On June 8, the Maine joint Veterans & Legislative Affairs Committee sent both bills on ranked choice voting to the Senate and the House. Maine is one of a very few states in which bills can receive votes on the floor of either house, even if the committee itself didn’t approve the bills. Apparently the vote in committee on both bills was a tie. One bill, LD 1624, would set in motion a constitutional amendment to allow ranked choice voting; and the other bill, LD 1625, would repeal it. See this story.
The most important votes they’ll ever cast.
Let’s see if the legislature actually cares about the voice of the people or not.
“Let’s see if the legislature actually cares about the voice of the people or not.”
I know the answer to that question…
Due to a lack of mathematicians in the voting reform movement an incredible amount of wasted time is being spent on ranked choice voting (RCV) in single-winner districts. Under RCV in single-winner districts only one name with more than 50% (plus one vote) will win every contest.
Why would anyone want the top voter getter to win 100% of the seats year after year?
The 10th USA Parliament has been using RCV in multi-winner districts of two or more for more than twenty-two consecutive years and so we’ve been able to demonstrate pure proportional representation (PR) consistently which has allowed us to identify and attract the best team players from all parties and independents.
Now there is a United Coalition of Candidates vying for public offices in government around the world as a team which also elects a Unity Platform and structural guidelines:
http://international-parliament.org/ucc.html
The Unity Platform
Corporate Law
Immediate Labelling of All Foods
Restore Glass-Steagal Act
Proportional Representation
Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)
Recycling
Election Law
Voting Systems
Term Limits
Audit Federal Reserve
Ranked Choice Votes (RCV) with Multi-seat Districts
* * *
Nobody has it as good as the United Coalition.
The big problem with electing single-winners with more than 50% (plus one vote) under RCV is that the types of people who are attracted to the single-winner seat are usually not team players but rather egomaniacs.
These egomaniacs are generally arrogant and think that because they won, that means that winner-takes-all in single-winner districts work fine, while the voters end up disdaining the results and the only answer is the second-biggest civic group which would have a nearly impossible task of replacing the single-winner except where near 50/50 polarization of the electorate exists. In the latter case, the two-party system is merely entrenched deeper into the governing body.
Then having seen the example of failed results of ranked choice voting (RCV) in single-winner districts, the general public (and news reporters, etc. who are generally ignorant about the subject), oppose the system of ranked choice voting because of the displays by elections of these egomaniacs whom the press had originally sold as having popular support.
One person is not a team and so single-winner districts cannot offer team psychology.
The constitutional amendment is grossly flawed. For the legislature it would return the elections to the system used before 1845, when if no candidate received a majority of the votes, there would be a vacancy causing a new election. The Constitution provides that the votes are counted in each town, and list of votes cast transmitted to the SOS for district-wide tallying. The current constitution provides for election by plurality. The proposed amendment would return the requirement to the pre-1845 requirement of a majority.