The Maine referendum petition to save ranked choice voting now has 55,000 signatures, according to this story. It needs 61,123 valid signatures, which are due in three weeks.
The Maine referendum petition to save ranked choice voting now has 55,000 signatures, according to this story. It needs 61,123 valid signatures, which are due in three weeks.
The push for ranked choice voting in single-winner districts creates a one-party system where one civic group will always win 100% of the elections guaranteed, with 50% (plus one vote).
Ranked choice voting in multiple-winner districts on the other hand, creates a mathematical unity phenomena that’s sweeping the globe known as pure proportional representation.
The United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation (PR) for more than twenty-three consecutive years and PR works fine.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
Follow and join the team as a voter with the International Parliament’s world humanitarian project in the 2018 Human Rights Ministry where dysfunctional single-winner districts, biased partisan policies and divisive plurality elections are prohibited.
J.O. seems to have a crystal ball, stating as fact what ranked choice voting will end up doing. It’s not fact – his statement is pure conjecture. I conjecture the exact opposite. Who’s right? I dunno.
I suggest that you don’t waste your time or money supporting the change to proportional representation in the USA. It ain’t gonna happen, not in my lifetime or my grandchildren’s lifetime. Instead, support initiatives like this one in Maine to move away from FPTP to something better, and IMO much better.
Look at SF example, where Democratics have won and will always win 100% of the SF city elections under RCV.
SF uses the RCV system, as supported by key people and their supporters, political candidates, activist groups, CFOE, FairVote and most likely the voters in Maine who do not know that RCV in single-winner are no good.
There is only one way for the correct math to attain pure proportional representation (PR) and RCV in single-winner districts is not it, it is unfair and RCV in single-winner election districts will harm electoral participation.
Good Democratics and good Republicans are working together to make ballot access, equal free speech and ballot access fair for all Americans, including partisans, nonpartisan and independents, the United Coalition.
The math is difficult and by coincidence the United Coalition has been using the correct math since 1995 when we elected the First USA Parliament and Harry Browne [Libertarian], Colin Powell [Independent] and Noam Chomsky [New] ranked #1, #2 and #3, with 122 consecutively ranked POTUS candidates.
We have been doing it right despite being targeted with political retaliation by the status quo and we have been blocked by key individuals who did not have the time to understand the importance of the math.
James Ogle… Democrats win all the seats because more than half the city is Democratic. It’s simply a majority of the people there voting for them…. what about that is wrong? Not to mention they frequently win by large majorities on the first round tally. Nothing would change with proportional rep there. There may be One Repub (no more) and a couple of Greens on the council if you used Prop Rep. It seriously would NOT change the balance of power under any circumstances.
I oppose proportional representation because it only elects members of political parties. Independent candidates who are not members of any party cannot be elected under a proportional representation electoral system. It is an inherently flawed an unfair system that will perpetuate political parties forever.
The founding fathers envisioned a system of independent candidates, free-minded and unfettered by party obligations, and were wary of allowing political parties to be formed. Their instincts were right as we can see today from the two party duopoly, official corruption, stagnation in Washington and the last presidential election where voter were effectively only given a choice between two awful candidates.
RCV is the best and most logical system of voting. Anyone can make it on the ballot be it an Independent, party member or a write-in candidate. More importantly they all have an equal shot at winning since the need to vote out of fear against another candidate is eliminated.
Should there be some sort of threshold for a majority opinion to translate to 100% of legislative power? If so, what should it be? 2/3? 60%? A consistent 50% +1? (Or in a multi-option situation, a consistent plurality?)
Put another way, how much denial of voting power by dilution of a minority opin ability to elect is acceptable?
Proportional representation is aimed at getting representation of all voters in proportion to the strength of their views in the full population. And if votes in the booth turn into voices in council, opening up the dead-end “alternative parties can’t win” view, then there is at least more opportunity for those voices to be heard as policy is debated and decided. Ultimately, it could indeed change the balance of power.
[Sorry; corrected paragraph #2:]
Put another way, how much denial of voting power by dilution of a minority opinion’s ability to elect any representatives is acceptable?
For folks NOT having one second or less attention spans —
Current DARK AGE gerrymander ROT —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged packed/cracked gerrymander AREA districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL = oligarchy — tending always to monarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
—
In a REAL Democracy —
each legislative body exists ONLY because ALL voters can not assemble in person and vote on legislation.
Basic PR [NOT EXACT] —
Party Members = Total Members x Party Votes / Total Votes.
Basic PR [EXACT] — Party Members Voting Powers = Party Votes
BOTH majority rule and minority representation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
— has list of the many nations now with PR (BUT many have the FATAL defect of tyrant legis/exec parliamentary regimes).
—-
RCV-IRV is a variation of top 2 primaries.
Copy and stick on wall above computer screens.
PR and AppV
Well let’s start with a major correction to Ogle’s argument…. ALL SEATS in San Francisco are non-partisan.
“opening up the dead-end “alternative parties can’t win” view,”… Not gonna happen. The only parties truly electable in SF are Greens, Working Families, Peace and Freedom, Socialist, Democratic, and maybe a marginally center-left party (as the most right-wing party). And they’re all really currently embodied within the Democratic Party. All prop. rep. would do in places like SF would splitter the two major parties into a bunch of smaller ones, but it would be the same people elected. All you’re doing is changing labels of the people elected, not ideologies. So instead of 11 Dems, would 4 Dems, 3 Greens, 2 Socialists, a Working Families member, and a Peace and Freedom party member be any different? Effectively not.
There’s only 11 seats in the SF council. Thresholds would have to be 9% or higher. Republicans aren’t going to be pulling that in a city wide vote. And even if they managed to get one seat, it wouldn’t matter. It’s just like the 4 Repubs in the NYC council might as well stay home, they make zero impact.
I could get behind a prop. rep. movement for SF, but it wouldn’t make a different in the end. Maybe expand the council from 11 to 18 and add 7 city-wide at-large seats elected using Single Transferable?
The real issue with the SF system is they permit multiple Dems to run in the same election (they have the same issue in Minneapolis). It’s not really instant run-off; it’s an open primary using instant run-off (again all seats are technically non-partisan – as Demo Rep has repeatedly stated he favors). If they had primaries and then had a ranked choice vote with only one person from each party, there might not be 11 Dems. The system is the problem, but it’s not ranked choice/instant run-off. It’s the non-partisan nature and permitting individuals from the “same party” to run in the same election.
The threshold for being elected in SF would be the exact 8.3% (plus one vote) for each of the eleven under pure proportional representation and the voters may live anywhere in city instead of dividing the city into eleven single-winner districts as it is under RCV.
No only the largest civic group wins 100% of the time, guaranteed by RCV in SF now.
RE- Aiden
Sorry — parties in ALL legislative body elections — even if nominally hidden.
See the alleged nonpartisan one house Nebraska Legislature — not so hidden Donkeys and Elephants.
—
SF info — both city and county regime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Board_of_Supervisors
—
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca
SF regime – Charter — Codes
—
11 single member gerrymander districts — even if SF was 100 percent Donkeys.
SEC. 2.100. COMPOSITION AND SALARY.
The Board of Supervisors shall consist of eleven members elected by district.
[rest omitted]
SEC. 13.102. INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONS.
—
Appendix E — 11 districts — lots of gerrymander street names
—
http://sfgov.org/elections/marking-your-ballot
Ranked-Choice Voting [open link]
3 choices max
—
http://sfgov.org/elections/november-8-2016-election-results-summary
Clinton 84.47 %
Dists 1,7,11 — initial under 50 pct
—
http://www.sfelections.org/results/20141104/
Dist 10 — initial under 50 pct
Gerrymander math 1/2 x 6/11 = 6/22 = 3/11 = 27.3 percent CONTROL
even if All Donkeys — with exactly the same number per district.
—
PR and AppV
The Ogle math wastes 100/(S+!) percent of the votes.
100/(11+1) = 8.33
100/11 = 9.09
Aiden,
Before Minneapolis switched to STV, they used Top 2. There has never been a problem with multiple DFL candidates. The DFL is free to make “official” endorsements, and does so. They are free to propagandize about the merits of the official candidates, but they may not hold a gun to voters and tell them who to vote for, or to kneecap other candidates. Those who support segregated partisan primaries, are really trying to have the state act on behalf of the parties.
San Francisco voted down STV.
San Francisco should switch back to odd-year elections for supervisors, like they used before the stealth recall. Now they are simply an afterthought during presidential and gubernatorial elections. Since they require a separate ballot, many voters don’t even bother. In addition, because the districts are staggered many voters are not aware that their district is up in any election.
Before they switched to district elections, half the supervisors were elected were at alternate elections, (6 and 5), which would prevent the entire board being voted out. But this is unlikely to happen with district elections. It would be simple to switch to two year terms. Since SF has a city election every two years anyhow this is really no problem.
Voters don’t know how to fill out a STV ballot, and San Francisco has an abysmal ballot format that prevents voters from expressing more than three preferences. It is totally unsuitable for multi-member STV.
Supervisors don’t have much power in San Francisco, since it has a strong mayor form of government. Giving supervisors responsibility for seeing that potholes in their district are filled gives them a reason for being. If the board were expanded, it would be better to switch to part-time service. Maybe San Francisco could switch to representative town meeting form of government.
To be clear, the implementation of RCV does not necessarily affect whether or not an electoral jurisdiction has segregated partisan primaries. It is sore loser laws and unfair ballot access laws that are the duopoly’s means of keeping the competition down and out with FPTP and any other electoral system. The real question is this: does the ballot contain information about a candidate’s party affiliation, and possibly even if that person is the party’s designated nominee, having been chosen either by partisan primary or convention.
To reiterate, there is a lot more broken about today’s election laws and practices than just the single-winner, FPTP election method. None of the alternatives are sufficient by themselves to truly fix things (no not PR either), but each small change can improve things.
If Maine ever gets to a full state-wide RCV/IRV electoral system, it will be interesting to watch the battle for who controls the party designation on each ballot line (we can hope for no party designation at all, but that’s not likely).
Demo Rep, the math is like for a single-winner, *two choices tied* and then broken by one vote.
But for multiple-winners, *three choices tied* and the first two (of the three) to break the tie with one vote are the winners in consecutive order.
So set up the big tie by adding one more choice before the tie is broken. Only one vote needed to break that tie.
Regardless of the outcome, it’ll be interesting to see the results. And if it doesn’t work, the people of Maine will deal with it. Awaiting with interest…
Ogle —
Legislative body elections are NOT the same as exec/judic office elections
Simple 3 member legis body —
Ogle math would waste 1/4 of votes.
Students — See Droop Quota on internet.
Difference between minimum number of votes needed to elect and the Voting Powers of legislators in legislative bodies.
Current mess is having each district hack have ONE vote is a legislative body regardless of the number of votes he/she receives or total district votes — result 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 CONTROL gerrymander math.
Equal votes to elect (after moving surplus votes) = Total Votes / Total members = ONE Voting Power per legislator — minor wasted votes.
UN-Equal votes to elect = Direct plus Indirect votes = Voting Power of each separate legislator – ZERO wasted votes.
—
PR and AppV
OBVIOUSLY here are districts for legislative body elections so that GIANT ballots are NOT used —
80 in CA Assembly, etc. — but could be — with more mess.
—
CA Assembly – Vote for ONE
Put candidate ID Number on ballot
— with possible errors, recounts, etc.
————
What is the N largest legislative body in the USA elected now at large ???
Vote for not more than N
Some large city council ???
Demo Rep, sorry but simple majority is 50% (plus one vote), so the 50% (minus one vote) is not wasted. That’s because, should one vote from majority’s side switch to the minority, then the minority becomes a majority.
So the votes aren’t wasted as you claimed, they are back-up votes in case there is a change/death/resignation, then the vote totals are recounted and new results might get announced and recognized.
Under PR, the 66.66% (plus two votes) is the majority which elects the two representatives and the remaining 33.33% got nothing there.
But again, should one vote switch to the losing 33.33%, then they are elected with 33.33% (plus one vote) and another group at 33.33% is waiting for a voter to switch to their candidate, so that they can win one of the two seats.
One last time —
Legislative body elections for 2 or more offices (to represent 100 percent of voters) are NOT the same as exec/judic elections for 1 or more offices (by mere 50 pct plus 1 majorities of voters).
IE — NO El Supremo in legislative body elections [in USA at least] — other El Supremo ROT in *parliamentary* systems in foreign regimes. See Hitler 1933-1934 in Germany.
Again, proportional representation is a flawed voting system because it requires candidates to be a member of a political party in order to be elected. Independent candidates cannot get elected under a proportional representation system.
We should be moving away from political parties, and towards independent candidates who can make decisions without being constrained by party policy, not building political parties permanently into the political system. PR is the wrong direction.
RCV is the most logical system for voting.
Independent candidates can be one person/candidate parties.
Ratio PR system — Total Votes / Total Members — for election — partisans and independents.
PR and AppV
http://www.rcvmaine.com/
the website
—
http://www.rcvmaine.com/faq
ballot form sample — how many screwed up votes possible ???
—-
http://www.rcvmaine.com/bill
law text
—-
At least a starting point for Condorcet head to head math.
Nielkfj, yes Demo Rep is correct, when we give people true liberty to self-categorize within pure proportional representation, they may proclaim the word “independent”.
When a bunch of independents are elected and grouped together, they may or may not cooperate with each other.
But at least pure proportional representation gives voters a chance to increase the votes for independents when they do a good job, and best vote getters rise to top and expand, as they get prioritized accordingly.
How about making there be no legal concept of “political party” in ballot access law or other election law (funding, etc.)? No special treatment for big vs. little vs. unrecognized. No special rules for ballot access. Period.
That is, the words “political party” (or equivalent) would simply not exist in state election law. Such an idea has nothing whatsoever to do with RCV, PR, FPTP, etc. And it also has about the same chance of becoming law as PR. That is, essentially zero. Oh well…
Among countries with a population of at least 100,000, the only one that holds elections but does not permit party labels on the ballot is Iran.
A gerrymander system in Iran — or simple blatant monarchy/oligarchy ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran
SEMI STONE AGE / DARK AGE REGIME ???
Nebraska doesn’t have party labels on its ballots for the legislature.
Nebraska has party labels on its ballots for federal office, state executive positions, and county partisan office. Also it isn’t a country.
Iran doesn’t have any party labels for any office, and doesn’t permit political parties to exist.
NO left/right control freak gangs (aka parties) in Iran ???
Utopian unanimity in Iran — 100 percent approval of ALL laws and ALL exec/judic actions ???
What about the semi-nonstop riots in Iran by various groups ???
6123 more signatures in 3 weeks. It seems not very hard for them.
Nebraska does not have partisan labels for the legislature, the most important branch of government in a republic. The people of Nebraska are sovereign. The sovereignty of the United States is derivative. A State is not a mere subdivision of a “country”.
I did not know that about Nebraska. What are the ballot access rules, laws for the unicameral legislature? Partisan primaries to get on the ballot, or truly equal access for all?
Jim, the Nebraska Bluebook has a section on each legislator, and that section tells what party each legislator is registered into. Nebraska has partisan voter registration. This is utterly unlike Iran, where parties are banned.
DW–
NE Const — space added between lines — 3rd sent. — NP stuff
III-7. Legislators; terms; effect of redistricting; election; salary; expenses; mileage.
At the general election to be held in November 1964, one-half the members of the Legislature, or as nearly thereto as may be practicable, shall be elected for a term of four years and the remainder for a term of two years, and thereafter all members shall be elected for a term of four years, with the manner of such election to be determined by the Legislature.
When the Legislature is redistricted, the members elected prior to the redistricting shall continue in office, and the law providing for such redistricting shall where necessary specify the newly established district which they shall represent for the balance of their term.
>>>> Each member shall be nominated and elected in a nonpartisan manner and without any indication on the ballot that he or she is affiliated with or endorsed by any political party or organization. <<<<
Each member of the Legislature shall receive a salary of not to exceed one thousand dollars per month during the term of his or her office.
In addition to his or her salary, each member shall receive an amount equal to his or her actual expenses in traveling by the most usual route once to and returning from each regular or special session of the Legislature.
Members of the Legislature shall receive no pay nor perquisites other than his or her salary and expenses, and employees of the Legislature shall receive no compensation other than their salary or per diem.
—-
NE got the 1 house legis circa 1936 — during Great Depression 1 — to save some cash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Legislature
History how NE got the nonpartisan 1 house legislature.
Aha! I figured out how the duopoly gets around the rule that there is no indication of party affiliation In Nebraska. If a candidate isn’t nominated by a party, but rather gets on the ballot by gathering petition signatures, Nebraska Statute 32-617 (3) contains this sentence:
“The words BY PETITION shall be printed upon the ballot after the name of each candidate by petition.”
Wink wink Mr/Ms D/R – don’t vote for him, he’s a crazy person.
DW —
http://www.sos.ne.gov/elec/2018/candidate-filing-forms.html
—-
32-617(3) is in connection with —
32-616. Nomination for general election; other methods.
(1) Any registered voter who was not a candidate in the primary election and who was not registered to vote with a party affiliation on or after March 1 and before the general election in the calendar year of the general election may have his or her name placed on the general election ballot for a partisan office by filing petitions as prescribed in sections 32-617 to 32-621 or by nomination by political party convention or committee pursuant to section 32-627 or 32-710.
(2) Any candidate who was defeated in the primary election and any registered voter who was not a candidate in the primary election may have his or her name placed on the general election ballot if a vacancy exists on the ballot under subsection (2) of section 32-625 and the candidate files for the office by petition as prescribed in sections 32-617 and 32-618, files as a write-in candidate as prescribed in section 32-615, or is nominated by political party convention or committee pursuant to section 32-627 or 32-710.
Source:Laws 1994, LB 76, § 184; Laws 1997, LB 764, § 61; Laws 2002, LB 251, § 5; Laws 2011, LB368, § 1; Laws 2011, LB449, § 6; Laws 2014, LB946, § 13.
—-
Most State election laws are a giant mess due to partial changes (esp. additions) over many decades — lacking basic flowcharts with dates/deadlines.
Plurality elections and the dysfunctional nature of single-winner and multi-winner plurality elections are most likely the reasons why the NE Senate elections switch back and forth from one bad method to another and Maine will likely follow.
The United Coalition has been struggling against those supporting the RCV voting system in single-winner districts since 1992 when Mike Ossipoff and I worked with John Anderson’s CPR (citizens for proportional representation) and we were outsiders who opposed their single-winner election reforms to RCV, we oppose and prohibit all single-winner elections and allow no exceptions for using single-winner election districts.
In the continuous campaign, I ran for POTUS on the Libertarian Party ticket in 2012 and I won the only state primary which allowed Libertarian POTUS primary election candidates that year too.
I won that election in the state of Missouri with 52.7% as a Libertarian.
Gary Johnson’s name was on that Missouri POTUS primary ballot as a Republican.
A few months after our victory, us United Coalition candidates were not permitted to speak as candidates at the Libertarian Party National Convention, because of the token system in place.
The snuffed-out candidates were not permitted to speak there as candidates about how pure proportional representation played a role in the Missouri victory.
Here is an article which appeared in the Missourian before the primary in Missouri:
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/a/145021/libertarian-primary-choice-describes-himself-as-outsider-in-own-party/
In 1995, Honorable Harry Browne [Libertarian] was our top ranked winner of the United Coalition, and Colin Powell [Independent] and Noam Chomsky [New], as 2nd and 3rd from the 125 nominated and elected names.
Google was founded from my personal logo, my initials joogle, in 1997 a few years after the United Coalition was founded in 1995 and the year after I ran for POTUS my first of three times, the first time being in 1996.
http://usparliament.org/how-google-got-its-name.php
It is peculiar to me that the Libertarian Party voters were not permitted to be exposed to our campaign and the Libertarian Party bosses worked against us everywhere possible, including the removal of links to our names from the national Libertarian Party website when the POTUS candidates names were first made known by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) during the 2012 election cycle.
To remove the links to our campaign web sites prevented the Libertarian voters from considering our candidacies.
These actions of censorship by them are likely due to the dysfunctional nature of pluality psychology and it was our goal to switch them to the winning psychology demonstrated by our victory of 52.7% in the only state primary.
@Richard Winger,
It appears the biography in the Bluebook is written by the legislator or their staff.
Earnie Chambers’ reads;
Biography:
Born July 10, 1937, in Omaha. Defender of the Downtrodden. Independent.
The biography in the Bluebook match those on the Legislative website, except someone has added the party affiliation. Some biographies include membership in the Republican Party, including party offices, in the same manner as they might include an affiliation with a church or service organization.
@Don Wills,
Nebraska uses a Top 2 system, but permits candidates to petition on to the general election ballot. Sore losers are not permitted, and the petition is 10% of the presidential/gubernatorial vote in the district at the previous election. I doubt that it is used, except in extraordinary circumstances, such as a candidate dying.
Party affiliation appears to be fairly well known. The Omaha newspaper in particular seem to emphasize thigs. All the Democrats except one are from Omaha, Lincoln, or Grand Island. The one exception is from Dodge County. The local newspapers did not mention party affiliation, but the Omaha newspaper did. But being known as a Democrat likely is not an advantage in most places in Nebraska. Dodge County is the 8th most Democratic County in the state. Trump carried it 64:30.
Nebraska has one Libertarian, who changed her affiliation after being elected. Her district includes part of Lancaster County (Lincoln), plus four smaller counties. She led her primary with 55% of the vote, and her opponent said that Democrat voters did not turn out. He also labelled his opponent as a far right, Libertarian, Tea Party type. She won the general election rematch with a narrow 50.7% margin.
After the governor complained about Republican legislators not voting the party line (i.e. not voting for legislation that he favored), she switched her registration to Libertarian. She appears to have drawn a “true” Republican opponent for 2018.
Nebraska does not use a top-two system for any office. Jim is changing the definition of “top-two”. That term was coined in 2004 by the big newspapers in Washington state, and refers to an election with partisan labels on the ballot, but no party nominees. Nebraska does not have such a system for any office. The right term for Nebraska legislative elections is non-partisan elections.
James Ogle did win the Libertarian presidential primary in Missouri in 2012, but his comment that Gary Johnson’s name was on that primary ballot is not true. The only choices were Ogle and no preference.
De facto top 2 primaries have been around in NON-partisan local elections since at least 1890 — cities/villages, esp. —
and in State/County regimes having NON-partisan exec/judic officers — top 2xN
See esp the judicial bed sheet ballots in some States — vote for 7 max in primary – top 14 nominated – vote for 7 max in general election – top 7 elected.
Reality – contested spot(s) only if no incumbent(s) — ie if all incumbents, then lawyers very afraid to challenge any incumbents directly.
Richard, Johnson was on the same ballot in Missouri, as a Republican.
To clarify, Johnson was grouped with the other Republicans, on the same ballot that I was listed as Libertarian.
The point here is that the Libertarian Party bosses designed the to protect their positions from my team. But I was only seeking equal time and equal treatment and they denied that to fix the election.
I won the only primary but was snuffed-out by the party “leaders”.
…at the Libertarian Party national convention that year, our united team were candidates for POTUS too. But the party bosses made sure we didn’t get equal treatment.
But we won the only primary and we tried hard to be heard by winning, with 52.7%.
Pluralism made the Libertarian Party snuff out unity because they didn’t know there is a better way so the party leaders made sure no pair test between the winner of the only primary (an unknown) and who they perceived as their favorite.
The unity phenomena is something that needs to be heard so people can decide for themselves, so fair treatment is important, and the Libertarian Party bosses did not advocate fair for primary winner, so no new ideas were possible, only the ones by those who spoke there.
I tried to win Missouri:
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/a/145021/libertarian-primary-choice-describes-himself-as-outsider-in-own-party/
I was only able to win the only primary with a small 52.7%, so I could earn my chance. But nobody wanted to hear how I attained 52.7% and how I was fortunate to have Google copy my logo in 1997, I thought somehow that it might be good for my recognition, that Google copied my personal logo when I ran for President in 1996.
Thought this was both funny and appropriate given the diatribe:
“Free Parliamentarian James Ogle, creator and self-proclaimed Secretary of the fantasy organization US Parliament filed papers with the Federal Election Commission this past January to run for President of the United States . . . in the 2014 election.
Ogle, who, in his previous presidential campaign, narrowly defeated “Uncommitted” to win the 2012 Missouri Libertarian Primary, is the only candidate seeking the 2014 presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. In fact, Ogle is the only presidential candidate in the entire 2014 election, in which the office of president is not up for election.”
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/04/meet-james-ogle-2014-presidential-candidate/
Any 2018 Prez candidates [yet] ???
Yes, telephone communications, luncheons, signature drives, Anarchist, Humanitrian, Republican Party candidates in United Coalition for President of USA. Also in addition to POTUS, Canadian Prime Minister candidate. We are trying to get good PR (press) now.
We are spearheading a “top 13” for guidelines on worldwide Unity Platform, setting better precedents for ballot access under pure proportional representation (PR), far more advanced than plurality elections, using eballots and/or paper ballots in varying elections.
The United Coalition had been using the pure proportional representation (PR) correctly for more than twenty-three years and PR works fine.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
Multiple political parties like Anarchist, Libertarian and Republican Party candidates are now active in United Coalition for President of USA.
James you’re thinking too small, in the United Coalition of Planets we have Earthicans, Mars-ers, and Jupiteroids. No one has it as good as the United Coalition of Planets.
@Richard Winger,
When Minneapolis elected its mayor and city council in partisan elections in which candidates could specify their party affiliation, and in which two candidates advanced from the primary, are you saying that was not Top 2 because the newspapers 1600 miles away had not coined the term yet?
Do you consider the Seattle Post-Intelligencer to be a newspaper?
There are big problems preventing Libertarian Party candidates and other candidates of third parties from success and the RCV in single-winner districts will add to them.
The liberty to self proclaim with any free speech word is not welcomed by Maine nor the Libertarian Party.
The Libertarian guidelines for dues-paying membership creates an “us vs them” which divides and excludes.
The United Coalition uses a better way, 50/50 balance between seats for dues-paying membership and free participation, with a cap for both.
The United Coalition doesn’t put road blocks based on either self-categorization or financial ability.
By calibrating under pure proportional representation we can welcome the whole.
No single-winner districts are permitted under pure proportional representation.