The Washington State Supreme Court will hear Guerra v Washington State, 95347-3, on January 22, 2019. This is the case over whether the state can fine presidential electors who vote for someone for president who did not win the popular vote in that state. The Independence Institute has filed an amicus curiae brief in the case, arguing that the intent of the U.S. Constitution and the people who wrote it was to let presidential electors make their own decision as to who to vote for in the electoral college.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Eliminate all single winner districts, especially those in SF, Oakland and Maine under RCV because that brings a one party system.
Bring the herd in 2020, Go Ogle [One] (not affiliated with Google One)
Maine is not a one-party system. Before last month’s election, Republicans controlled the State Senate and Democrats controlled the State House. The state had one US House member who was a Democrat, and one who was a Republican. In the presidential election of 2016, each US House district chose its own presidential elector, and the First District chose a Democrat while the Second chose a Republican. The state has one Republican US Senator and one independent US Senator.
Washington should adopt Top 2 for presidential elections, with electors chosen from 12 electoral districts.
Presidential candidates would file as individuals, and personally designate their associated vice-presidential and elector candidates (the VP and elector candidates would be required to give assent). Individual uncommitted electors could also file.
If the Democratic Party wanted to assist Hillary Clinton, they could. If Colin Powell or Faith Spotted Eagle wanted to be elected president, they could file as write-in candidates.
IF SCOTUS upholds the independent 12th Amdt Prez Elector stuff
— expect a near instant Const Amdt to END any such independent stuff.
The Congress/Legislature gerrymander hacks want robot hacks in the Prez/VP Electoral College.
The ANTI-Democracy ROT in the USA is nearly TOTAL
— see the de facto END of the Roman Republic via Augustus Caesar in 27 BC
— ALL power in the tribal *chief/leader* — aka TYRANNY.
Later killer tyrants – Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Saddam, etc.
@DR,
Proposed amendment.
1. Presidential electors apportioned among States, and territories, on basid of adult citizens.
2. At least one elector per 50,000 such persons.
3. Presidential electors to be elected (same electorate as eligible to vote for largest legislative body)
4. Time, place, manner by States subject to Congress override.
5. Presidential electors meet as single body – may be physically separate if instantaneous communication.
6. If no majority on first ballot, reduce to Top 5, and then eliminate one per round.
7. Same procedure for choosing Vice President.
Richard, Maine had only recently approved RCV in single winner districts, like those in SF and Oakland.
The elections must take place first, but in every election using RCV, only one party will win into the future, the largest party/civic group in the district.
The largest civic group is not going to open the door for any others, they will always make sure that they win. They can now run larger numbers of members without being concerned by the split vote problem which can give random wins to some who are not the biggest.
Now the biggest will always win (like in SF) because of RCV.
My math about RCV has been correct for more than twenty-three years, and I am correct again – single winner RCV districts guarantee that only one party wins. That is known as a one-party system
After the elections, the one party system is official in every single winner district, and only one party (the biggest) will ever win in that district.
The national Libertarian Party has also adopted a one-party system by using AppV in their internal single winner districts.
You can claim to be the answer to the one-party system but unfortunately the mathmatics of single winner election districts under RCV, score, AppV, range, and others, only the biggest will win, guaranteed.
Before, the state of Maine and the national Libertarian Party used plurality voting (a two-party system), but by swit6 to RCV and AppV in single winner districts, they switched to a one-party system.
Maybe not state-wide, but within each single winner district, only one party will always win in SF, Maine and the national Libertarian Party.
The United Coalition USA has been using pure proportional representation (PPR) for more than twenty-three consecutive years, and PPR works best.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc-p7-usa.html
REAL Amdt
ONE election day.
Uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of the USA – esp in DC and occupied colonies.
PR and AppV – pending Condorcet