On April 17, the Maine Supreme Court ruled that the state should use ranked choice voting this year. See this news story.
The opinion is unanimous. Thanks to Rob Richie for the link to the opinion. The case is Maine Senate v Secretary of State, 2018 ME 52.
This is a very sad development that Maine goes to a one party system like San Francisco where no 2nd, 3rd, independents, regular people be heard, in a one party system.
The One Party has a better way. Join the One Party system, when us men are united to elect our opposite gender #1 and visa versa, the better One Party system.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
Richard – you need to rename your blog to “Groundhog Day News” (reference to Bill Murray movie) to accommodate the broken records of DemoRep and J. Ogle. Their postings are repetitive to the point of being really tiresome, a waste of my time, and probably drive away more readers than are attracted. If you want BAN to be read by more folks, you need to figure out some way to make DR and JO posts be invisible to readers who want them to be invisible.
I second Don Wills’s idea of letting people “hide” users that they want. I understand the desire to not to ban anyone and wouldn’t want that myself, but allowing people to block users themselves would clear up lots of the comments threads
YES! Finally some sanity prevails in Maine!
And good grief is Ogle wrong. Ranked Choice doesn’t result in one-party regimes. I believe Australia uses it for some of its elections, and they have something more resembling a multi-party system in that there are several strong parties (one of which is the Greens).
Will it be illegal for unenrolled voters to rank candidates in the primary?
1. Justiciability JUNK —
every act or omission is legal or illegal.
2. Statute drafters should actually look at existing laws.
In many rotted States almost zero chance to have repeals by implication.
3. Have to add a general section — all money needed to enforce this [new statutoy] law are appropriated.
4. IE a leftwing State Supreme Court at work — about 1-3.
5. See earlier posting about the FATAL defect of RCV/IRV.– ignores most data in a Place Votes Table — WILL elect extremists with rigged majorities.
6. Aver your eyes often.
I ignore about 3/4 of the postings — by the pre-junior high usual suspects — who are brain dead ignorant about election math, constitutional law, election history, etc — ie off the street New Age MORONS.
Some history for NON-morons —
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/ed1-summons.asp
——
England 1295 — a mere 723 years ago —
——–
Summons of Representatives of Shires and Towns to Parliament (1295)
The king to the sheriff of Northamptonshire. Since we intend to have a consultation and meeting with the earls, barons and other principal men of our kingdom with regard to providing remedies against the dangers which are in these days threatening the same kingdom; and on that account have commanded them to be with us on the Lord’s day next after the feast of St. Martin in the approaching winter, at Westminster, to consider, ordain, and do as may be necessary for the avoidance of these dangers; we strictly require you to cause two knights from the aforesaid county, two citizens from each city in the same county, and two burgesses from each borough, of those who are especially discreet and capable of laboring, to be elected without delay, and to cause them to come to us at the aforesaid said time and place.
Moreover, the said knights are to have full and sufficient power for themselves and for the community of the aforesaid county, and the said citizens and burgesses for themselves and the communities of the aforesaid cities and boroughs separately, then and there for doing what shall then be ordained according to the common counsel in the premises; so that the aforesaid business shall not remain unfinished in any way for defect of this power. And you shall have there the names of the knights, citizens and burgesses and this writ.
Witness the king at Canterbury on the third day of October.
——–
from summonses in E. P. Cheyney, trans., University of Pennsylvania. Dept. of History: Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European history, published for the Dept. of History of the University of Pennsylvania., Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press [1897]. Vol. 1, No. 6, pp. 33-35.
—-
While most of Europe was in the DARK-DARK Age – of killer/enslaver monarchs/oligarchs for many more centuries.
Note those *citizens* from cities.
HOWEVER — the Brit minority rule gerrymander disease continues — in the UK, USA, Canada, India, etc.
PR and AppV
In SF where RCv is used in eleven single winner districts there is no need to invite candidates who are not with the largest civic group in town (Democratic) because should any candidate perceived to not be the establishment Ds then the fight against them will be even more vicious to assure the D wins in every SF election and that’s what voters of RCV in single-winner districts are facing now for the foreseeable future.
RCV like in SF, Oakland and Maine cements a one party system.
Top Two, will move to three party system.
Plurality elections give random disproportionate results not a one or three party system.
Only pure proportional representation (PPR) guarantees mathematics of unity psychology, team work and collaboration that’s fair to all, the more open seats per district, the lower the threshold for each open seat.
Party bosses don’t want PPR because PPR’s unity psychology is a threat to their political strategy under pluralist division psychology.
Yes Demo Rep, the perception that highly populated areas is where representation can only be elected is much like the problems that the cities of SF (and Portland ME) Vs rural voting in Nor Cal (and rural Maine).
Only pure proportional representation will work in rural areas, as long as the population balancing is conducted first similar to census of USA Constitution.
Only under PPR will the rural fairness in voting be assured.
Single winner districts in rural areas in Maine will likely cement a one party system for a different group than those in Portland Maine.
So this will cement the city vs rural, two party system, with disproportionate results for both parties state-wide.
No more random wins possible for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, independents and alternative regular people in Maine now because of split vote problem.
Now only one civic group can win so all others with be viciously put down every year into the future.
What good are the comments here? We’ve been helping with expose Rob Richie’s work to implement the one party system since 1992 but PPR and the PPR team has been viciously slandered since 1992.
Join the new One Party system when you’re ready for liberty to self-categorize, accountability with torque, advanced parliamentary procedures under pure proportional representation and inter-party collaboration and equal treatment.
The United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation (PPR) for more than twenty-three consecutive years and PPR works fine.
http://www.allpartysystem.com
The biased party bosses have been keen on making sure that the United Coalition of Candidates (UCC) use of parliamentary procedures under pure proportional representation fails because the nature of plurality voting psychology is about hostile conflict.
Despite the censorship, the cold shoulder, the bullying, the lies from conceited egomaniacs, the wins with more than 52% in state primaries, the party bosses can only bring you self-destruction to everyone’s cause because of the disdain for teamwork and collaboration under the One Party system.
http://www.allpartysystem.com
A very bad day for plurality method enthusiasts and that partisan state senator that calls RCV unamerican.
The one party system is un-Ameican, I agree.
If you like real democracy, only RCV in multiple winner districts is acceptable.
The United Coalition successfully uses teamwork and collaboration and it works far better than any party boss biased system.
But you must work with the team players who get identified as such, if you work with random people, that doesn’t help teamwork.
When someone opposes PPR, we turn and walk away, because they bring self-destruction and conflict.
All the political parties viciously oppose the teamwork and collaboration of PPR and they bring only conflict, censorship, slander and lies to the United Coalition’s conversation.
We have a new plan, us men are uniting behind our opposite gender in California,
In California, we are able to get behind women candidates unconditionally as part of the new unity phenomena that is sweeping the world.
Then when women embarrass us we all think it’s funny, because they are using men’s highest prioritized gender.
You don’t see many females posting around here in political blogs because the egomaniac egotist male candidates snuff their voices out.
In California, only males are endorsed by the bosses who push plurality voting and so regular people, women, new ideas, etc. get snuffed out over and over again.
It is predictable, political parties do not want the liberty to self-categorize, equal time and equal treatment, because teamwork with the 100% is opposite their perception of political activity.
Everyone thinks politics is about fighting, like 99% against 1%, but under PPR the unity is for the 100% and no less.
That concept is against the party bosses’ messed-up plans for them as dictators.
They think they need a dictator to boss everyone around but we use executive by committee and five heads are smarter and more dynamic then one. One person is static like a roadblock.
Not to our team, we like the continual dynamics of a 3/5ths majority in executive by committee.
We at the United Coalition have been using executive by committee and only the math of pure proportional representation can bring you the math correctly.
Please bring concrete actions to the team.
Test the signup, proceeds are for the humanitarian project, deadline is Sunday, April 22nd, 2018:
http://www.allpartysystem.com
The pluralist-driven activists in Maine are bringing the one party system where no teamwork among males and females is assured by minimal two-member election districts.
Instead the disarray will cement unfair treatment, not a 50/50 partnership, but unfair treatment and bias treatment like in SF for as long as single winner districts remain in effect there.
Every step to implement RCV in Maine has been more cement poured into inequality and unequal treatment to both genders. They happily pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into the single-gender-winner systems despite the mathematics which is very simple – one person winner district is not a team.
One winner is likely a conceited egomaniacal psychopath, one winner doesn’t bring team psychology.
The RCV scheme does ZERO about minority rule gerrymanders in Maine
— except to have worst extremists in general elections to get elected
— due to the rigged RCV majorities in primaries.
IE – the RCV scheme is one more part of the USA communist Donkey plot
— under the guise of being a progressive / liberal / politically correct reform.
See the RCV/gerrymander communist regime in SF, CA.
————
NO primaries.
PR and AppV
Ideally a larger district than two should be elected simultaneously to protect against electing two egomaniacal conceited psychopaths, since many elections in USA are single winner districts, we can easily elect two ego-psychopaths.
For example the 8th California Super-state Parliament being elected next week is a 250-member district where all seats elected with an equal threshold if 1/251th (plus one vote).
This California district is largely transforming world unity conversations.
Our counterpart in Maine is 10th USA Parliament’s 2nd Secretary Benjamin Micklehohn [Independent Green], he is the only reliable vote-counter in Maine, but he is a teacher and of modest income to travel far.
DR, just look at SF’s eleven single-winner gerrymandered districts, and see how pluralists (ego-maniacs) there in SF have made sure the town is highly divided so smaller political interest groups cannot unite as one within the city and so one civic group controls 100% of the conversation in elections.
Our team has a better idea and it’s the One Party system. We welcome everyone to a new worldwide unity phenomena that’s sweeping the globe.
http://www.allpartysystem.com
Please sign up today.
The One Party system’s United Coalition’s ownership vote of confidence is approaching and I ask all men to come vote for my opposite gender, President Nadine Squires [One].
17 comments here. 13 are by James Ogle. That is 76,47%.He needs to promote his “parliament” somewhere else! Richard, please rein him in on BAN use.
Any solicitation for funds, even if it was a charity is out of place here