Serve America Movement (SAM) Platform No Longer Endorses Top-Two

SAM (Serve America Movement) is a new political party that recently won qualified status for itself in New York.  Its platform no longer includes any endorsement of a top-two system.  Here is the new platform language concerning ballot access.

Previously, the party’s platform on ballot access endorsed top-two systems.  The old platform said, “We believe that states themselves should sponsor non-partisan primary elections, in which all candidates, regardless of party, appear on the same primary ballot.  This could either be a top-two primary system, as in California and Washington state, or a top-four primary, as suggested by Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter in their review of the American political system earlier this year.”


Comments

Serve America Movement (SAM) Platform No Longer Endorses Top-Two — 3 Comments

  1. The platform supports Top 4, with RCV in the runoff.

    A better approach would be to have Top N, where N is the smallest number such that votes for the Top N candidates is greater than N/(N+1) of the total vote.

    If one candidate receives more than half the votes, he would be elected. If two candidates received more than 2/3 of the vote, then two would advance. After the last advancing candidate is determined, the remaining candidates could coalesce their support to choose additional advancers.

    In California’s gubernatorial primary four candidates would have advanced, Gavin Newsom, John Cox, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Travis Allen would have advanced. Collectively, they had 81.8% of the vote, which is greater than 4/5. Additionally, John Chiang might have qualified based on transfers from other losing candidates. After the initial advancers were determined, all but the Top 2 could withdraw.

    For Lieutenant Governor, six candidates three Democrats and three Republicans would have advanced. In addition Gayle McLaughlin a former Green running as an independent might have advanced.

    Alex Padilla and Betty Yee would have been elected outright as SOS and controller.

    The Attorney General race would have seen two candidates advance, as would also be true for Insurance Commissioner, and Superintendent of Public education.

    For State Board of Equalization, 2, 3, 5, and 5 candidates would advance.

    For Congress 46 candidates would have been elected outright, (presuming repeal of the antiquated 1872 law), while the remaining seven districts would have had 3, 5, 2, 8, 4, 6 and 3 candidates advance to the second round.

  2. All entities using single winner district elections are bringing the “circle the wagons” psychology, when it comes to working across party lines (and independents).

    This psychology blocks communication outside their own entity as a threat to their homogenised team and it’s no easy task getting past the wall.

    The United Coalition USA had figured out the issue of single winner district elections.

    Single winner districts bring a two-party system.

    Sometimes a one-party system gets brought, as in single winner districts like SF under RCV and the national LP under AppV too, because the party bosses don’t have time consider the mathematics.

    The United Coalition USA has been bringing pure proportional representation (PPR) in multiple winner district elections correctly since 1992 when Mike Ossipoff [Peace and Freedom] brought the correct math, the Hagenbach-Bischoff method and ranked choice voting (RCV).

    Despite being blocked year after year, Clint Eastwood and Ronald Reagan brought all their assets to bare in 1986, the Green Party brought NOTA against our team for Governor in 1994, decade after decade, the United Coalition won in 2012.

    The United Coalition USA won the Missouri POTUS primary with 52.7%, while bringing several female candidates to the Libertarian national convention, but the party bosses snuffed us out again, and they didn’t want to hear anything about stopping their own single winner district election for POTUS which effectively extinguished the simultaneous collaboration among multiple genders and political parties in 2012.

    The national parties cannot bring success for their cause until they eliminate the single winner districts that snuff our collaboration and teamwork.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.