On the night of June 15, the city council of Albany, California, voted to ask voters whether to use ranked choice voting for city elections. The measure will be on the November 2020 ballot. Thanks to Jim Lindsay for this news.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Condorcet = RCV done right.
TOP SECRET (USA)
“What the Libertarian Party bosses don’t want the Delegates to know”
By James Ogle for US President or Vice President and LNC Vice Chair
6/16/2020
Simply by using one token per 538-members (and/or delegates) the new United Coalition USA is bringing the 539-party system.
Instead the Libertarian Party bosses have done everything to snuff out our voices for more than twenty-five consecutive years so that the insiders control the strategies and results in their one-party system.
Using two tokens, the one biggest faction can win both seats in a one-party system.
The one-party system requires single-winner election districts so the biggest faction can win 100% of all elections 100% of the time.
That is very inefficient and chews up large amounts of time for almost predictable results.
That’s likely a losing path in the USA’s two-party system.
To attain 539-party system, every voter must instead rank one or more names with numerals (1,2,3,4,etc.), it’s limited voting under the single transferable vote (STV), new math not used anywhere in multiple-winner election districts but Cambridge Massachusetts city elections.
All names are ranked for all positions too, the elected names pick titles from the set paper ballots, and Electors “votes of confidence” can elect more names too.
This set of paper ballots can be easily replicated for other volunteer vote counters and the Electoral College remains in effect four years.
Only one election is needed for hundreds of titles.
We allow the highest ranked name to pick first, followed by #2, #3, etc.
It’s expected #1 from the stack will pick President but not required.
It’s still one-man-one-vote and one whole vote per paper ballot, every voter may write a word (s) by their own name (Libertarian, Purple Libertarian, Anarchist, etc.) and should every word be different then you have 539 parties.
That’s because #539 is the 1st back-up on the 538-member team.
The Droop Quota is 1/539ths (about 1/5th of 1%) so it’s a breeze to elect the top-ranked names with an extremely low threshold.
Should all 538 Electors write ten names then it’s the 5381-party system.
The pure proportional representation (PPR) Electoral College has been using the Droop Quota correctly and under this method everyone wins.
In 1995 when our team completed the “First Preference Internet Election” using the computer program DAS in Usenet, Colin Powell [Independent] was elected as VP (the Independent won) and Harry Browne the Libertarian won.
The Libertarian Party nominated Jo Jorgensen as VP in 1996 by using the one-party system (two tokens per voter).
Independent One 2020
http://Www.pprelectoralcollege.com
When Will the USA parliament bosses stop pushing the undemocratic, dictatorial, fascist two genders system and start bringing the 639 and up gender system? Why do they keep ducking and dodging this question?
Clarification
Since the L.P. used “rounds” with plurality or ranked vote until one party gets a majority, that guaranteed the one-party system.
When regular plurality voting without rounds it’s a two-party system because of the split-vote problem.
Why are you ducking and dodging the question?
Seems very cowardly to duck the valid questions by the corrupt bosses of the secretive out of touch united parliament megaconglomerate. They seem extremely out of touch from the regular people who don’t have massive megacorporate billions and trillions like they do.
“Additive” Ranked Ballot is voters ranking candidates in order of preference, counting the first choices, & then, if noone has 50%,adding in the next, & so on, til someone finally does. This always picks the one mist in the middle. RCV lets the next choices of the losers in each round (inevitably the extremes) be used in the next rounds calculations. The win-win top-dead-center will always win, so whether that results in a consistently winning centrist party or not is moot. It’s like some can’t stand getting theirs if it means the other guy gets his too.