This article in the Portland (Maine) Press Herald covers various groups and individuals in Maine who are studying Instant Runoff Voting, or thinking about it. As the article points out, the newly-elected Governor won with only 38% of the total vote in November, and six of Maine’s last seven gubernatorial elections have produced winners who received less than a majority of the vote.
The article concludes by pointing out that the legislature is unlikely to approve the idea, but the article does not mention that Maine has the initiative process. Thanks to Thomas MacMillan for the link.
It would be better to go to a Top 2 Open Primary.
With local administration of elections like in Maine, IRV is very complex, and could require separate ballots for each office. Voters would also be forced to rank candidates for every office. Maine already pays for primaries, so it would not cost any more, and it would encourage broader participation.
The US Parliament New England Super-state Circuit #1
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont
http://www.usparliament.org/ss1.htm
Patrick Sullivan [Democrat], Elizabeth Rozicki [Flying Saucer], James Mason [Atheist], Stuart A. Snyder [Libertarian Green], A. Avi Snyder [Labor], Madison Samson [Non-Party], Michael Merola [Unaffiliated], Adena Wilcox [Info. Not Avail], John Dvorak [Hemp], Nate Marini [Libertarian], Gerald E. Sykes [Republican], Jorge Gonzales [Info. Not Avail.], Dennis Hubbard [Info. Not Avail.], Abe Torkelton [Info. Not Avail.], Joshua Colwell [Green], Victoria Quest [Reform], Dylan Michael Wicks [Pot], Wendy Tischler [Pansexual Peace]
Top two primaries do cost more money for election administration.
As RepoDem would say, these people are MORONS. They’re talking about these thing stalling at the “pilot program phase.” Why the hell are they even doing a pilot program? Run-offs are not a new thing. If African countries can do them without incident, I pretty sure Maine can.
#1 The USA Parliament, Inc. has been holding 100-member district elections under STV (single transferable votes) every year for 15 years. We elect an assembly of 100, from a list of 135 to 165 names. The lists fit on an 8 1/2″ x 11″ double-sided piece of paper, and sports a standard federal voter registration form as well, where voters may update their registration as an option.
True, we pretty much have to explain to the voter “consecutive numbers beginning with the number one”, but the results are very few spoiled ballots cast. I’d say less than 2%.
The problems associated with being complex and long, are probably the way IRV works, where seats are elected in single winner districts. The system being used in Alameda County takes as much space on a ballot for a single winner as a full 8 1/2″ x 11″ piece of paper, and that’s for a single seat. That’s because they list the choices three times.
In their system, the voter has to stop at the number 3,
which isn’t actually a number, it’s a connect the arrow system. You connect up to three arrows to vote.
This is the system MP Richard Winger [Libertarian] likes, the IRV single winner district.
…and you’re telling me a voter can’t go #1, #2, #3, #4, the more the better, to elect 100 names? I’ve seen very few people who can’t count in consecutive numbers; i.e. #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, etc., etc.
Plus, the counting of the ballots is a lot easier than you’d think. It works really well, but the people in SF and SF and Oakland/Alameda are doing it wrong anyway.
That’s because MP Winger [Libertarian] and the
anti-democratic single winner district power grabbing egotists have their way for some unknown reason(s).
I don’t know why else they want single winner districts, other than his answer is that he claims he doesn’t know what I’m talking about.
To clarify, when electing 100 names from a list of 135 to 165 nominations year after year, we do use a single 8 1/2″ X 14″ double sided sheet of paper for the ballot for the convenience of larger type. (I said 8 1/2″ X 11″, should have said 8 1/2″ X 14″)
Additionally, the counting of the ballots isn’t done like IRV. I tried it that way, it’s too long and cumbersome. The way I’ve developed the count, it takes a lot less time, it’s a lot less confusing, and you can always go back to the original count easily when anyone dies or stands down to quickly see which name is the next name highest ranked name to be automatically elected in their stead to make 100 at all times.
#3 There is no reason that a Top 2 primary should be more expensive than partisan primaries
Maine election administration is so decentralized that they don’t even bother posting results on their government web site.
The reality in both Washington state and California is that “top-two” is more expensive.
Gee — once again —
NO party hack MORON caucuses, primaries and conventions are needed.
EQUAL nominating petitions for ALL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME area in ONE [general] election.
P.R. legislative and nonpartisan App.V. executive/judicial.
#8 More expensive than what?
Pingback: Lastest Car Insurance Companies News|Nevada Car Insurance Quote