On May 17, attorneys for Maine filed this 24-page brief in Maine Republican Party v Dunlap, 1:18cv-179. The lawsuit had been filed earlier this month by the Republican Party, which argued that its freedom of association rights means that the party ought to be free to avoid using ranked choice voting.
The Maine government brief notes that the Republican Party uses a form of ranked choice voting at state conventions, to choose party officers. See page 10. The government brief also has a scholarly footnote 7, mentioning instances from approximately 100 years ago when states required parties to use ranked choice voting in their primaries.
For lawyers —
ALL (as in top 2 primary States) or SOME (as in most States) PUBLIC Electors nominate PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC offices according to PUBLIC LAWS.
STOP the worse and worse perversions of the 1st Amdt —
the oligarch gangsters in political parties are NOT independent empires with dictatorship control over ANY part of such PUBLIC LAWS.
RCV/IRV FATAL defects May 2018 — EXTREME Example
RCV/IRV ignores most of the data in a Place Votes Table.
The *Middle* is almost gone – see Germany 1933.
49 A-M-Z
49 Z-M-A
1 M-A-Z
99
With RCV/IRV, M loses. A beats Z 50-49.
A = Stalin, M = Washington, Z = Hitler
—————
Place Votes Table
— 1 — 2 — 3 — T
A 49 – 1 – 49 – 99
Z 49 – 0 – 50 – 99
M 1 – 98 – 0 – 99
T 99 – 99 – 99
i.e. RCV/IRV will cause even more extremist winners due to rigged majority *mandate* stuff.
M has a mere 99 of 99 votes in 1st and 2nd place.
Also — symmetry — Z has 50 in last place — should lose. M then beats A 50-49.
————
Head to Head (Condorcet) Math – from 1780s — repeat 1780s.
M beats A 50-49
M beats Z 50-49
Condorcet is obviously correct by the math of having a 3rd choice beat each of 2 existing choices head to head.
A > B
C comes along
IF C > A and C > B, THEN C should be winner.
*******
Condorcet math — ALL elections —
legislative, executive, judicial.
ALL combinations of —
Test Winner(s) vs Test Loser — Test Other Losers
Number ranked votes go from TOL to TW or TL.
Would need computer voting to do all the combinations in any *larger* election.
Also– vote YES or NO (default) on each choice for a tie breaker when a TW/TL does not win/lose in all combinations.
For 2 or more exec/judic offices (e.g. 2 judges), the 2 or more top ranked number votes are used in the TW/TL/TOL math.
Legislative body elections — the final Winners would have a Voting Power equal to their final votes (direct from voters plus indirect from Losers).
—-
Thus — Proportional Representation — legis and nonpartisan Approval Voting (YES/NO) exec-judic — pending Condorcet head to head math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
—
Note – see “mathematics of voting and elections” in a Google search regarding 3 or more choices math.
—
Way too many brain-washed AMATEUR math M-O-R-O-N-S doing screwed up election *reforms*.
The typical Murican thinks it’s just peachy keen that taxpayers pay for primaries for the big two political parties. Calling that practice f’d up doesn’t start to describe the lunacy of such thinking. We truly deserve the crooks and dunces that we elect to control our lives.
The brief is for the Secretary of State, not “the government”
The statement that the Maine Republican Party uses a form of ranked choice voting is not correct.
The party conducts separate ballots if no candidate receives a majority of the vote. Since all voters may change their vote, it is more similar to a conventional runoff.
California could adopt a similar system for Top 2 elections, where the number of candidates that advance to the next round. The Top M candidates, where their share of the votes is greater than M/(M+1) would advance. If a candidate receives a majority of the vote (i.e. more than 1/(1+1) of the vote) they would be elected. Candidates who received fewer votes than the Mth candidate could transfer votes to qualify additional candidates. Candidates other than the original Top 2 would be able to withdraw.
In the 2016 US Senate race the 37 candidates would have been reduced to 20 (5 Democrats, 12 Republicans, 1 Libertarian, 1 Green, and 1 Independent). The remaining 17 candidates, including 3 write-ins, would be able to advance additional candidates.
The state’s brief failed to mention that Maine’s implementation preserves Maine’s system of segregated partisan primaries (separate but equal) and helps justify and preserve the barriers to third party candidates.