This Macleans article says that the chances are fairly good that the voters of British Columbia will vote in favor of using proportional representation for provincial elections, when the issue is on the ballot in 2019.
This Macleans article says that the chances are fairly good that the voters of British Columbia will vote in favor of using proportional representation for provincial elections, when the issue is on the ballot in 2019.
Pure proportional representation lays the solid foundation that voters need to unite and get things done for the good of the whole.
Are you tired of political party bosses using slander, vile treatment, censorship and unequal treatment to their own party’s candidates and others too, who are vying for a free speech opportunity year after year in plurality elections?
Even with the only win in the only state primary that allowed their party’s candidates, a win of 52.7% means absolutely nothing with regards to their voice being heard by their own voters?
Are you sick of political party bosses portraying their own political party as better than all others, as though they alone have all the answers and that they need not look at new alternatives, much less reach out to bring ideas from the whole by calling for nominations from the whole and not just the insiders?
Then you may be interested in pure proportional representation (PR).
There is only one way that pure proportional representation works and the United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation correctly for more than twenty-three consecutive years and it works fine.
http://www.international-parliament.org
Sorry, but ranked choice voting in single-winner districts like IRV (instant runoff voting) in SF, guarantees a one-party system because only the biggest civic group who attains the minimum threshold of 50% (plus one vote), they are 100% guaranteed to win the single seat year after year.
FairVote, Free and Equal, CfFOE and those who used, promoted and defended IRV for the past 23 consecutive years have been incorrect, and no 2nd or 3rd biggest civic group can ever win in SF, Oakland city council elections or in any election which uses the IRV system they love.
Many entities have tried to capture the unity phenomena that’s sweeping the globe but the United Coalition has been the only group that unites all parties and independents year after year by electing names and decision-items as one team.
Only the United Coalition of Candidates has the dependable team players who have the motivation to earn your votes the right way; working under pure proportional representation for more than twenty-three consecutive years.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
Proportional Representation for ALL legislative body elections – both majority rule (Democracy) and minority representation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
PR in New Zealand and Malta — both ex Brit colonies
—
Abolish the *parliamentary* system — same tyrant hacks having both legislative and executive powers.
ie separate elections of Exec officers via App V.
Sorry, getting behind pluralists’ campaigns for single-winner elections, power grabs which brings more division, more incorrect results and conflict with the unifiers that plurality elections bring, will not move you closer to fair elections.
Being involved with pluralist in plurality elections will only bring more pluralism; the two-party system.
The United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation correctly and we have been able to develope intricate key innovations in elections; the parliamentary go-ahead, ranked choice consensus voting, the All Party System Co.’s proposed reforms for corporate governance and share holder voting advances to the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the “eballot” in 1995.
Pluralists have only brought delays and crippling actions at inappropriate times, damaging the unity and actions against the team by exploiting conflicts away from collaborating team players to destroy the team psychology.
The United Coalition has regrouped on January 1st 2018, all is forgiven, now let’s build the team little by little for the good of the whole.
http://elections.bc.ca/2017-general-election/
all sorts of minority winners
PR and AppV
Anybody other than me want to counter act the stupidity of the two dumb asses that have posted thus far in this thread? Seriously reading the posts from Ogle and Demo Rep causes me to lose 30 i.q. points.
Ogle… you know the only country on the planet that uses straight pure proportional is Israel, and it’s a fucking shit hole of a country, run be authoritarian douche bags. Germany, New Zealand, the EU all use mixed-member. Party list elections without local representation (mixed member), will be the death throe of any democracy. There’s ZERO accountability in any country that has pure proportional, as who do the constituency hold accountable? Nobody? The party? ha. You’re seriously going to hold an entire political party accountable? Will never happen. There’s proof in that in the fact that the Repub and Dem parties keep getting re-elected even though their favorability is the low 20%.
Anyway, with any luck hopefully mixed-member prop. rep. will pass this go around. Single-transferable for the constituency elections would be ideal.
Israel does not use proportional representation, as I understand, there is a 2% threshold in Israeli elections of 120 seats in the national Parliament.
With a 2% threshold, only sixty seats can get elected. So how do the remaining sixty seats get elected in Israel? Maybe the military-industrial complex picks them?
Israel is not a good example of proportional representation as your argument insists, Aiden.
We need not make elections less proportional with mixed member proportional (MMP) because under pure proportional representation, when voters prefer to vote for a representative who resides near them, proportional representation allows that to happen, while also keeping the same low election threshold for all candidates.
There is no good argument for raising the threshold under MMP to make elections less proportional.
Current ROT in the USA —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged packed/cracked gerrymander districts
= 1/4 or less CONTROL = Minority rule OLIGARCY — since 1776-1789.
Much, much, much worse primary math — ABOUT 5 to 15 pct. – since 1964 SCOTUS cases.
It shows —
communist welfare schemes
fascist warfare schemes – esp with nonstop UN-declared wars
tax and govt debt slavery for the middle class – getting smaller and smaller.
USA debt — now $ 20+ TRILLION, State/Local debt now about $ 12 TRILLION.
— possible TOTAL econ collapse at any second — due to interlocking econ computers.
Math MORONS (esp with gerrymander AREA fixations) have ZERO IQs — so can not lose any more IQ points.
—-
The FATAL defect in foreign PR regimes is the INSANE *parliamentary* system
— same hacks having both tyrant legislative and executive powers.
***
PR and AppV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Israel
How much USA gerrymander foreign aid cash for Israel (adding to the USA national debt) ???
For Israel to be using pure proportional representation the threshold for being elected should be .826% (plus one vote) and not 2%.
120 Seats in Parliament
Hagenbach-Bischoff Method
1÷121=.826% (plus one vote)
Threshold would be .826% (plus one vote) for pure proportional representation (PR) and since it is more than double there 2% Israel is not PR.
The big problem with plurality elections is that the participants try to exclude, or slander, and/or target with bullying (or many combinations of these tactics).
But under pure proportional representation our team gets unity instead because the math is always predictable.
The threshold will always be .826% of one vote (plus one vote) in a 120-member entity elected under PR
Yes, the wrong parliamentary procedure can be used, when the psychology is pluralistic, then the rules are not correct.
Robert’s Rules of Order are Flawed
The pluralistic incorrect details (such as 2/3rds threshold) must be corrected to mesh well with pure proportional representation.
They are both pains in the butt, however the best way to deal with Demo Rep and James Ogle is to ignore their posts. Skip over them as if they do not exist.
The big problem with plurality elections is that the participants try to exclude, or slander, and/or target with bullying (or many combinations of these tactics).
But under pure proportional representation our team gets unity instead because the math is always predictable.
The threshold will always be .826% (plus one vote) in a 120-member entity like Israel when elected under pure PR
Yes, the wrong parliamentary procedure can be used, when the psychology is pluralistic, then the rules are not correct.
Robert’s Rules of Order are Flawed
The pluralistic incorrect details, such as 2/3rds thresholds in Robert’s Rules of Order, must be corrected and changed to 50% (plus one vote), to mesh well with pure proportional representation (PR).
A simple majority being 50% (plus one vote) is a basic democratic principle agreed on by vast majorities.
The Artist Union
http://www.allpartysystem.org
Basic PR —
Party members = Total Members x Party Votes / Total Votes
PM = TM x PV / TV
IE — 1 seat = TV/TM = 100 pct of votes / TM
*****
There can be coalition math in PR systems —
such as — only the top N (2 or more) coalitions with the most votes can get seats.
If a subgroup can not get seats, then the votes for the subgroup losers go (via pre-election candidate rank order lists) to a coalition group that does get 1 or more seats — and the math is redone.
Result — ALL votes count.
Both majority rule [Democracy] and minority representation.
Simple example —
top N groups get 85 percent – with 1 or more seats per group
15 percent in loser groups are moved
100 percent of votes count – directly or indirectly
See the EU Parliament and its various coalition groups.
As usual — only more or less control freak statism in 6,000 plus years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014
Various groups
Great read.