On February 16, eight candidates for federal and state office in Maine filed a lawsuit in state court, seeking a court order that the state use ranked choice voting in the June 2018 primary. The lawsuit should not be necessary, because the law in Maine requires ranked choice voting. The case is Committee for Ranked Choice Voting v Dunlap, Kennebec County Superior Court, cv18-24.
How many mental ill candidates in frozen Maine ???
Those who advocate RCV in single winner districts are advocating a one party system like in San Francisco.
The CoFOE proposal in Santa Clara, California, is also a poor design, effectively dividing the city in two and doubling the maximum election threshold there. They gave the voters a choice between two bad voting systems.
The United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation PPR correctly for more than twenty-three consecutive years and PPR works fine.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
“Those who advocate RCV in single winner districts are advocating a one party system like in San Francisco.”
Not.
Conflating RCV with one party rule in single winner districts is without any facts or logic to back up the claim. And using SF as an example is ridiculous — as I’ve written here before, SF would be ruled by one party in any electoral system regardless of single/multiple winner, PR, or FPTP/RCV/AppV. (I’m starting to get the hang of DemoRep’s mostly undecipherable shorthand!)
RCV is a one party system because the largest civic group attaining 50% plus one vote wins 100% of the time, guaranteed.
No 2nd largest will ever win under RCV in single winner districts. That is called winner takes all.
If SF used RCV at-large for all eleven seats, then the first eleven names attaining 8.5% plus one vote would win, a guaranteed voter satisfaction level of 91.5% plus eleven votes.
The last poster said that 2nd parties could not win in SF with 8.5% plus one vote city wide and they are incorrect. They can win with smaller thresholds but not with 50% plus one vote because only one winner there, the biggest.
The unity and team psychology gets generated by the mathematics when multiple winners are treated with equality not when one person wins as through they are better than everyone else. One person is not a team.
When one programmer writes a bad program that doubles the threshold and divides the district in half, that is not good for the unity, when a bad system gets implemented for the whole. That person shows no teamwork, when they divide the town and double the thresholds with a bad program.
James just proving his idiocy again.
Rigged single member districts —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL = OLIGARCHY
SF case —
1/2 x 6/11 x 100 pct = 600/22 = 27.3 PCT CONTROL = OLIGARCHY
WITH POSSIBLE ZERO MINORITY REPRESENTATION
—-
Basic PR
Party Members = Total members x Party Votes / Total Votes
ALL CASES —
IF ONE party gets over 50 percent of the total votes, THEN it gets a majority of the members = DEMOCRACY
— WITH MINORITY REPRESENTATION.
DROOP QUOTA MATH — SF CASE
[100 PCT/(11+1)] + 1 = 8.33333 PERCENT OF TOTAL VOTES + 1 VOTE — TO WIN 1 SEAT.
—
PR AND APPV
SEE BAN Feb 1, 2018
Don, is that a GOOD thing, that you are actually starting to understand Demo Rep?
is it a good thing to know about majority rule [Democracy] via PR versus minority rule [oligarchy – monarchy] via rigged gerrymanders ???
Aiden, please post your explanation of how my math is wrong.
I state RCV allows only one civic group to win like in SF where the biggest civic group always wins guaranteed but you wrote that my position is idiotic without explaining how I am incorrect.
I have been counting RCV paper ballots for 23 consecutive years with perfection and I welcome your commentary.
In 1997 google derived their logo from my initials joogle and I am the same person who inspired their company name but pure proportional representation is not used by google although my group the Environmentalist Party, and now others, have used PR since 1995.
So your correction to my math is welcomed.
Sometimes words have more than one meaning so communication can be difficult but we will get it done right eventually.
The petition for a referendum to overturn the law that suspends the RCV segregated primaries in Maine has not been validated yet.
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/02/16/maine-ranked-choice-voting-supporters-take-their-case-to-court/
Junk story about the case filing — what needs *clarity* ???
SF stuff —
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/charter_sf/charter?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca$anc=JD_Charter
SF Charter
ARTICLE XIII:
ELECTIONS
SEC. 13.102. INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONS
SEC. 13.110. ELECTION OF SUPERVISORS.
[gerrymander districts]
—
Municipal Elections Code [ordinance]
—
—
Seems that the city-county board of supervisors is nominally nonpartisan – based on election results — ie NO party labels shown in results —
thus the marginal non-communist folks in S.F. [about 15-20 percent] may have some actual power to pick the lesser of the final 2 communist evils in some of the 11 gerrymander districts.
—
PR and AppV
The referendum petition has been validated, by the various town clerks of Maine.
http://www.counties.org/general-information/county-structure-0
2 types of counties in CA
mixed powers = mini-tyrant regimes [by definition]
The lawsuit may very well be necessary. Recall that in New Mexico the law for RCV has been resisted by those responsible for implementing it. It may very well be the case in Maine that someone in elections will say “it is not technically possible to implement the law in time for the primary.”
How long has RCV software for ballot scanners been around ???
NOT exactly like re-inventing the oval scanner ballot or even the ballot.
Can anyone share a copy of the complaint?
The Complaint *may* ???? show up on
http://www.rcvmaine.com/
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/maine/articles/2018-02-16/ranked-choice-voting-supporters-go-to-court
Complaint title *may* have —
Committee for Ranked Choice Voting — and/or names below —
The legal action was filed on behalf of 2nd District congressional candidate Lucas St. Clair; gubernatorial candidates Jim Boyle, Mark Dion, Mark Eves, Sean Faircloth, Diane Russell and Betsy Sweet; and state senate candidate Ben Chipman.
—
Perhaps more court case info on Mon-Tues ???
@Richard Winger,
See MRS $905.
The case is not ripe. They are grandstanding.
United Coalition IP Senate Chamber Humanitarian Project
Public Service Announcement
Equal Free Speech Time, April 21st and 22nd, 2018, Candidates’ Conference/Debate
All candidates for elective office invited to speak at Monterey Bay Park, Del Monte Avenue, Monterey, California, USA, Earth
Noon to 5 pm on both days. Music by Azi Fedoui.
Bring your aluminum cans to Monterey Bay Park for the world humanitarian project!
http://international-parliament.org/human-rights.html
For more information contact James at (831) 224-5786.
Contact Us at http://usparliament.org/contact.php
* * *
Elected UCC Candidates
Candidate for State Assembly, California, USA (November 2020)
Mark Herd [Libertarian]
Candidates for Governor of California, USA (November 2018)
Nickolas Wildstar [Libertarian]
Stasyi Barth [Republican]
Candidates for Lt. Governor of California, USA (November 2018)
Gail McLaughlin [Independent]
James Ogle [Republican]
Tim Ferreira [Libertarian]
Candidates for USA Congress (November 2018)
California CD 2 Andy Caffrey [Ecotopian Democratic]
Louisiana CD 3 Verone Thomas [Noble People of Conscious]
California CD 36 Doug Hassett [Republican]
Candidates for (POTUS) President of the United States (November 2020)
Donald Trump [Republican]
Miss Joy Waymire [Anarchist]
Adam Kokesh [Libertarian]
Candidate for Vice President of the United States (November 2020)
BJ Jordan [Dallas Cowboys]
Candidate for Mendocino County Board Of Supervisors, California, USA (November 2018)
Pamela Elizondo [Green]
Candidate for Chairman of National Patriot Party of Ghana, Africa (2018)
Alhaji Abubakari Abdul Rahaman [NPP]
Candidate for Prime Minister of Canada (October 21st, 2019)
Raphael Louis [National Coalition Party of Canada (NCPC)]
* * *
RCV in single winner districts does not give fluke wins to 2nd largest civic group, guaranteed.
Wow. People need to actually LOOK UP how ranked choice voting works. You pick three candidates that you like… not one. You list them in order of most wanted. So first choice, second choice and third choice. All candidates are weighed against each voter choosing thier top three. Not their top one. If you don’t know how it works in Maine (I am a Mainer), than you really don’t have the right to run your mouth. Figure out what you are talking about first. Find out HOW we are applying it and you will understand how and why this works and it best represents the will of the voters.
RCV guarantees that the largest vote getting civic group always wins, 50% (plus one vote), guaranteed.
But the previous poster writes that this is not true.
The United Coalition has correctly prohibited Maine-style single-winner ranked choice voting to get pure proportional representation PPR and PPR works fine but only in multiple winner districts.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html