The November 11 edition of the New York Times here endorses using the single transferable vote variant of ranked choice voting, for U.S. House elections. There has been a bill pending in the U.S. House to use that system, but it has not moved. It is HR 3057. It will be re-introduced into the new U.S. House.
TYPICAL NYT M-O-R-O-N-S at work —
NOT making the STV machination an issue for ALL candidates BEFORE Election Day 2018.
—
For new folks —
—
RCV/IRV FATAL Defects Apr 2018
RCV/IRV ignores most of the data in a Place Votes Table.
The *Middle* is divided – as usual.
34 A-M-Z
33 Z-M-A
16 M-A-Z
16 M-Z-A
99
With RCV/IRV, M loses. A beats Z 50-49.
A = Stalin, M = Washington, Z = Hitler
—————
Place Votes Table
— 1 — 2 — 3 — T
A 34 – 16 – 49 – 99
Z 33 – 16 – 50 – 99
M 32 – 67 – 0 – 99
T 99 – 99 – 99
i.e. RCV/IRV will cause even more extremist winners due to rigged majority *mandate* stuff.
M has a mere 99 of 99 votes in 1st and 2nd place.
Also — symmetry — Z has 50 in last place — should lose. M then beats A 65-34.
————
Head to Head (Condorcet) Math – from 1780s — repeat 1780s.
M beats A 65-34
M beats Z 66-33
Condorcet is obviously correct by the math of having a 3rd choice beat each of 2 existing choices head to head.
A > B
C comes along.
IF C > A and C > B, THEN C should be the winner.
*******
Condorcet math — ALL elections —
legislative, executive, judicial.
ALL combinations of —
Test Winner(s) vs Test Loser — Test Other Losers
Number ranked votes go from TOL to TW or TL.
Would need computer voting to do all the combinations in any *larger* election.
Also– vote YES or NO (default) on each choice for a tie breaker when a TW/TL does not win/lose in all combinations.
For 2 or more exec/judic offices (e.g. 2 judges), the 2 or more top ranked number votes are used in the TW/TL/TOL math.
Legislative body elections — the final Winners would have a Voting Power equal to their final votes (direct from voters plus indirect from Losers).
—-
Thus — Proportional Representation — legis and nonpartisan Approval Voting (YES/NO) exec-judic — pending Condorcet head to head math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
—
Note – see “mathematics of voting and elections” in a Google search regarding 3 or more choices math.
—
PR and AppV – pending Condorcet.
1. Uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of the USA.
2. Abolish ALL second houses — senates.
3. PR and AppV – pending Condorcet [STV done correctly].
4. TOTAL Separation of Powers.
—
Difficult ONLY for media editorial boards ???
Pretty good article except for the part about voting only for three names, #1,#2 and #3.
By limiting the choices to three you are harming the principle of pure proportional representation.
I just scanned the article quickly so I could be wrong, but I hope that they aren’t trying to put in a bad system again.
If you’re going to go down that road, then please do it right for once, not like in SF where you’re limited to three.
I would love for PR to be used in the US.
That said, if we can’t do so, reform the current FPTP system by doing the following:
-Allocating the ballot access by popular vote: each district would have a runoff for the following election with 2 candidates, which could be between two major parties, two third parties or one major and one third. Number of votes wont be used, instead higher % will be used.
Derek G., please consider the method for pure proportional representation (PPR) as used in Cambridge Massachusetts because the Hagenbach-Bischoff method hasn’t been improved to give the most fair voting system in more than 100 years.
Everytime people try to work on a new version, they are trying to bring a lessor system.
It’s based on the same principle where one vote breaks a 50/50 tie.
Except the minimum number of seats/decision-items must always be two or more, the more the better.
In a two-member district, the threshold is 33.33% (plus one vote), for a guaranteed voter satisfaction level of 66.66% (plus two votes).
When you try to change the Hagenbach-Bischoff method you will probably bring a less-than-favorable count for one or more voters.
So please keep the math where the tie is broken by one vote so that regular people with one vote have the same effect on the results.
The more open seats per district, the lower the threshold.
The United Coalition USA has been coordinating under the mathematics of pure proportional representation, the Hagenbach-Bischoff method, for more than twenty-three consecutive years and this works out perfectly fine.
We bring the unity and many small splinter groups are 100% sustained as a team through Earth Day 2020 when we elect the 538 Electoral College to the next four-year cycle, and President and Vice President are #s 1 and 2, with 536 consecutively ranked names as back-ups.
http://www.usparliament.org
Rob Ritchie and FairVote have brought us the one-party system in SF, Oakland and Maine by implementing the wrong math.
Now we are sceptical of their work because their group had already created big problems worse than the two-party system, they need to be held accountable and they should take the initiative to undo the damage they have already brought for the past twenty-three years.
From this article I can already see the poor work by Rob Richie and FairVote, the author writes that he is told the optimal level of numbers per district is three to five.
The truth is, a five-member district will have a threshold of 16.6% (plus one vote).
That threshold might be fine for Ds and Rs, but it’s no good, for the United Coalition.
We like the whole state at-large and no other way. In California we insist Congressional thresholds be at-large for whole state with a threshold of .18 of 1% (plus one vote).
Only the status quo could reach the threshold Richie is selling and he is bringing another failed system.
They continue to confirm that they bring failure for regular people to be part of government.
Go Herd / Ogle 2020
http://www.usparliament.org/google2020.php
Correction, the threshold in California would actually be 1.8% (plus one vote). Not .18% (as I had written).
For media math MORONS —
Gerrymander math
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL = OLIGARCHY
— as rotten as any in 6,000 plus years — esp with domestic oppressions and foreign wars.
—
PR Democracy math —
Party Members = Total Members x Party Votes / Total Votes
—
Very good luck in educating the armies of MORONS [esp. know-it-all media MORONS] –
about the NONSTOP TOTAL ROT in the USA — day after day — since 1776.
—
PR and AppV
I think the single tranaferable vote system is a very good system. Or else the Dual Member Proportional system with 2 reps.
The Brits lurch from CRISIS to CRISIS with the about 20 percent minority rule gerrymanders in the UK House of Commons, the HACKS in the UK House of Lords (many appointed older HACKS from the UKHC) and the tourist UK monarchy — with its periodic internal family machinations — Diana, etc.
Internal instability in each of the 4 *nations* in the UK – England, Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland.
IE a TOTAL UNSTABLE regime.
—
USA — NOT far behind the Brit ROT — gerrymander ROT — States ROT.
Third parties would have five times the population in which they would need 16.6%.
It’s the same problem regular people have now, only a bigger scale by five.
Only more or less control freak statism —
even 5 member legislative bodies are quite enough —
100 pct total votes / (5+1) plus 1 vote = 16.666666 pct votes + 1 vote to elect using Condorcet.
100 pct / 5 = 20 percent for BASIC PR — surplus votes down, loser votes up.
Exact votes – bit more complex — only loser votes up.
*Technically* even 3 or 1 member bodies — Majority rule = Democracy by definition.
— along with TOTAL Separation of Powers.
The editorial is wrong when it says that the single member district requirement is the result of a 1967 law intended to protect black voters (this sounds like misinformation from Fairvote). this has been the requirement since the 1840s when the concern is that more states would move to at-large election of representatives as they had for presidential electors.
Over the decades, Congress made exceptions for states that had not redistricted after the decennial apportionment. States that had gained representation were permitted to elect the added representatives at large. States that had lost representatives could elect all representatives at large. States that had no change, got in the habit of not redistricting.
‘Wesberry v Sanders’ noted that at-large election did comply with the US Constitution. After all the representatives were being chosen by the voters of the State. Most states were malapportioned, and lawsuits were filed almost everywhere. District courts were threatening to order at-large elections until the state legislature provided lawful districts. At-large elections would not necessarily be a temporary fix.
Alarmed, Congress passed the law requiring single member districts in all cases (the exception in the law covered only one election for New Mexico and Hawaii)
The outcome of this is that the federal courts became intimately involved in redistricting. Lawyers and judges love this. <3 $$$$$ <3
Congress would have been more useful if they had set reasonable standards for congressional districts rather than the absurdist standards the SCOTUS has imposed. They could have simply barred election of representatives from malapportioned districts.
@DR,
I don’t understand how you would use Condorcet for multi-member elections. And what do you mean by “pending condorcet”? Is this a type of Condorcet, or do you believe that it could not be developed pending other changes?
Rob Richie/FairVote’s 5-member districts:
Threshold 1/6 = 16.6%
Herd/Ogle’s California 53-member Californian Congressional Members At-Large:
Threshold 1/54 = 1.8%
* * *
Commentary by James Ogle [One]
FairVote plan could block third parties and independents from Congress, those who cannot attain 16.6% (plus one vote) in districts five time current six. They can bring a program that’s no good.
The correct math starts with ALL open seats state-wide, at-large, no exceptions.
For example under the FairVote math, should state elect six Congressional seats, FairVote expects us to divide/grrrymsnder the state into two smaller districts with thresholds of 25% (plus one vote).
Richie is quoted as saying that a five-member district is best but that’s a lie. He is selling a program that isn’t pure proportional representation.
Herd/Ogle 2020 will bring correct math, all the open seats state-wide, to be elected simultaneously within one at-large district no matter how many seats per state.
Compare the different maps FairVote Vs United Coalition USA. The United Coalition USA is correct again, all open seats to be elected at-large is the correct method.
No way to Rob Richie/FairVote.
http://www.usparliament.org/google2020.php
Richie’s districts are to be five times the size in population, so 16.6% would be difficult for independents and the results would likely be 3 Ds and 2 Rs or 2 Ds and 3 Rs.
The Ds and Rs are not going to let 3rd parties win one of the five seats if they can help it.
JR–
1. The 1964 SCOTUS JUNK gerrymander cases and the 1967 USA law —
raised the minority rule in most States from 5-15 percent to about 25-32 percent —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged SMD = 1/4 or less CONTROL = OLIGARCHY.
2. See earlier postings.
I do NOT like to repeat LONG posts.
Condorcet is for ALL elections – legis, exec, judic.
Condorcet — EXACT PR and 5 member districts — to limit ballot sizes.
EXACT PR — Final voting powers OF EACH OF THE 5 WINNERS = DIRECT VOTES PLUS LOSER VOTES
COPY AND PASTE ON WALL.
—
RATIO PR [NOT EXACT} and AppV — both pending Condorcet.
ALL THE 2018 MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDERS SHOULD BE ATTACKED AS SOON AS RESULTS ARE FINAL-FINAL-FINAL — TO HAVE A MINI-CHANCE FOR A ****CORRECT**** SCOTUS CASE IN ***EARLY*** 2020.
Richie’s a system for the party bosses. Because when there’s a bottle neck at five, only the insiders will pick.
If you want regular people mixed in with the insiders then you need to lower that threshold.
Typo, should have been “five times the current size” (as in population).
HOW MANY ZILLION TONS OF BILLS PUT IN TRASH EACH 2 YEARS ???
RE-CYCLED FOR PAPER TRASH BAGS ???
HOW ABOUT REQUIRE MAJORITY SPONSORS FOR EACH BILL ???
=== FEWER JUNK BILLS.
MORE HACKS MIGHT ACTUALLY READ THE BILLS — IF AT LEAST UNDER 1,000 PAGES — TAX/SPENDING BILLS.
JO — PR STILL HAS A BAAAAD REPUTATION DUE TO THE 1933-1945 HITLER REGIME.
SMALL ONE ISSUE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS GETTING SEATS — IE THE EARLY NAZIS IN 1920S.
ELECTING 1 OR MORE DONKEYS A-N-D ELEPHANTS IN A-L-L DISTRICTS WOULD PUT T-O-T-A-L PRESSURE ON THE HACKS REGARDING ALL STUFF — ESP. TAXES/SPENDING, FOREIGN WARS, ETC.
NO SAFE SEAT DISTRICTS — TOTAL ATTENTION TO *MEDIAN* VOTERS.
—
PR AND APPV
@DR,
When have you ever explained how to use Condorcet for multi-seat elections?
Imagine if there were 3 parties each with 5 candidates. All voters rank their party’s candidates first in random order. They rank the other candidates below that in random order without regard to party. All 5 candidates of the most favored party will defeat all the candidates of the other parties.
Are your judicial election multi-member districts?
The proposed legislation would maintain primaries. If these were partisan primaries, then states would be incentivized to maintain ballot access barriers (see Maine Libertarian party). Parties would claim their party association rights would let them control the number of candidates.
If there are primaries, then they should be Top 2*N. All candidates should qualify as individual candidates, with the number of supporters greater than 0.1% of the previous congressional vote divided by the number of representatives.
Federal elections should be totally separate in time and space from any state or local elections This would simplify operation of overseas vote centers, and eliminate the need to mail ballots 7 weeks before the election, which forces filing deadlines 3 months before elections. Overseas voters could vote at consulates and military bases or other cities.
All federal elections would be on the same days.
Elections should be by paper ballots with voters using numerals to indicate their preference. There would be no reason for write-ins. If a voter’s preferences were exhausted, they would revert to the preference order of the voter’s first choice. Counting should either be Meek’s method or the simplified New Zealand variant.
Districts should be apportioned on the basis of citizen voting age population. If you are going to aim for partisan proportionality, there should also be geographical proportionality. Alternatively, voting power should be based on votes received by the candidate. This could permit more representatives to be allocated to rural areas, so that they can have a more pluralistic representation without creating huge districts.
@joogle,
Successful council candidates in Cambridge spend around $40,000 to be elected. Larger electorates mean candidates must spend more to get attention.
JR — RE- Condorcet
http://ballot-access.org/2018/10/30/riverside-press-enterprise-endorses-libertarian-for-county-supervisor-jurisdiction-has-almost-500000-population/
Demo Rep on November 1, 2018 at 3:19 pm
—-
Copy and paste on Wall.
WILL NOT repeat — for folks having ZERO attention spans.
Again – what percent of incomplete/wrong ballots using Number Votes — SF, Cambridge, wherever.
IE marking ONE oval for ONE office is a MAJOR task for many voters — due to rotted ballot forms/instructions — and esp. rotted dumb/dumber politically correct skooools — having JUNK civics/govt classes — many not until high school 4th year senior [optional].
When do fine USA skooool students see even SAMPLE ballots in REAL elections (if ever) ???
Geez Demo Rep- You sure are a nasty POS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Earlier — Was Gen. G. Washington nasty in ALL of his many, many battles against the tyrant Brits in 1775-1781 — MA to SC ???
Later – Were US Grant and Sherman nasty in dealing with the tyrant slaver Confeds in 1862-1865 in SE USA ???
Later – nasty Gen Pershing and the USA Doughboys in 1918 in N. France against the Germany KILLER Central Power ???
Later – super-nasty Adm. Nimitz and Gen. MacArthur in Pacific Ocean, Gens. Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton in N. Africa and W. Europe in dealing with tyrant Axis KILLERS / slavers in 1942-1945 ???
More nasty = quicker REAL Democracy ??? Duh.
How about, guess what — Democracy or Death ???
— regardless of ALL brainwashed MORONS / robot party HACKS — since 4 July 1776.
Yup… nasty!
Demo Rep, yes, Cambridge may have spoiled marked ballots. If the voter cannot rank in consecutive numerals, 1,2,3,4,etc.,that would cause a spoiled ballot with no exceptions.
Regarding spending sums by candidates, I am not looking at that, only that 1/10th of the votes (plus one vote) will elect each of the nine candidates.
The ranked choice voting (RCV)
under the Hagenbach-Bischoff method sets up the ten-way tie.
It results in a 90% (plus nine votes) guaranteed voter satisfaction level.
Best system ever.
ANY non-RED communist Donkeys remaining in Cambridge, MA — close/next to Boston, MA ???
What RED communist scheme gets the largest fraction of the Cambridge regime spending ???
Welfare ??? Govt bureaucrats ???
How many gerrymander Amdts to the 1780 (1780) Mass Const ??? 20 plus ???
@DR,
That post was gibberish.
DR, while I do not know the makeup of Cambridge City Council, for a number or years two partisan civic groups would general win eight seats of the nine Cambridge city council, with a third independent civic group winning mayor.
https://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/results/results18.html#june18
Me- 2018 primary
—
Do the math for the wasted votes in REAL elections.
How about Dual Member Proportional?
Each district would get 2 members. Each party would nominate up to 2 candidates.
First stage: the first seat would go to the candidate with the most votes.
Second stage: each elected district candidate’s votes are discarded and the unused district votes are used.
I think that maybe requiring a district candidate to get at least 1/3 of the district vote could be a good idea. Use a ranked ballot system.
The secondary seats would be allocated proportionally.
Thus, each district would have a senior rep and a junior rep.
Basic PR [NOT exact] — legis bodies —
Party Members = Total Members x Party Votes / Total Votes
MAX 1 year terms.
I suggest people not get lost in counting techniques. It’s a distraction that confuses people not familiar with STV. Concentrate on the benefits.
More info on STV with scalable solutions for any geography.
http://www.bestdemocracy.org/single-transferable-vote.html