On November 10, the city council of Highland, California, will vote on a resolution to use cumulative voting in city council elections. According to this story, the measure is likely to pass. Highland is near San Bernardino, and has a population of 53,000.
Cumulative voting does not render pure proportional representation.
Pure proportional representation can only be achieved under ranked choice voting (RCV) in multi-winner districts of two or more.
The 9th USA Parliament (and now the International Parliament), have been using pure proportional representation (PR) and it works fine:
http://usparliament.org/
Ranked choice voting (RCV) in multi-winner district elections is superior to cumulative voting in multi-winner district electipns for breaking ties.
Thete is far less chance of ties with consecutively ranked numerals than with Xs used in cumulative voting.
When comparing RCV with cumulative voting we are comparing algebra and addition.
Algebra can be easily calibrated up and down but addition cannot.
When trying to break ties or prioritize among any numbers of choices so progress can be made, ranked numerals have a distinct advantage.
We need ties broken and cumulative voting can’t compare to the prioritization traits of ranked choice voting in multi-winner districts.
Cumulative voting discourages multiples of alternatives.
Multiple alternatives are good for finding higher and higher levels of voter satisfaction.
Cumulative voting limits many multiples of alternatives but ranked choice voting encorages many multiples, the more the better, as long as no limits are placed on the numbers of choices which can be considered and ranked.
For RCV, it is the more the better, but not so for cumulative voting.
Cumulative voting can’t support the team psychology that ranked choice voting nurtures.
In cumulative voting you votes are split or diminished with every new choice.
But with ranked choice voting in multi-winner districts, picking up rankings fron other candidates and displaying the approval of that harms the bottom line because there is no prioritization when a X is placed for two people, and when that happens the X is worth 1/2 as much.
Cumulative voting (using Xs) hurts team psychology.
Team psychology means good results, fun times and best results for all.
Regarding the use of cummilative voting in corporations; the USA Parliament’s gift store All Party System Com. is already poised to help change corporate voting.
We have both cumulative voting and voting by share holdings completely figured out and we are already the innovators in working with the USA Securities and Exchange Commission’s legal department for transforming corporate psychology nation and wotld-wide.
We work with government agencies on improving corporations.
We are not trying to litigate that, we’re changing things by setting the example and leading the way for others to follow on the freshly cleared paths.
http://www.allpartysystem.org
We’re changing our world like never before.
Richard… it appears to me the more Ogle posts here the less others do. That seems a shame.
Casual Observer/Bystander makes a good point here. Why bother to comment if your thoughts will get obscured by multiple Ogle posts or ignored because buried in among the multitude of Ogle stuff.
OK, in the future I will only allow one comment per each blog post from J.O.
I believe that is fair. On occasion he does have a valid insight into various electoral systems but he just beats his fantasy football league crap to death which is beyond annoying.