On November 25, the Board of Californians for Electoral Reform endorsed Thomas Palzer’s initiative to repeal the California top-two system, and to return to the old semi-closed primary.
On November 25, the Board of Californians for Electoral Reform endorsed Thomas Palzer’s initiative to repeal the California top-two system, and to return to the old semi-closed primary.
Segregated Partisan Primary.
NO primaries.
PR and AppV – pending Condorcet math.
Equal petition requirement regardless of party, if more than 1 person meets the requirement then a primary is held otherwise they are the party’s nominee
The vote by COFER was likely a vote using the single-winner item, a plurality vote.
The United Coalition prohibits all such plurality votes for electing names and decision-items.
Our struggle to use pure proportional representation (PR) extends to every vote.
http://www.international-parliamemt.org/ucc.html
https://www.cfer.org/
website
CFER site says that they have been supporting RCV in single-winner districts (i.e.one-party wins 100% of the time) for more than twenty years (they have fought pure proportional representation);
“For over 20 years, CfER has led the drive for ranked choice voting for single winner elections (e.g., mayor) and methods of proportional representation for multi-winner elections (e.g., city council).”
Let there be no mistake that the single-winner systems must be prohibited in order to avoid one-party rule as it exists in SF and Oakland, CA.
One-Party rule exists now, protected by CfER, for past twenty years, and now they want to increase their influence.
The United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation for more than twenty-two consecutive years and it works fine.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
Once the United Coalition formed in 1995 between the Environmentalist and Green Party candidates for POTUS (Bogatirev and Toler) under pure proportional representation then we were flattered by the many imitations​ and failed attempts to replicate the phenomena by scores of personalities including Google;
http://usparliament.org/how-google-got-its-name.php
… and CoFER.
They both staked claims on our trend-setting intricate improvements in parliamentary procedures but they still don’t have it right.
Both Google and CoFER suffer from the same symptoms common among pluralists and that is an inability to collaborate in the mathematical environment of pure proportional representation.
Unity of the whole is attainable but never with single winners nor sole owners, they must be terminated in complete, never to go back again.
Next, the ability for a team to replicate itself, to regenerate its own parts while growing at steady pace is the challenge we all face in political reform.
The United Coalition may remain small and the wait for success may be a very long time, and since we’ve know that self-generation and collaboration are key components for such a long time, we only have a small head start.
Thanks to high tech, what used to take hundreds of years can now take minutes, so our small two-year advantage is huge.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html