The August 4 Sacramento Bee has this op-ed by Steven Hill, analyzing how the top-two open primary worked in California recently.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
The August 4 Sacramento Bee has this op-ed by Steven Hill, analyzing how the top-two open primary worked in California recently.
The EVIL top 2 results were predictable from having the EVIL rigged gerrymander districts — controlled by the EVIL Donkeys via their EVIL machinations in picking the gerrymander commissioners. TOTAL EVIL.
1/2 votes x 1/2 gerrymander districts = 1/4 CONTROL – before and after the MORON top 2 stuff.
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
NO safe seat districts
The problems described here could have easy solutions with a little tweaking. Instead of “top two,” the November nominees could be the “top two from different parties.” (Unaffiliated candidates would be classified as a “party.”) Where multiple candidates from one party fracture the vote, it could be the “top two candidates from the top two parties’ with the most votes.” There might even be an exception where three candidates (from different parties) finish fairly close. A third candidate could be allowed if s/he reaches a threshold of, say, 80% of the 2nd-place finisher’s vote. What I like about top-two is that it might evolve to something like the two-round system that seems to work quite effectively in France (http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/18267863/article-Two-round-election-system-makes-sense-). As for independent redistricting, it’s a great concept, but without some form of multimember proportional representation, elections still won’t be competitive and political minorities will remain unrepresented.
I don’t even need to read the article, because I know Steven Hill [Green] has been a very strong supporter of “top one” IRV elections for the past seventeen years.
And everyone, this big waste of time and money being spent on fighting “top two” spearheaded by MP Richard Winger [Libertarian] has also been ill-advised, since top two is a slight improvement over top one, both being plurality voting systems.
Had the top two system used proportional representation (PR) under the Hagenbach-Bischoff method, where the minimum threshold required is 33.33% plus one vote, then sure thing it would be preferred.
But the efforts by BAN to support pluralists types like Gary Johnson over proportionalists like myself who has been totally shafted by MP Richard Winger [Libertarian] when he had knowledge about sore loser laws.
To me, the fight against top two is being spearheaded by supposed “leaders” who actually arrogantly naive about politics.
These misdirected fights simply perpetuate the two-party system. Their ignorance about proportional representation has caused the movement great harm, and 2012 is but another nail in the coffin for fair elections.
Rather than throw gasoline on skirmishes with the state, why not support the solution?
* * *
Tired of chasing your own tail? Try pure proportional representation (PR).
http://www.usparliament.org
Coming on August 6th, 2012 – the 9th USA Parliament!
Very Truly Yours,
–James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
“Why do you THINK they called it Google?”
Join the Frees,
Opposite gender #1!
(With consecutively ranked alternating genders thereafter!)
Pingback: Sacramento Bee Carries Steven Hill’s Analysis of How Top-Two Primary Worked in California in June 2012 | ThirdPartyPolitics.us