HF 3690 has been introduced in the Minnesota legislature to eliminate the ability of Minnesota cities to use ranked choice voting in elections for their own officers. See this story.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
HF 3690 has been introduced in the Minnesota legislature to eliminate the ability of Minnesota cities to use ranked choice voting in elections for their own officers. See this story.
All the well-intentioned do-gooders who promote ranked choice voting (RCV) in single winner districts are advocating for a one party system and we all know who has been 100% behind the failed math.
The United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation (PPR) correctly for more than twenty-three consecutive years, RCV in multiple winner districts only, and our team is solidly united and growing incrementally despite the bullies, censors and dictators who have been cemented into place by plurality elections.
The United Coalition has demonstrated teamwork by prohibiting plurality elections and RCV in single winner districts.
Our team is currently composed of seventeen names of candidates vying for government elections in and it’s composed of people who are interested in a unifying voting system.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
JO wrote-
*** we all know who has been 100% behind the failed math.
Always some new folks who do NOT know.
Personally I care about the interests of voters in Minnesota, San Francisco and elsewhere who may be under a one party system.
Anyone who wants free speech, equal treatment and healthy competition of ideas wouldn’t want their voices and ideas snuffed out by one party rule.
In the article there was some retraction when the author corrected himself and withdrew a note about one Green Party candidate who had won a seat but his research showed that never happened and he retracted his previous commitment where he wrote that the voting system made it possible.
Pluralists psychology somehow creates an opposition to talk about equal time, equal treatment and fair elections but only the use of the correct math will nurture the team psychology being generated by pure proportional representation.
The use of paper ballots also builds the trust in pure proportional representation (PPR).
It may be easier to censor, bully, slander and express personal opinion against supporters of PPR, but ultimately the math is dry and mathematical, and the math never changes.
In 1992 I formed a coalition of four candidates for Santa Cruz California city council and posted our campained on Usenet in political chat groups.
Then, the back and forth tug-of-war between support and opposition between RCV in single winner districts and multiple winner districts started and it was harmful to the effort to bring pure proportional representation (PPR).
I first spoke at BAN headquarters about my 1994 campaign for Governor of California, while I organized the election and statements by US Mail for Citizens for Proportional representation (CPR).
In 1997 Google derived their logo from my initials joogle because I carried my campaign to a national and world level as an artist.
http://usparliament.org/how-google-got-its-name.php
Everyone knows it isn’t easy to stand for something you believe in and many others have been helped by the ideas being sparked, so we owe the innovator, Swiss Physicist Eduard Hagenbach-Bischoff, all the credit.
But wouldnt a modified instant runoff vote be better?
Voters would cast a first choice and would cast a second choice for any other candidates they want to see in a runoff.
No candidate gets a majority of the first round votes? Then we count the second preferences. Second preferences would be runoff votes and voters mayor like more than one candidate.
Say in 1992 a perot voter voted: perot 1st and clinton+bush 2nd. This perot voter would’ve given 0.5 votes to bush and Clinton in a runoff.
Now I have another idea: for single office elections, just consider it a free for all. For example, a us senate race in Alaska would mean that the voters in the parishes would vote for one of the candidates. Candidates would be getting a number of points in each parish according to their popular vote.
Condorcet = RCV/IRV — with correct head to head math.