On April 16, the Florida Constitutional Revision Commission issued its final decisions on which proposed state constitutional changes to put on the November 2018 ballot. According to this story, the Commission voted not to change the primary system.
There had been support for a constitutional amendment saying that write-in candidates in the general election should be deemed not to exist, in connection with partisan primaries. Current law says when all the candidates for any particular partisan office are from the same party, then the August primary for that particular office is open to all registered voters, no matter what their partisan affiliation. This has been the law for 20 years.
Current law treats declared write-ins candidates in the general election as though they were not members of any particular party. So, when someone files as a write-in for the general election for a particular office, the primary for that office remains closed, even if all the ballot-listed candidates are from the same party.
The fundamental underlying problem is that there are segregated partisan primaries.
Let all candidates run in the primary, let all voters vote in the primary. Top 2 advance to the general election, where all voters may vote for the final choice.
If one candidate files for office he is elected. If exactly two candidates file for an office they both advance to the general election.
If three or more candidates file, the primary determines the Top 2. If a candidate receives a majority they are elected.
NO primaries.
PR and AppV
The big problem with plurality psychology is that they want to narrow the conversation to one or two voices.
Pure proportional representation (PPR) sets no such limited numbers and sees democracy working as a huge team of consecutively ranked names, the bigger the better for overwhelming superior fire-power.
Some may like two, but three is better than two, four better than three, etc.
Enough of this talk about how one or two people is good enough, please, we’re preparing for something big.
Not little.
Open your mind to the biggest team possible under reasonable supply/demand vision.
One or two people can’t expect to approach any concrete bunker alone, instead we need large numbers, to assure the victory.
So talking small is thinking small, open your mind, we have more serious things to do rather than plan for failure.
http://www.international-parliament.org
plurality = OLIGARCHY – for 2,500 years plus — noted by ancient Greeks.
Monarch/Oligarch killer/enslaver gangsters versus Democracy peaceful folks.
See the KILLERS at work — Central Powers WW I — Axis Powers WW II.
Total about 100,000,000 DEAD — massive destruction.
Now potential END of humans — ie quite possible 8,000,000,000 DEAD — by the KILLERS/enslavers.
—
PR and AppV
We are making progress with three-member districts under pure proportional representation (PPR) on the June 5th ballot for the voters in Santa Clara California.
Plurality vote count being considered to be dropped.
What is the difference between PPR and STV?
PPR is pure proportional representation.
STV is single transferable vote.
PPR does not require STV, that is extra, STV takes a long time by hand count like in Cambridge.
PPR is quicker without STV under the “Ogle Count”.
The Environmentalist Party first ran candidates in 1983 and in 1986 Clint Eastwood ran against our mayoral candidate giving our team world rejoin.
Then we became the All Party System with Roseanne Barr in 2012 but we have been working in politics strongly since 1983 with founder Misha Bogatirev [Environmentalist] but the party bosses did not support the Ogle Method so we had to establish our store:
http://www.allpartysystem.com
@Joogle,
I don’t understand your explanation. It is superficial.
Cambridge (Massachusetts, I presume) is stuck with their counting method because the legislature repealed the option to have STV, and the city is groundfathered in.
Folks with hours to spare can look at —-
http://www.usparliament.org/rules.php
******
_18__ General Counting, Balloting and Eballoting Guidelines
_19__ RANKED VOTING ONLY: All voting and vote counting shall be in the form of ranked paper ballots only (and eballots when practical and verifiable). Consecutive numbers beginning with the #s 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. etc. must always be used when marking on (e)ballot of all alternative decisions or names. Deviation from this guideline will disqualify the ballot, and the ballot will be marked spoiled.
_20__ THE SAINTE-LAGUE PARLIAMENT SYSTEM, Hagenbach-Bischoff method, under ranked choice voting, for seat allocation in all multi-seat districts:
Divide the election’s total number of votes by the number of seats. This is the 1st quota.
Divide this quota into each candidate’s votes, and round off to the nearest whole number. That’s that candidate’s seat allocation.
If, due to rounding, this awards a number of seats different from the desired number of seats, then adjust the quota slightly up or down, till, when paragraph two is carried out, it will award all seats.
—-
Mr. Ogle may wish to show part of the math of an actual recent election in the USP regime.
—
PR and AppV
@DR,
I don’t see why one needs ranked voting, if you are using Saint-Lague. Presumably Mr. Ogle’s use of “candidate” rather than “party” is deliberate, and a member of a legislative body would have a voting weight proportional to his popular vote.
While Ogle suggests adjusting the quota slightly up or down this is not necessary. One alternative is to simply round to the nearest whole number. While this may result in slightly more or slightly less number of total voting weight, this will be negligible, and of no more consequence than the percentages of a poll not equaling 100 due to rounding.
Insistence on a fixed amount of voting weight can produce paradoxes where a shift of votes from A to B may result in an increase/decrease in the voting weight for C. Or A may increase his share of the votes, while decreasing his share of the voting weight. This is surely a deficiency for a system that bills itself as “purely proportional”.
Basic PR —
Party Members = Total Members x Party Votes / Total Votes =
Party Votes x [[ Total Members / Total Votes ]] = Party Votes / RATIO = Party Members.
—-
RATIO = Total Votes / Total Members — will NOT be a whole number in most elections.
More complex with fractional Members math — 0.0 to 0.5, 0.5 to 1.0 — possible coalitions math.
Also see — Method of Equal Proportions — used to apportion USA Rep Members among States.
@DR, The method of equal proportions is subject to the same paradox as the method of major fractions which is what Joogle is proposing, a state’s proportion of representatives may decline even while its proportion of population is increasing. That can can hardly be described as proportional.
There is no reason that rational numbers can not be used. How do you ensure that party members are indeed party faithful? And why does Joggle include ranked ballots?