James J. Ryan has this article, advocating proportional representation, at the Independent Voters Network blog. IVN was founded by proponents of the top-two idea, but it has been branching out this year and carrying articles about other election systems. Thanks to James Ogle for the link.
As Independents (Is), the IVN group wants to divide the electorate into three groups, Rs, Ds and Is. Then they expect to win by garnering a mere 33.33% (plus two votes) should the Ds and Rs get 33.33% each.
The division psychology will harm their efforts in single-winner elections because single-winner elections encourage candidates to proclaim that they are the best of several choices, and that all others are bad choices.
The best way to attract votes from the 100% is only through pure proportional representation (PR), so everyone (all parties and independents) can be a part of government, have a seat at the table and be united with the team.
Of course the Greens, Libertarians and Peace & Freedom Parties will have an even more difficult time attaining 33.33% plus two votes in single-winner elections, because they also incorrectly sell themselves as the “better than all others” and try to grab the power at the expense of others, rather than speak about unity and working with others, inclusion of the all and the hence 100% unity psychology which only pure proportional representation can offer.
The 9th USA Parliament has been uniting voters and demonstrating pure proportional representation (PR) successfully for twenty years and it works fine.
Check out our united coalition facebook page and Presidential Debate Committee (PDC) by following this link:
http://www.usparliament.org/pdc.php
Visit and “like” the United Coalition Candidate Network facebook page for candidates for elective office on all levels of government, a facebook initiative started by Libertarian US Presidential candidate Keenan Dunham:
https://www.facebook.com/UnitedCoalition2016
Basic P.R. —
Party Seats = Total Seats x Party Votes / Total Votes
The PV/TV is the *proportional* part.
Much too difficult for 5 of 9 SCOTUS HACKS to understand ???
I am not impressed with the Independent Voters Network.(IVN). They appear to be to be a pseudo liberal organization who is supporting TOP TWO with the hope of having only two choices – either Democratic or Republican. It may have just been coincidence, but on at least two occasions when I was attempting to make a replay to one of their articles, the article would disappear while typing,or just before hitting the comment button. Make me wonder if they have a Censor who decides what articles are politically correct and what articles they don’t want their readers to see.
I have challenged the officials of IVN to explain what is happening, but thus far no comment from anyone.
We do not need a TOP TWO system. We need the traditional electoral system, where all parties have ballot access by simply being organized, and candidates appear on the ballot by paying a filing fee, with petitions as an option.
This way, ALL parties get to participate in the General Elections and all candidates have a chance to have their view known. IVN does not appear to support this democratic process. I challenge them to show us otherwise
Has A.I. looked at the minority rule math for both houses of the AL Legislature ???
i.e. around 30 percent of the voters elect a bare majority of the gerrymander hacks of the Elephant gangsters.
SAME math in all States.
SAME math in the Congress – much worse for the Senate.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
We like it this way in Alabama, Demo Rep, because this helps to keep the uninformed voters from participating in the process. There are some voters in this state who could not tell you who the Vice-President of the United States is, but they are led to the polls every two years with the expectation that they will vote for a particular ticket. Go figure.
Independent voter wrote:
“[IVN] appear(s) to be to be a pseudo liberal organization who is supporting TOP TWO with the hope of having only two choices – either Democratic or Republican.”
Me:
Top Two creates a perfect storm for independents and unifying candidates of all categories, because any candidate garnering 1/3rd of the vote (33.33%) plus one vote, is guaranteed to advance to a “pair-test” runoff. From those two the winner is guaranteed a 50% (plus one vote) simple majority.
This in no way prohibits an independent or third party candidate from having the same equal chance for advancing, and when additional names are entered onto the ballot, the 33.33% (plus one vote) minimum threshold gets lowered more.
In 2014, Ron Gold [Republican] for Attorney General won with 12.7% in the Top Two primary but he didn’t promote unity other than agreeing to debates with other candidates, and a debate isn’t exactly a unifying exercise.
Clearly there is no way to satisfy the likes of “Independent Voter” who states only Ds and Rs can win in a 3-way tie, by breaking the tie with one vote.
I choose to not hang around with these cry-baby types, wouldn’t elect them to my team for such displays of and votes are being withdrawn from all those taking this position at very large rates.
As for the Libertarian, Greens and others whose “leaders” and candidates regularly call for a “three-party system”; when one lands in their lap they sue.
The votes for such proponents saying “no fair” will disappear as soon as people see their hostility (i.e. lawsuit) which is far worse than simply complaining.
By suing they’ve taken a position to a much higher level of vile arrogance.
They blame Top Two for their problems but they need only look in the mirror or pick up a calculator to see they’re on the wrong side of logic.
They’ll never admit they were wrong.
Instead they will drag their whole political organization and any affiliates deeper and deeper down the drain as people wake up and see what a disaster they’ve been led.
In 2012 more than 17 candidates ran for POTUS with the Libertarian Party, more than 5 with the Green Party and probably 2 to 5 with the P&F Party and they were largely blocked by their parties’ hierarchy, blocked many free speech websites such as facebook and Ballot Access News.
The voters lost to an even greater extent as valuable time for free speech was lost forever.
So now that 2016 is approaching the party bosses have some explaining and apologizing to do. As they say; “Once bit twice shy”, so I can’t see envision very many of those from 2012 returning to the fold as their POTUS candidates under current conditions.
IVN has done more for fair elections than anyone else and they should be commended.
Though Top Two may not the unifying and ultra-conservative voting system of pure proportional representation (PR) where all votes count up to 99% (plus 100 votes) in a 100-member committee, the Top Two system is the best possible answer within plurality voting and single-winner districts.
The 9th USA Parliament has been demonstrating the ultra-conservative system of pure proportional representation and it works fine.
Check out the USA Parliament. We welcome all and we’ve never removed any name against their wish from our team:
http://usparliament.org/
James, the reality in the United States is that a substantial majority of voters start the election campaign season expecting they will vote for a Democrat or a Republican. The “default” position for the average voter is not only to vote for a Democrat or a Republican, but not to even pay attention to anyone else.
When minor party and independent candidates do win, it is because voters pay attention to them, but invariably this attention only comes after the primary is over.
This is the point that the minor parties want to establish with evidence. But so far the California state courts won’t even let us present evidence.
The US Supreme Court ballot access cases, both good ones and bad ones, always emphasize that the lower courts are supposed to use evidence to decide these cases. Even the worst ballot access decision from the US Supreme Court, Jenness v Fortson, stressed that courts are supposed to look at ballot access realistically, not theoretically. Your comment makes the same mistake. Your comment doesn’t engage with the real world, the way things really are. THe so-called “equal treatment” is theoretical, not realistic. “Sometimes the grossest discrimination is treating things that are not alike as though they were alike.” Political scientists have known for over 130 years that minor parties play a different role in the U.S. than major parties do.