British Blog Displays a “Voting Flowchart”

Posted on by
23

The British blog www.anthonysmith.me.uk has an imaginative “flowchart” showing how a rational voter decides whom to vote for, under the run-of-the-mill system used generally in the United States as well as in most British elections. The British call that system “First Past the Post”. The most common U.S. term for it is the “plurality-winner” system.

The point of the anthonysmith blog post is to show that Instant Runoff Voting (which the British call the Alternative Vote system) is actually simpler for the voter than the old-fashioned system in current use in almost all our elections. See it here. Thanks to Bob Richard for the link.

British Blog Displays a "Voting Flowchart"

Posted on by
Reply

The British blog www.anthonysmith.me.uk has an imaginative “flowchart” showing how a rational voter decides whom to vote for, under the run-of-the-mill system used generally in the United States as well as in most British elections. The British call that system “First Past the Post”. The most common U.S. term for it is the “plurality-winner” system.

The point of the anthonysmith blog post is to show that Instant Runoff Voting (which the British call the Alternative Vote system) is actually simpler for the voter than the old-fashioned system in current use in almost all our elections. See it here. Thanks to Bob Richard for the link.

California 2010 Libertarian Nominee for Lt. Governor Had Best Showing for an “Other” Candidate for that Office Since 1922

Posted on by
7

On November 2, 2010, Pamela J. Brown, Libertarian nominee for Lieutenant Governor of California, received 5.86% of the vote. That is the highest share of the vote any candidate for that office (other than Democratic and Republican nominees) has received since 1922. The race also included nominees of the Democratic, Republican, American Independent, Green, and Peace & Freedom Parties. The total share of the vote going to minor party candidates in that race was 10.94%.

Most observers credit Brown’s relatively high showing to her statement in the Voters Guide. The campaign statement for all candidates for Lieutenant Governor can be read at this link on the Secretary of State’s web page. Every registered voter in California received this guide in the mail. The Secretary of State charges $25 per word, so Brown spent quite a bit of money on her statement.

The minor party candidate in 1922 who received a higher percentage for Lieutenant Governor was the Socialist Party nominee, who received 6.55 in a 3-party race.

Minor party candidates in 2010 for California Insurance Commissioner received, together, 11.85%, but no particular minor party candidate received as much as 4%.

California 2010 Libertarian Nominee for Lt. Governor Had Best Showing for an "Other" Candidate for that Office Since 1922

Posted on by
Reply

On November 2, 2010, Pamela J. Brown, Libertarian nominee for Lieutenant Governor of California, received 5.86% of the vote. That is the highest share of the vote any candidate for that office (other than Democratic and Republican nominees) has received since 1922. The race also included nominees of the Democratic, Republican, American Independent, Green, and Peace & Freedom Parties. The total share of the vote going to minor party candidates in that race was 10.94%.

Most observers credit Brown’s relatively high showing to her statement in the Voters Guide. The campaign statement for all candidates for Lieutenant Governor can be read at this link on the Secretary of State’s web page. Every registered voter in California received this guide in the mail. The Secretary of State charges $25 per word, so Brown spent quite a bit of money on her statement.

The minor party candidate in 1922 who received a higher percentage for Lieutenant Governor was the Socialist Party nominee, who received 6.55 in a 3-party race.

Minor party candidates in 2010 for California Insurance Commissioner received, together, 11.85%, but no particular minor party candidate received as much as 4%.

Delaware Independent Party Attorney General Nominee Polled Highest Share of Vote for a Non-Major Party Statewide Candidate Since 1886

Posted on by
Reply

On November 2, 2010, the Independent Party of Delaware’s nominee for Attorney General, Doug Campbell, polled 21.09%. He was the only opponent of the Democratic incumbent, Beau Biden, son of Vice-President Joe Biden. No Republican ran.

When one of the two major parties doesn’t run a nominee in a race, it is not particularly unusual for a minor party candidate to poll as much as 21%. However, this showing is the highest percentage that any minor party or independent candidate for a statewide office in Delaware has received in that state since 1886. Even the strongest minor party and independent presidential candidates, such as Theodore Roosevelt, Robert La Follette, George Wallace, and Ross Perot, did not receive as much as 21% in Delaware. Traditionally, Delaware has been a state that gives minor parties and independent candidates relatively low percentages. Delaware didn’t even permit independent candidates until 1977.

Campbell, age 30, had begun the election year hoping to be the Constitution Party’s nominee for U.S. House, but the Constitution Party didn’t qualify for the ballot. State election officials considered removing Campbell from the ballot because in 2004, he was convicted in North Carolina of speeding to elude arrest. Delaware does not permit candidates to run for state office if they have been convicted of a felony. But even though speeding to elude arrest is a felony in North Carolina, it is not a felony in Delaware, so he remained on the ballot.

The Republican Party did not run anyone for Attorney General because the party couldn’t find anyone who wanted to run. The race was the first statewide contest in Delaware since the beginning of government-printed ballots (which started in 1891) in which one of the two major parties failed to field a complete statewide slate.

The last Delaware minor party statewide nominees who exceeded 21% were the various nominees of the Temperance-Reform Party, who each polled over 33% of the vote in 1886.

Sample Ballot Released for First California “Top-Two” Election

Posted on by
47

Los Angeles County election officials have released this sample ballot for the upcoming special election for the special election in the 28th district of the California State Senate. As one can see, the candidates who are registered members of qualified parties are permitted to list their party preference on the ballot, but the candidates who are not registered members of a qualified party are forced to have “no party preference” listed next to their names. One of the two candidates with that label, Mark Lipman, does not object to it. But the other candidate with that label, Michael Chamness, does object to that label. He is a registered member of the Coffee Party and he wants to have “My party preference is the Coffee Party” on the ballot. He has applied to intervene in the lawsuit Field v Bowen, now pending in the State Court of Appeals.

The purpose of listing “party preference” on the ballot in the top-two systems of Washington and California is to help the candidate communicate a message, and to help the voter know something about the candidate. The U.S. Supreme Court, and the California Supreme Court, have ruled in the past that it is unconstitutional to discriminate for or against candidates, relative to labels on the ballot. The meaning of the party preference is not that the party approves of the candidate. The meaning of the party preference is to illustrate the mind-set of the candidate. Therefore, it is not rational to tell candidates that they can only reveal their mind-set on the ballot if they prefer a large party, or an already-established party, versus a new party. Washington state officials understand this, and that is why they let all candidates choose any “party preference”, as long as it isn’t obscene and is no longer than 16 characters.

Former California Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado understands this point. In May 2010 he was on television in New York city, being interviewed, and he said under the California top-two system that he sponsored, any candidate could choose any party label. He said, for example, that a candidate could prefer the Farmer Party. Also, in December 2010, when he received an award from IndependentVoting, he told the group that under his plan, all candidates can choose any label they wish. But the California Secretary of State and the California Attorney General do not agree. And even Maldonado’s attorneys don’t seem to agree with him. In the Superior Court, Maldonado’s attorneys argued vociferously against letting members of unqualified parties list their party preference. In the State Court of Appeals they seemed to reverse their position. But then in their papers in the State Supreme Court they seemed to suggest that they don’t know what the law means, relative to labels.