The Washington Post has this column about the Green Party’s participation in the Ohio special election for U.S. House earlier this week. The piece, by Post opinion writer Elizabeth Bruenig, defends the party and suggests that Ranked Choice Voting would solve the problem that many of the Green Party’s critics are upset about. It also says that voting is expressive. Thanks to Elizabeth Sandor for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Nice to have an article on a major news outlet point out the absurdity of the Democrats bashing the Green Party for the Democrats own losses.
The Boston Globe has also editorialized in favor of ranked choice voting. RCV would clarify a lot about what 3rd party voters really want. It isn’t at all obvious to me that all Green Party voters would pick the Democratic candidate as their second choices. Also, a darker mystery that could be cleared up is where all those Libertarian voters (not in this particular election, but in many others) would put their 2nd place votes.
Walter Z.,
Look at 2012 when Free and Equal (F&E) brought the Stein/Johnson POTUS debate and ranked choice voting (RCV) as part of the presentation.
There you have a perfect example, a case where LP and GP tried to collaborate under RCV, but not much progress for collaboration was really achieved.
Stein and Johnson weren’t coordinating their teams.
But when the Barr/Ogle ticket collaborated as team players we won the only state primary (Missouri) that allowed LP POTUS candidates and which fell before the national LP convention.
We were blocked, deleted, censored and treated by the party bosses with vile measures, hostility and censorship.
In conclusion, ranked choice voting in single-winner districts will not help bring collaboration among competing parties.
Yes pure proportional representation can help but the party bosses who are elected in biased, plurality elections, will be sure to destroy the collaboration and degrade
to victory.
Many people used RCV wrong and that insured that no collaboration will be supported by the bosses regardless of what the 52.7% of Missouri voters said when our team won as Libertarians (Johnson was on that Missouri ballot as a Republican) but the bosses didn’t want anyone to know.
Ranked choice voting combined with plurality psychology will make sure no progress can be made and the winning ways of the United Coalition is simply a threat to the status quo bosses.
Fortunately there is a team elected under pure proportional representation where all single-winner district elections are prohibited on which we build.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
We’re building for the goal of overwhelming superior fire-power and so the team needs to be much bigger to attain that level.
When we build on a sorry foundation we imagine that we will get sorry outcomes.
That’s why the United Coalition had used PPR since day one: August 6th, 1995.
James Ogle did get his name on the 2012 Missouri Libertarian presidential primary. The only other name on the ballot in that primary was “uncommitted.” Ogle got 483 votes and uncommitted got 431. None of the other Libertarians seeking the presidential nomination entered that primary.
Candidate/incumbent replacement lists
NO more legis special elections.
—
NO SMD — automatic minority rule gerrymander math
PR and AppV
—–
Nonstop talking head math MORONS on TV — esp re the OH district.
See earlier posting about FATAL RCV math — Stalin/Hitler clones getting a rigged *mandate* for EVIL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992
like a zillion years ago — after the stuff in 2000, 2008, 2016.
PR and AppV – pending Condorcet.