On May 4, the Maine Republican Party amended its bylaws to say that the party chooses to nominate by old-fashioned plurality primary elections. The same day, it filed a federal lawsuit, saying it has a freedom of association right to nominate according to its own desires, and that it desires not to use ranked-choice voting. Maine Republican Party v Dunlap, 1:18cv-179.
If this lawsuit were to win, then logically the Maine Green Party and the Maine Libertarian Party could also insist that they prefer to nominate by convention. Letting small qualified parties nominate by convention would be a huge advantage to those parties. Under current law, the primary petitions are so difficult, neither party is able to run more than a handful of candidates. This year, there are only about six Maine Greens running for a partisan office (all for legislature), and only one Libertarian (also legislature).
The case is assigned to Judge Jon David Levy, an Obama appointee. The Republican Party will face a severe problem getting injunctive relief, because the lawsuit and the bylaws change were made so close to the June 12 primary. But eventually the party might win declaratory relief. Even if the party did obtain injunctive relief, ranked choice voting would still go ahead for the other three qualified parties, Democratic, Green, and Libertarian.
Ranked choice voting (RCV) for single-winner names and decision-items for political party primaries in Maine will cement the top-down control within the party, will assure that no new names nor policy-decisions not supported by the insiders will never advance within the entity and will continue to result in a one-party system in Maine where the largest civic group is guaranteed to win 100% of the time with no exceptions.
The 8th California Super-state Parliament has been using pure proportional representation (PPR), RCV in multiple-winner districts only with no exceptions correctly for more than twenty-three consecutive years and PPR works fine.
http://www.usparliament.org/ss11.php
The Courts will ANY brain cells will detect that —
ALL PUBLIC Voters (as in top 2 partisan primary regimes) or SOME PUBLIC Voters (in the other regimes including ME) nominate PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC officers by the CONSTITUTIONS and LAWS
— and are NOT (repeat NOT) independent empires having DICTATOR powers.
This round of MORONITY dates back to the infamous Texas White Primary Cases starting in the 1920s —
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_primaries
However- the MORON courts back then could NOT detect the difference between the 14th and 15th Amdts — and could not detect 14 Amdt, Sec. 2.
Also — How many ME absentee ballots have gone so far to the USA military front lines [and come back) ??? — fighting Stone Age barbarians.
redo first part —
The Courts with ANY brain cells will detect that —
ALL PUBLIC Voters (as in top 2 partisan primary regimes) or SOME PUBLIC Voters (in the other regimes including ME) nominate PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC officers by the CONSTITUTIONS and LAWS
— and the party hack gangs are NOT (repeat NOT) independent empires having DICTATOR nomination and election powers.
Only four of the 760 partisan (0.53%) primary contests subject to RCV have so many as three candidates. The SOS recognized this, and had those printed on one side of the ballot, with the plurality contests (99.47%) printed on the other.
An injunction could prevent the SOS from tabulating any secondary choices.
If logic were used, the State of Maine would neither conduct nor recognize the so-called nomination activities of groups of individuals organized in parties.
@DR, are political parties organs of the state? If they are not independent, are they thus dependent of the government for their very existence – (i.e. no different than the government of Guam).
JR —
STATE qualifications to be a STATE PUBLIC Elector — subject to the various Fed non-disqualifications — 15 Amdt, 19th Amdt, etc
See the SCOTUS 1989 Eu case —
clubby internal political party stuff vs. PUBLIC nomination stuff and PUBLIC filling of candidate vacancies — in which latter the political parties are *organs of the State* — such PUBLIC Electors doing such nominations/filling candidate vacancies.
How many State Consts specify exact ballot access stuff ???
Mostly statutory — with the MORON courts NOT detecting the *equal* in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1.
—-
Const Amdt — specify
– uniform positive definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of the USA (repeal the *negative* Amdts)
– ballot access stuff
– PR and AppV
Again- how many USA Const Amdts since 12 Amdt regarding election stuff ???
@DR,
“clubby internal political party stuff vs. PUBLIC nomination stuff and PUBLIC filling of candidate vacancies — in which latter the political parties are *organs of the State* — such PUBLIC Electors doing such nominations/filling candidate vacancies.”
Can you give me an example of “public nomination stuff” in Michigan?
Mich —
major parties – primaries and conventions – fill candidate vacancies
old minor parties – conventions – fill candidate vacancies
new parties via nominating petitions – conventions – fill candidate vacancies
independents – via nominating petitions – no fill candidate vacancies
4 SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL SYSTEMS — same/variants in most States
PUBLIC Electors in each system.
@DR,
Why is “PUBLIC” all uppercase?
The failed math of Rob Richie’s RCV, the drive against Top Two, Google’s partnership with Cameron Spitzer’s slander campaign against the United Coalition and the vicious campaigns which took place to oppose talk of pure proportional representation (PPR) will result in extreme dysfunction in the conversation and actions in Maine for a very long time.
Forget about 2018 and expect a 25 to 50-year delay on progress for PPR.
During this time political parties will continue to prevent gender balance, to promote conceited egomaniac candidates, largely arrogant males, who will dash equal treatment and equal time for others as their unending work under plurality psychology continues into the long range future.
I’m glad to hear that you also think that, should the Republicans prevail, it could open the door to allow the Libertarians and Greens the possibility of nominating by convention. As a Libertarian in Maine, hearing of this lawsuit and having the same thought made my Friday.
JR —
***PUBLIC*** vs PRIVATE clubby hacks in PRIVATE gangs — having perversion thinking that they are PUBLIC independent empires having DICTATOR power regarding the PUBLIC nomination/election systems.
IE – the private party hacks akin to mafia gangsters.
The mess is due, as usual, to the SCOTUS MORONS — with their perversion opinions about the 1st Amdt regarding election *mechanics* — being a PUBLIC Elector, being a PUBLIC candidate, ballot access, counting votes, etc. Williams v Rhodes 1968, etc.
Again – see the book — Sources of our Liberties ed by Richard L. Perry (Am Bar Assn, 1959)
background of USA Const Amdts 1-8.
ZERO election mechanics stuff leading to 1st Amdt.
—
Related- See about 70 years of SCOTUS perversions regarding substantive due process of law.
—
PR and AppV
https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/2018/05/06/10-5-1-free-press-campaign-boost-voter-turnout-august/565188002/
Mich primary — plurality hack winners
general election almost worthless – due to gerrymanders
Same rigged gerrymander math in ALL States
———–
NO primaries
PR and AppV
If we look back to 1992, after the NAACP nominated Professor
Lani Guinier [Republican] as USA Attorney General and the
nomination promptly denied, instead Janet Reno [Democratic]
was picked, Lani Guinier had done extensive study on civil
rights in Texas.
The Clinton decision may have attributed to the Waco Incident,
shortly after Reno was appointed.
As Dean of Harvard Law School, Dr. Guinier’s work is
recognized as an antidote to the racially biased winner-takes-all
plurality single-winner districts in Texas.
But now look at the RCV system in SF, RCV in single-winner districts
and we see a step backwards because formerly in SF under plurality
elections
2nd, 3rd, 4th, and smaller interest groups can have random wins
because of the math of the “split-vote problem”.
But SF adopted ranked choice voting (RCV) in single-winner
districts, and that guaranteed the largest civic group wins 100%
of the time. That established a one-party system in SF.
SF is the “power-base” for civil rights violators, since
the one-party system in SF was established in around 2012.
Sure, by affimative action, SF Democrats will elected women,
but is the uncompetative nature of a one-party system worth
having one party pick all the winners?
Now there is the United Coalition California.
If we all do our jobs in unity, advocate for our
opposite gender #1 as the team plan for unity
under Top Two in California, then maybe if we
work hard we can bring advanced, fair elections of PPR
to the State as a whole.
But there is very little time and we need recognition
on a public scale that teamwork between genders under
Top Two is stroonger and more powerful than the divisive
message of conciepted egomaniacs who put themselves and
those who self-promote their name as “better than everyone”,
above the the good of the whole.
Our team needs to be united in the humble call for our
opposite gender number one under Top Two. We ask voters
to vote, when they check the first name it is our opposite
gender. If they like our idea, they next mark our
own name (or same gender) #2, with consecutively alternating
genders thereafter.
If our team gets the PR with the plan for gender balance
under Top Two, and 2/3rds of voters collaborate and comply, then
us men are guaranteed to elect the top female in every state-wide
seat, except for District Attorney where there are four
males on the ballot (2 Ds and 2 Rs).
https://bangordailynews.com/2018/05/06/politics/poll-moody-mills-are-front-runners-in-maines-unsettled-june-primaries/
RCV primary Poll–
How many obvious communists and fascists will be chosen — by having the *middle* divided ???
Since Maine Republican Party doesn’t wand RCV in their primary, why don’t they offer to PAY for their own primary?
@DR,
“PUBLIC vs PRIVATE clubby hacks in PRIVATE gangs”
Which do you prefer, and why?
DR, to address your question, it is likely that a D or R be elected under Maine’s single-winner RCV who does indeed have communist or fascist tendencies since candidates do not write about their true positions because of being marginalized.
But it is unlikely a Green or Libertarian with communist or fascist tendencies because only the biggest party will win under RCV, guaranteed.
The problem is that in single winner RCV districts the highest guaranteed voter satisfaction level possible is 50% (plus one vote).
Yes it does leave a large percentage unrepresented.
Plus single winner is static, like a road block, by two-winner districts are not as static, they are more dynamic. Plus they offer a 66.66% (plus two votes) guaranteed voter satisfaction level.
As you add more seats being elected, you lower the threshold and increase voter satisfaction levels.
The more seats elected simultaneously, the better, and the less potential for one person to control or block.
With multiples names (and decision items) elected simultaneously that also brings team psychology, as one person is not a team, and teamwork and collaboration attracts votes.
Teamwork allows coordinated effort, trust, and humility traits can be rewarded with votes.
All the efforts for NOTA, against top two (two is a multi-winner) and favouring single-winner RCV, for the past twenty-three years had destroyed our work over and over, year after year.
But despite the vicious treatment by the party bosses, our team continues to grow and attract team players.
At current pace in the D-Day analogy, we reach Berlin in about 150,000 years. Because our ideas are exploited (Google, wars in Iraq, CoFOE, etc.) we don’t always get the comraderie we seek. But our ideas of pure proportional representation don’t change and eventually we will unite with everyone under PPR because people want improvements.
But we could have been going faster than we have been going, had people chosen to cooperate under the PPR by using paper ballots for building the team. Instead we were censored, bullied and accused of being liars since 1992 when the United Coalition started on Usenet and in the Santa Cruz City Council election.
JR-
PR and Appv — pending Condorcet — will take care of any PUBLIC/PRIVATE problems — to END the arrogant powermad extremist gerrymander OLIGARCHS in control of the USA since 4 July 1776.
JO –
How many legislators create a mob scene ???
The USA H Reps went into a major decline after the 1870 Census and the effects of 13 Amdt and 14 Amdt, Sec 2 — even the 435 mob after the 1910 Census had enough of getting more mobster Reps.
Larger Rep districts = lot easier to have packed political concentration camp gerrymander districts.
—-
All — Another PR regime election today —
in Lebanon in the Middle East with its killer monarchs/oligarchs for 6,000 plus years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_general_election,_2018
However– with the standard FATAL Parliamentary structure — same hacks having legis/exec powers.
http://www.newsweek.com/republican-senate-candidate-free-jews-904652
Gee- some extremist stuff also in top 2 regimes ??? Duh.
See Germany — 1929-1933.
How come the gangsters did NOT claim a 1st Amdt *right* to ignore the PUBLIC official primaries started in 1888-1890 ???
— ie to keep the old evil rotted conventions controlled by the gangster hack monarch/oligarch bosses.
DR, sorry, I am only interested in pure proportional representation (PPR) and majority rule.
The United Coalition has been using it for more than twenty-three consecutive years and PPR works fine.
I also want to hear more about the Equal Rights Amendment and Article the First, Bill of Rights, 1789.
Again – see the book — Sources of our Liberties ed by Richard L. Perry (Am Bar Assn, 1959)
background of USA Const Amdts 1-8.
The book was ignored by the SCOTUS MORONS in the 1960s – when they went totally CORRUPT/NUTS.