwork in pluralityI contests.
I am for all of the above under pure proportional representation, the more the better. I like randomness and chaos in multiple-choices elections.
I have been promoting pure proportional representation since I ran for Leon Pantta’s seat for Congress in 1993 when he vacated office to be Clinton’s Chief of Staff.
I supported Lani Guinier for Clinton’s AG but Clinton appointed Janet Reno. Remember Waco in 1993? Well Guinier was from TX, maybe things could have been different if Clinton listened to the NAACP who suggested Guinier after helping Clinton get elected?
Here is a story about how Google derived from my name:
http://usparliament.org/how-google-got-its-name.php
I just think Moore is going to win.
Pluralists of the third parties and independents who expend so much time and energy on single-winner election districts and who promote the methods which perpetuate the US President contest as a one-party system are perpetuating the two-party system for the long run.
The United Coalition has been influencing people’s minds and political strategy for decades all the while we are being denied, written off as irrelevant and shut down.
We’re the best team players who work for unity under pure proportional representation and that we are light years ahead of everyone, although on a microscopic size, because be we are a new concept not of the American psyche in politics.
We are working to unite SF and LA as at-large election districts under pure proportional representation and to turn back the work of FairVote and all those who got it wrong.
We accept and welcome everyone as long as they follow our guidelines as approved by our majority coalition.
Many try to claim, copy or pretend but we are the real deal.
The United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation correctly for twenty-two consecutive years and it works fine.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
Sorry, James… Pure Proportional is fundamentally flawed… it leads to those elite scumbags who are already in power securing their place in power forever. It’s literally one of the dumbest systems ever devised. If you want oligarchy it’s perfect… Maybe that’s what you want…
Mixed-Member Proportional is the only logical method for the house and single transferable for the senate. And I know you don’t like mixed-member but that’s because you fundamentally misunderstand it. You think it’s parallel voting, and it’s not. The thresholds have to be no higher than under pure proportional.
And you seriously need to get yourself checked into a mental asylum. There’s not a single person on your website there that has even heard of you. You’re outright fucking delusional and a nobody.
Basic PR — regardless of all ignorant folks with AREA fixations —
NOT EXACT — Party members = Total members x Total Party Votes / Total Votes
EXACT — Voting Power of the Party Members = Votes gotten — direct from voters , indirect from losers — ALL voters have a legislator agent/representative.
Both majority rule {Democracy) and minority representation.
Districts needed for larger size legislative bodies — to not have giant ballots.
Technically — a mere 2 member legislative body is needed —
any bill gets all, majority or zero approval.
General info —
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
PR around since 1840’s — repeat 1840s.
Progress in political *science* as in chemistry, physics and biology *science*.
PR and AppV — pending Condorcet head to head math [from 1780s].
Aiden, on my site, I list all votes and post the marked eballot, verify the ID of the voters (which are few and far between) and in some cases such as the International Parliament Senators, I view their ID to confirm their identification.
I do not contact every name elected by votes, I only post the votes and vote totals.
The global level has the most interest and participation so the ID standards are highest there. Many countries do not have very highly regarded proportional voting systems and people from those areas are new to both democracy and pure proportional representation.
So if you speak to a person whose name is listed on my site, they may not know me personally, but as the web page maintainer I will happily make a correction to their name, their party category or remove their name altogether from the site if they contact me and request it.
We’re like Burger King, it’s “Have it YOUR way!”.
It’s a lot of work but I enjoy it, hope you like it too. I am eagerly standing by to make corrections, so please be sure to contact me with the specifics.
Technically — a mere 2 member legislative body is needed —
any bill gets all, majority, minority or zero approval — 2 pass — 2 fail.
FWIW, the 3 newspapers mentioned in the article are left-wing rags owned and managed by a single group. The editorials are word-for-word the same. One talk show host said the editorials likely help Moore instead of hurting his chances of winning. The same newspapers also hated Trump who won Alabama with 63% of the vote. Move along, nothing to see here.
Thanks, Don. Your voice of reason is appreciated!
There are many moderate Republicans in Alabama. Young, college educated, suburban and female Republicans and usually Republican-leaning independents especially. Most of them did not vote for Moore in the primary, and many are not supporting him in the general election either. Jones has more money for a get out the vote operation than most Democrats typically have here in Alabama. I think the election is very much up in the air.
Who are the write-ins and where do they stand?