The recount in Washington state’s August primary for the U.S. House 2nd district seat is finished, and the results match the original results. See this story. Libertarian Brian Luke placed second, and will be on the November ballot against the incumbent Democrat. This is the first time in any top-two election in which a minor party member has advanced to the general election, even though both major parties also had a candidate on the ballot in the primary.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Hmmm.
Divide and Conquer also works in primaries.
—
NO primaries.
PR and AppV – pending Condorcet.
The largest change was in a switch of votes from write-in to undervote. There was a small increase in overvotes. Most candidates lost a handful of votes – though relative to their vote totals, candidates other than the incumbent Rick Larsen lost more votes.
Uncle Mover, who ran saying he preferred the “Moderate GOP” is a vanity candidate, who changed his name from “Michael Patrick Shanks” to “Mike The Mover” to promote his moving company. He has since then changed his first name from “Mike” to “Uncle”. In 2004, he estimated his candidacies had generated $150,000 in additional revenue for his moving company. He has run as a Democrat, Republican, and National Union candidate (he is a Civil War buff – Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson ran as the National Union party in 1864). I don’t think it is accurate to claim that he was a major party candidate.
Uncle Mover may have lost fractionally larger share of votes. So the loss of votes appears to be a tiny number of voters who voted for “anybody but Larsen”, but then changed their votes. This was fractionally more for Mover, perhaps by voters who realized he was not a serious candidate, let alone the Republican candidate.
In Washington, ballots are machine counted. There is a presumption that undervotes, overvotes, and write-ins may be miscounted, but they don’t have to be eyeballed unless the election is close. For example a write-in vote might be for an on-ballot candidate. An overvote might be due to a correction that the scanner could not interpret. An undervote might be due to unconventional marking, such as circling candidate’s names rather than filling in a bubble.
Most of this law results from the hyper-close 2004 gubernatorial election, which is unknowable who actually won.
It appears that most of the changes were write-ins that became undervotes. The share of undervotes and write-ins was high in the district, likely due to the lack of an actual Republican candidate.
Some of the conversions from write-ins to undervote, might have been due to a voter filling in a bubble for write-in, but not completing the name, or writing a message rather than a name. Until this year, write-in candidates did not have to declare their candidacy, and in fact were discouraged from doing so because they would have had to pay a filing fee. Now a declaration is required, but it is free if made prior to ballots being sent out (about 3 weeks before the election).
It is possible that there were declared write-in candidates this year, and that the reduction in write-ins was because some of the names were not candidates. Washington requires write-ins to be counted, but not tallied. A “write-in” for a non-declared candidate is not a write-in vote, and isn’t counted as such.
Where is the *Model Election Law* for ALL write-in stuff ???
ALL election stuff is supposed to be in YES/NO flow charts.
ZERO arbitrary *discretionary* machinations.
First every election has different needs so no one set of election laws can ever apply to all elections.
However, some laws can apply to all elections, because those laws that are consistent for all elections, can and should be part of every set of election laws.
Demo Rep wrote: “ALL election stuff is supposed to be in YES/NO flow charts.”
The above quote by Demo Rep is 100% incorrect and the correct way to have been written, as to apply to all election laws would be as follows:
“ALL election stuff is supposed to be in consecutively ranked numerals in flow charts, with no exceptions.”
Additionally, something to the effect:
“No plurality voting is permitted in any election. No single-winner districts, no yes/no votes, no click the dot, no raise the hand and otherwise no other method, other than consecutively ranked numerals beginning with the number 1, is permitted in any election or the election is deemed undemocratic, illegitimate and no good.”
When you look into this election, the top two are two males.
Though there could have been one male and one female under top two, only two males won.
Plurality elections under top two cannot guarantee that one male and one female will win, only pure proportional representation can guarantee that case where should 66.66% (plus two votes) had voted for one male and one female, then the winners would be one male and one female.
Instead there is no guarantee that the 66.66% (plus two votes) will be the winners because pure proportional representation (PPR) was not used in Washington.
Mr. Ogle-
Flow charts are by definition in ordered/ranked steps.
Where is the PPR party ??? — with its ONE plank Platform — PPR – in a flow chart ???
See also flow charts in computer programs.
Flow charts / computer programs used to count votes — even for J.Ogle.
IE – filled in oval = 1 [vote]
Demo Rep, I really don’t understand your flow chat comment, but one thing is certain, that “filled in ovals” will never be part of PPR.
That’s because only consecutively ranked numerals are acceptable. If you can explain flow-chartism as it applies to numerals than that might help.
I am interested in PPR and equal treatment and equal free speech time.
The Libertarian and Democratic Parties, the Unite America group and the American Independent Party of California are all the same because they are using party names in deceit and under pluralism.
The Libertarian Party can’t protect our free sperch liberty to self-categorize as we wish without bias, Unite America cannot unite without pure proportional representation and the American Independent Party is not able to attract independents.
American political parties have used pluralism for 250+ years, there is an engrained view of political parties in the USA and the only way to change that is to work hard for pure proportional representation (PPR).
The party bosses aren’t interested in PPR, they are only interested in single-winner district power grabs.
They all show the exact same traits, their message of pluralist strategy, and so the unity and the teamwork needed to win elections will stay out of their reach for many decades to come.
This two-winner district win in Washington might give their candidate a bully pulpit for a few months but the candidate’s message under pluralist psychology is predictably incorrect.
To have the correct message of putting our opposite gender ahead of ourselves can only come from the United Coalition.
No pluralist can put their opposite gender ahead of their own for the good of the whole, regardless of party affiliation, because they are not interested in the whole. They are for themselves and their political party and not for what is right.
Pluralists can only bring conflict and poison to the United Coalition.
Pluralists always bring more crap to the United Coalition and we don’t hear any change from their mouths in 2018.
We get just more and more of the same crap from them, promoting the egomaniacal psychopathic egotist males who have no use for the whole.
Every year the pluralists start fresh thinking that this year will somehow change. But their actions only drive people further away.
The United Coalition on the other hand, attracts and rewards team play, under the required use of PPR, and there are no exceptions on our team play.
That team psychology under PPR is what is needed most in order to attract the votes and confidence and we’ve been doing it right for more than twenty-three consecutive years.
Our United Coalition team may be sub-atomic in size, but our team players build the trust needed for collaboration, unlike anything known to pluralists.
The One Party is working everyday to unite the Green and Libertarian Parties with the One Party and perfect practice makes perfect.
http://www.allpartysystem.com/one.php
How about look at the numbered ovals in RCV systems ???
The male/female stuff is arbitrary quota stuff —
how about old/young, poor/rich, etc.
Mini Flow Chart – Elector – Many States
1. YES/NO USA Citizen ?
2. YES/NO 18 or more years old ?
3. YES/NO declared mentally ill ?
4. YES/NO convicted felon (various crimes) ?
5. YES/NO registered to vote – X days before Election Day ?
The *legal* YES/NO answer for each question gets to the next question –
or more action after last question – often – Another set of YES/NO questions.
—
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Flow_chart
Wow! Clash of the titans!
Sorry, yes/no questions are prohibited under PPR, so no way.
Regarding rich/poor, while that is a good interest point to many people, the male/female works better for two-member districts. Plus when you look at a paper ballot you can usually determine the gender when randomly voting. But to see economic contrast of candidates you cannot easily determine.
So our opposite gender ahead of ourselves with consecutively alternating genders thereafter is a superior message, better flow for teamwork too, because since we ourselves can’t speak for women, they cannot for men, but not so true with the economic category.
So the psychological message is better, being humble, because we cannot speak for the opposite gender. Speech is important.
After winning 52.7% in a flagship LP primary for POTUS by running on several female POTUS candidate shirt-tails in 2012, I am confident, our team wins this way when both differing political parties and different genders are on same ticket.
Of course the party bosses do everything to stop the United Coalition USA, despite that, the majority approves when free speech is given the chance.
http://www.usparliament.org/google2020.php
I suggest that the Ogle folks put their election reforms into a LEGAL TEXT.
18 of 50 States [by MAJOR miracles] have voter petitions for State Const Amdts – to get past the gerrymander HACK monsters.
I wonder if race were substituted for gender how that would fly?
Ogle is way out there. The only way he can get his wacko arguments even heard is to spam this page. This guy couldn’t even beat NOTA, which is saying something.