On October 28, the Field Poll released a gubernatorial poll for California. The poll did not mention all 6 candidates on the ballot. It merely asked respondents if they favor the Democratic nominee, the Republican nominee, or a minor party nominee. 5% of respondents said they favor a minor party nominee and 7% are undecided. The four California minor party gubernatorial nominees are debating each other on October 28 on the campus of California State University, Sacramento, at 1 p.m. The two major party nominees were invited but are not expected to attend.
…he’s building a house on a sandy beach, at low tide!
I read the others each have 1% GO Jerry brown. Jerry Brown has it locked up!
Governor Moonbeam rules! Woo Hoo!
Just saw the debate live…MSP Chelene Nightingale [Constitution Independent] was awsome! She’s like six feet tall, and a former actress. Her husband Michael Nightingale is cool too.
Her name #1 for Governor of California!
Ad for http://www.GoNott.com “GoNott search!”
http://www.usparliament.org/drafts/electionAD.html
*Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted*
* * *
Prediction corner, Nightingale, 1/3 of one percent!
Yeah, and look at the Green Party of California web page…while Chelene was cooperated with the “all party system”, as well as MSP Diane Templin [American Independent], Lawrence Beliz [American Independent], Merton Short [American Independent/Constitution], MSP CT Weber [Peace and Freedom] and many others since the runoff began (and before the primary too)…you had Laura Wells [Green] totally out for herself;
http://www.cagreens.org/
There was no team player in her, Christina Tobin and many others. Most everyone blew off working as a team with votes cast as proof.
MSP Dale Ogden [Libertarian] started out strong, but for some reason couldn’t hand out until we tried to break the tie again and again.
Tie for Secretary of State still isn’t broken, but were continuing this through 2014, with approved rules as the guideline.
Thank you Richard, thanks for hanging out with the other 100 members on each level. Even though I make some rude remarks, I still appreciate your help and your work.
I’m already getting ready for 2012…
Go Ruwart/Ogle [Libertarian/Free and Equal]
How do you like it?
(Or maybe Nightingale/Ogle [Constitution Independent/Free and Equal])
How about Nightinogle?
Hope Nightingale starts playing basketball…I’ve been playing fifteen years and the first thing I think of when I wake up is…how come nobody likes to play like 100 basketball coaches, electing a five member team?
We can only try.
Hey BTW, the Pot Party has been around since 1997, same year as Google. Looks like Google is really raking in the cash on pro-pot ads.
Whitman ads, too.
It’s human nature to bend the rules to you’re liking, whether your name is Richard Lee or Sergie Brin.
Re: Christina Tobin
What she did is endorse three candidates for Governor and her own name, using the gold star system. The gold star system is a plurality system. Had she ranked names, we’d probably could have broken the tie in the “Coalition of Seven” way back on August 20th, 2010.
She is so Cro Magnon-like.
Re #9 The gold star system Christina Tobin promotes, is more like approval voting. It’s like she made up her own little rules, and conducted a one-voter approval vote system for Gov., where she gave four candidates a gold star.
Ranked voting breaks ties better than approval voting.
I hope she comes around…
“Why do you THINK they called it Google?”
http://www.GoNott.com
GoNott your name for president/vice president!
Given all the spammish comments already posted, I’m not sure how much point there is in making a real comment on the Field Poll reported, but I’ll take the chance.
If you look at the actual results of the poll broken down in various categories, one of the breakdowns is into by-mail voters who had already voted when polled, who I believe constituted 21% of the sample (it’s unclear whether they were 21% of all voters or 21% of the 55% of voters who use mail ballots). In any case, 11% of that category were listed as “Undecided/other”, and since they already voted, none of them were actually undecided. The only situations where I can think of where it might make sense to count some who already voted as “undecided/other” who didn’t vote for a third party candidate would be when voters said they left that race blank and when voters said they were wavering back and forth and didn’t remember who they ended up actually voting for. I find it hard to believe that either of those actually happened much at the top of the ticket, so perhaps we can expect that the four third party gubernatorial candidates will average over two percent of the vote each (on the assumption that those who vote earlier don’t support third party candidacies more than those who vote later).
Single Winner District = Cro Magnon Attractor,
You’ve got it backwards. Instant Runoff Voting INCREASES the probability of ties, whereas Approval Voting DECREASES the probability.
ScoreVoting.net/TieRisk.html
(I note that you offered no data or calculations to support your assertion.)
…I never wrote IRV, those were your words. What I wrote was ranked voting breaks more ties than approval voting.
Maybe if you’d address the words I wrote, then I’d look into your response more closely.
I don’t consider IRV and ranked voting to be the same thing. To me, IRV is for single winner districts. Ranked voting is for both.
BTW Clay, since when did four gold stars have a better chance of breaking ties than the nember 1, 2, 3, and 4?
@SWD=NA,
I assumed that you meant IRV, since it is commonly called “Ranked Choice Voting”. NOW it seems like you’re talking about Single Transferable Vote, the single-winner form of which is IRV.
Score Voting is less likely to result in ties than IRV. As for multi-winner races, I don’t know whether Proportional Score Voting (“Reweighted Range Voting”) is less tie-prone than STV, but I assume it is.
“since when did four gold stars have a better chance of breaking ties than the nember 1, 2, 3, and 4?”
Please see the calculations in the TieRisk linke I cited. In a nutshell, STV/IRV is more tie-prone, because it “splits the vote” in each round — it only looks at one “layer” of each ballot at a time, whereas Score Voting looks at all scores for all candidates for all ballots, simultaneously in every round.
Maybe I’m still misunderstanding what you mean by “ranked voting”.