On December 16, the 8th circuit affirmed a U.S. District Court decision in Cottier v City of Martin, 07-1628. The 8th circuit agrees that the U.S. District Court was correct to order the city of Martin to use cumulative voting for its city council elections, even though there is no provision in South Dakota state law for cities to use that system. “Cumulative voting” gives each voter 3 votes, and all candidates run at-large. A voter is free to use the 3 votes to either give one vote to each of 3 different candidates, or give all 3 votes to one candidate, or to give 2 votes to one candidate and one vote to another candidate.
Almost 40% of Martin’s registered voters are Native Americans, but the old single-member district system (3 districts) has prevented any Native Americans from being elected since the last reapportionment. Native Americans aren’t a majority in any of the 3 districts. The City itself, and the U.S. District Court, had previously determined that the housing patterns are such that it is impossible to draw district lines that provide for a majority Native American district.
Why are certain alternative voting systems favored over others? I mean, why this and not IRV? Why, in some places, IRV and not approval voting?
I’m not sure if Single Transferable Voting (Choice Voting) or Limited Voting was even mentioned in this case. If not it should have been. I’m glad to see PR voting systems gradually gaining ground across the nation.
Why not allow the gerrymandered Native American voters swap districts with other voters and enable the native Americans to pack a district if the want and other voters consent? In effect, a voter is simply agreeing to swap ballots with another voter. That action cannot violate one person, one vote. It simply nullifies the imposition of a gerrymander on all voters.
In addition the number of city council members could be increased. It is possible to simply apportion representation among any political body using a cube root rule. The number of representatives for a population is calculated as some multiple of the cube root of the population. The multiplier factor can be entrenched in basic law (charter, constitution,etc.).
Illinois formerly used cumulative voting to elect at least the lower house of its legislature.
I’d like to see a State use Cumulative Voting to elect Presidential Electors. (actually a mix of Cumulative & Congressional Apportionment)
Vote for 3 Electors; 1 Congressional, 2 At-Large
they can be for 3 separate “Presidential candidates”, all for the same or a mix & match 2 for 1 combos.
2 At-Large for one candidate, Congressional for another
1 At-Large & Congressional for one candidate, other At-Large for another candidate
The Electors with the most votes get elected
Total Votes / Total Seats = Equal votes needed for each seat winner — using pre-election candidate rank order lists to transfer surplus and loser votes.
Due to armies of MORON lawyers the courts are brain dead ignorant about P.R. — now used in most *civilized* nations of the world — i.e. NOT in the DARK AGE U.S.A., U.K., Canada and India — due to the DARK AGE formation of the English House of Commons.
Super-dangerous obsolete stuff hangs on and on and on — minority rule gerrymanders, vetoes, etc. — due to massive ignorance in the media, in the schools, in the courts, etc. etc.
#3. New Zealand uses a similar system. Maori voters can either be on the general voting roll or the Maori voting roll. The voters on the Maori voting roll are apportioned their proportionate number of districts in Parliament. Currently 7 of 70 districts are Maori districts. The two sets of districts cover the entire country.
District boundaries are based on population. In determining the population of an area for the Maori districts, the Maori population from the census is apportioned in proportion to the number of voters on the Maori electoral roll to the number of Maori voters in the area.
So if Martin, SD had 5 city council districts, and 1/2 the Native American voters (40% of the total) chose to be on the Native American electoral roll, then there would be one Native American city council district (5 x 1/2 x 40%), and 4 general roll city council districts.
The Native American city councilman would be chosen by the Native American voters on the Native American electoral roll. The other 4 councilman would be chosen from 4 districts, by the voters on the general election roll.
The better solution is use more representatives and mandate the right of petition. Demo Rep has an idea in which he bases his theory that each establishment be it a state or local legislature has the “proper” number of representatives.
I see his posts and I am forced to bring out the point that the ideas are not as powerful as he wishes everyone would perceive. I dare say, no less ignorant than everyone he suggests is!
# 8 — Too few reps = oligarchy
Too many reps. = mob scene (i.e. even worse monarchy – oligarchy) — definitely the U.S.A. House of Reps. (i.e. DICTATOR Speakers) — since about 1873 (after the large increase to account for more U.S.A. Reps from the ex-slave States due to 13th Amdt and 14th Amdt, Sec. 2).
Best size — pick a number — also related to the relative power of the legislative body involved.
Going to WAR (more) or having a no parking zone on a public street (less).
ALL major legislative bodies in the U.S.A. are ANTI-Democracy gerrymander oligarchies — with mainly party hack DICTATOR *leaders*.
Result – growing petition chaos in States like CA.
REAL Democracy NOW via P.R. — before the DICTATORS start Civil War II and/or World War III.