Most states in the United States do not permit two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate and have both party labels on the ballot. But Mexico is permitting two parties, PAN and PRD, to jointly nominate Ricardo Anaya for president. Four candidates are on the ballot. The election is July 1.
Polls show that Andrew Manuel Lopez Obrador is leading. He is the nominee of a party, Morena (National Regeneration Movement) that has never before won the presidency or a plurality in the Mexican national legislature, and which was founded in 2014. Anaya is second. Jose Antonio Meade, nominee of the PRI (the party that won most elections in the last century) is third. Independent candidate Margaritz Zavala is fourth. See this story.
State elections and political parties will forever test new gimmicks in elections like “joint nominations”, “NOTA”, ranked choice voting in single-winner districts and the perpetual biased party boss manipulations but ultimately there is only one voting change/reform worth considering and that is pure proportional representation (PPR).
The United Coalition has been using PPR for more than twenty-three consecutive years and PPR works fine.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_general_election,_2018
Ch Depu
300 FATAL plurality seats
200 PR seats
—
Sen
96 top 2 scheme – 64 top 1 — 32 top 2
32 PR
Sun is about straight up on 1 July = mass sunstroke / insanity ???
More chaos = 100 percent.
Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), single winner districts and party lists are not forms of pure proportional representation as depicted by WikiPedia.
WikiPedia does not give accurate information about proportional representation.
Proportional representation is a mathematical equation which unites people under fairness and equal treatment.
The United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation (PPR) correctly for more than twenty-three consecutive years and PPR works fine.
Once the assembly is elected under PPR, then executive by committee is elected by a dynamic “vote of confidence”, this keeps the executive accountable to the assembly.
The writers of Wikipedia are ill-informed to refer to elections which are not proportional (plurality elections, single-winners and MMP), and to wrongly refer them as PR is not helpful because the math under PR is always the same and there is only one way to assure that the results are PR – the Hagenbach-Bishchoff method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
PR goes back at least to 1820s-1840s.
Basic PR —
Party Members = Total members x [ Party Votes / Total Votes ]
PV/TV IN BRACKETS = PR FRACTION
Difficult only for math morons having STONE AGE / DARK AGE *AREA* fixations
— as in THE ONE CELL BRAINS OF SCOTUS and the brain dead media.
Good luck to JO in getting changes made to the PR wiki.
—
PR and AppV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932
The F-A-T-A-L Nov 1932 election in Germany —
>>> about 80,000,000 dead in 1939-1945 World WAR II.
ZERO learned about FATAL *parliamentary* systems — same persons having legislative and executive powers
esp. in a regime in which the constitution (1919) allowed some *emergency* to suspend the bill of rights (due to ABSOLUTE ALLIED MORONS in 1919).
—
PR and AppV
TOTAL separation of powers
NO suspensions of rights
Besides New York what other states allow this practice ?
Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Vermont.
Joint nominations = aka *fusion* in the USA.
Richard:
How would you describe the situation in California where after several decades since it last happened, in 2016, two separate ballot-qualified parties filed Presidential elector lists for the same candidate? Shouldn’t that be considered a very limited form of fusion.
Deemer, that’s a good point. I wasn’t thinking about presidential elections when I made that list of states that permit fusion. For president, about half the states allow fusion, including California.