This New York Times editorial endorses ranked choice voting, especially when it is combined with multi-member districts. Thanks to Rob Richie for the link.
This New York Times editorial endorses ranked choice voting, especially when it is combined with multi-member districts. Thanks to Rob Richie for the link.
THE RCV INFECTION SPREADS.
—-
RCV/IRV FATAL defects Apr 2018
RCV/IRV ignores most of the data in a Place Votes Table.
The *Middle* is divided – as usual.
34 A-M-Z
33 Z-M-A
16 M-A-Z
16 M-Z-A
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 34 – 16 – 49 – 99
Z 33 – 16 – 50 – 99
M 32 – 67 – 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 65-34.
————
Head to Head (Condorcet) Math – from 1780s — repeat 1780s.
M beats A 65-34
M beats Z 66-33
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*.
While Richard’s choice of headline is technically truthful in mentioning multi-member districts, it is misleading. The article consisted of 12 paragraphs that discussed ranked choice voting with instant runoff tallying in depth in all 12 paragraphs, but only mentioned multi-member districts in the next to last sentence of the last paragraph. Yep, this is Richard’s site so he can write his headlines however he likes, but this headline doesn’t accurately convey the general theme of the article.
Don, I don’t think the headline is misleading. For example, if Obama gave an hour-long speech on multiple subjects and spent one minute saying he endorses proportional representation, I don’t think it would be misleading to say, “Obama endorses proportional representation.” The fact alone is newsworthy, regardless of the context or how long was spent making the point.
Ranked choice voting in single winner districts guarantees a one party system since only the biggest civic group will win 100% of the time, guaranteed.
The United Coalition has been correct in prohibiting single-winner districts under RCV for more than twenty-three consecutive years to get pure proportional representation (PPR) and PPR works fine.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
The United Coalition of Candidates
Secretary General IP Senator Frank-Michael Hensel [NWP] Germany (8/29/2015)
Vice President IP Senator James Ogle [One] USA (10/2/2015)
CEO IP Senator Dr Brig General Lord Buck Rogers [Conservative] UK (3/15/2016)
IP Senator Ivon Ramzi [Info. Not Avail.] Italy (4/29/2018)
IP Senator Turkan Ergor [Peace] Turkey (5/2/2018)
IP Senator Jennifer Naidu [Women Empowerment and Education] India (6/6/2018)
IP Senator Dr. Hatham Durbie [Humanity] Lebanon (6/6/2018)
Pamela Elizondo [Green] USA (6/6/2018)
IP Senator Laura Frustaci [Info. Not Avail.] Italy (4/29/2018)
IP Senator Michel Tia [NWP] Ivory Coast (4/29/2018)
* * *
David Brooks was more explicit in his endorsement of proportionally elected multi-member districts in his May 31 NYT column.
https://nyti.ms/2xuVZOa
New York City has very advanced ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander ROT —
due to major gerrymanders in New York Legislature and New York City Council.
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander districts
= 1/4 or less CONTROL = Oligarchy >>> de facto Monarchy / *Leader* regimes —
de facto Stalin / Hitler clone regimes.
—
PR and AppV
The article claims that San Francisco was the first US city to adopt ranked choice voting. Cambridge, MA has been using it for decades.
Actually, the first U.S. city to adopt RCV was Ashtabula, Ohio in 1915. At the time, it was simply called “proportional representation.” It was one of two dozen U.S. cities that used the multi-member version that was always intended for ranked-choice voting. Cambridge came along in 1941 and is the sole surviving place to use multi-member RCV. None of the dozen or so recent-era adoptions, including San Francisco, use multi-member ranked-choice voting. They essentially overlay RCV onto existing winner-take-all elections.
@Lee Mortimer,
Minneapolis uses multi-member elections for some of its park board members. The ordinance for IRV specified STV. San Francisco voted down use of STV.