See this story, which says the U.S. District Court that is hearing the Maine Republican Party case against ranked choice voting for Republican primaries will issue an opinion early next week.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
See this story, which says the U.S. District Court that is hearing the Maine Republican Party case against ranked choice voting for Republican primaries will issue an opinion early next week.
See 2nd story below.
The one-party system that has been implemented in SF, Oakland, Maine (ranked choice voting in single-winner districts) and other areas by BAN, CoFOE and FairVote must be stopped.
They only want to sell their programming while claiming falsely that they bring pure proportional representation (PPR).
This is also a bad civil rights problem when cities like Santa Clara adopt a system that should be prohibited and instead it is being promoted as a good thing.
No single-winner district under RCV is acceptable and these dictators have destroyed the potential for pure proportional representation (PPR) for a very long time.
The United Coalition’s work for the past twenty-three years, demonstrating PPR vote counts using paper ballots, uniting many individuals and splinter political parties, female candidates who were slandered and disrespected by the pluralist, has been a brilliant example of teamwork and trust.
A great thing despite the work by the party bosses and the bullies who have worked to stop the candidates from attaining free speech and to articulate how PPR works even while winning the only primary with 52.7% and we were snuffed out.
By almost doubling the threshold for being elected in Santa Clara under the program which requires dividing the town and gerrymandering the two halves, regular people and ethnic minorities consisting of 25% or less would not be elected under the proposed initiative on June 5th in Santa Clara California.
Believe it or not, the United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation (PPR) correctly for twenty-three consecutive years and we have not proposed a single election which didn’t use PPR, but Google and others don’t want you to know that the United Coalition exists.
Read how Google launched off our back but they don’t want you to know because they cannot nurture team psychology under their corporate bylaws which cement single-winner and dictator owners.
http://usparliament.org/how-google-got-its-name.php
The United Coalition uses team psychology because single-winner elections have been prohibited within our team for twenty-three consecutive years but other businesses and political entities will never attain the psychological level of good teamwork because they use single-winner elections to protect their own status and to snuff out free speech and inclusion.
Should be: “….regular people and ethnic minorities with voter support consisting of 25% or less would not be elected” under the proposed June 5th initiative in Santa Clara California.
To clarify, these issues apply to all elections which do not use PPR.
The United Coalition will update the status of our team’s “Write-in Committee” in the United Coalition California between now and June 1st, 2018.
JO-
Single member gerrymander districts got going in the 1200s in England – House of Commons.
Into Brit-American colonies in 1600s.
Into States in 1775-1786.
Into USA regime in 1787-1789.
—–
PR created 1820s-1840s (earlier ???).
Basic PR —
Party Members = Party Votes x Total Members / Total Votes =
Party Members = Total Members x Party Votes / Total Votes
The PV/TV = the Proportional part of PR.
Difficult ONLY for math morons who flunked fraction math in 4th grade
— like SCOTUS hacks, lots of polisci profs, media morons, incumbent gerrymander hacks, etc.
What about the 49 states that do single-vote systems, and if there is a party in those states that would rather do IRV? Could they sue the state to force IRV?
According to my information, Swiss physicist Eduard Hagenbach-Bishoff developed pure proportional representation (PPR) in the early 1900s, but most internet resources incorrectly associate the math with a party-list system.
The system is ranked choice voting in multi-winner districts. The quota is established and then can be calibrated up or down to fill all the open seats at-large.
Nick, political parties are actually highly hostile to pure proportional representation and they bully those who want the unifying psychology to death, blocking free speech and ballot access, and so no existing known political party wants it without the bullying aspects.
The California Green Party is a good example of how us proportionalists are bullied (in 1994 and forward) and then the agreements with Google founders to destroy and delete the United Coalition efforts in Usenet by Google and the California Green Party from 1994 forward is atypical of how pluralists love conflict.
Now if you look at their false claims that they use pure proportional representation (PPR) and you will see that their system did not nurture fair treatment, unbiased math and collaboration with the 100%.
The All Party System Co. does welcome individuals from all parties, independents and all parts of the earth, to collaborate under the fun team building structure of PPR and there is no bias on the party word the participant picks, only respect and liberty, for everyone’s democratic free speech word and creativity by party/category.
http://www.allpartysystem.com
James, that doesn’t answer my question.
The PRIVATE party gangsters do NOT have dictatorship control over any PUBLIC LAWS.
The SCOTUS MORONS started the brain rot in 1968 — Williams v Rhodes.
Nick, words have many meanings and you asked about IRV, which can have two meanings.
IRV can mean both single-winner IRV and multiple-winner IRV. Your comment didn’t specify in your question whether the state adopted single-winner IRV that creates a one-party system, or whether states adopted the only voting system that gives pure proportional representation (PPR), and my answer referred to the latter.
Supporters of IRV in single-winner districts have been pushing for a one-party system for more than twenty-three years (BAN, CoFOE, FairVote).
SF is an example where a one party system exists but no one wants you to know because of the large majority of one civic group (Democratics), they generally ignored the math, and no one in SF cares I guess because they say it doesn’t matter because only Ds will win under IRV in multi-winner districts
The establishment media (SF Chronicle) and Google will use the information to their benefit but they don’t want the regular voter to know it’s a one-party system in SF. BAN, CoFOE and FairVote won’t admit they are wrong and they continue to brag about their support for IRV in single-winner elections like in SF, Oakland, Maine, etc.
The use of IRV in multiple-winner elections (PPR) on a private inner-party level is not against the law and the United Coalition has been using PPR correctly for more than 23 consecutive years and PPR works fine.
But there is no incentive for forcing other parties to use IRV in the one-party system, unless you are the biggest majority like in SF (maybe in Maine?), and so when you are the biggest party then a one-party system is acceptable.
IRV in multiple-winner elections is only attractive to the whole, and since individuals cannot articulate the difference, no one knows that PPR is for the 100%. “Political parties” are biased to their own and are not interested in the whole.
I have brought the concept to all parties in my state and I was met with the same road blocks by pluralist psychology in every party and pluralist psychology = censorship, fighting, conflict, hostility, unequal and biased treatment. My comment refers to my own belief that we need to bring PPR to individuals to build a team before we can bring the PPR to political parties because the party bosses are already elected under pluralist voting systems which attracts the pluralists (single-winner power grabbers).
Pluralists are interested in long-term fairness, they are only interested in quick, easy power-grabs, and the single-winner system in both plurality and IRV guaranteed a 50/50 (in plurality elections) or 100% (in IRV in single-winner districts) election rate and they like those odds better because it’s engrained in the American psyche.
Typo; should have been “Pluralists are NOT interested in long-term fairness, […]”
It take a mathematical mind to understand percentages in elections under PPR and most people have neither the time or mental capacity to do the math correctly. BAN, CoFOE and FairVote want to mislead the voters by promoting IRV in single-winner elections and now they have cemented a one-party system by standing behind the one-party system of IRV in single-winner districts for more than 23 years now.
It takes a mathematical mind to understand percentages in elections under PPR and most people have neither the time nor the mathematical mental capacity to do the math correctly.
For some reason BAN, CoFOE and FairVote want to mislead the voters by promoting IRV in single-winner elections and now they have cemented a one-party system by standing behind the one-party system of IRV in single-winner districts for more than 23 years.
Because in Maine the IRV system being promoted has been for IRV in single-winner districts, the largest political party likes the developments in Maine (Ds?). Perhaps the Rs are resisting one-party rule by rejecting IRV totally.
We owe that reaction to BAN, CoFOE and FairVote, because they proudly support IRV in single-winner elections, in fact they are the proponents.
Proponents of IRV in single-winner elections want to be the single-owner of a computer program and so they have no use with working with the United Coalition under PPR because they want to keep the control on their voting system as sole owners.
Proponents of a computer program which is owned by the promoters of a single-winner election system are threatened by multiple-owners using votes of confidence, because single-winner proponents will lose ownership in multiple-winner elections and so now they aren’t able to engage in unity.
They can only bring censorship, conflict and exclusion to the efforts of the United Coalition.
Individuals who are OK with 100% unity are sometimes interested in the twenty-three year effort by the USA Parliament and the thirty-five year effort by the Environmentalist Party. Regular people are interested.
But party bosses elected under pluralistic elections have brought conflict and hostility to overtures of the United Coalition and those reactions are the characteristics of pluralist psychology.
In Maine, it appears to me that the Republican Party in Maine, is resisting one-party rule by those promoting IRV in single-winner elections.
The USA Parliament began prohibiting all single-winner IRV elections within our approved guidelines, approved by a majority coalition in votes, on/or around 8/12/2004. SF IRV was implemented around 2012. But we did inform Rob Richie about how single-winner elections are undemocratic, approximately around 1995 to 1996, as I recall.
I see the opposition to IRV in single-winner districts by the Maine Republicans as a good thing and I hope they somehow prevail. But I have yet to see the same people promoting single-winner IRV elections to distinguish between single-winner and multiple-winner districts so how can the Republican Party bosses acquire the correct information when those who support the one-party system cannot collaborate with the United Coalition?
Those promoting IRV in single-winner districts can only bring hostilities, conflicts, exclusion and all the characteristics of one-party rule that now exists in SF, Oakland and Maine.
http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/upcoming/rcv.html
ME RCV info – SOS