This article in Harvard Political Review discusses the problems faced by independent candidates. It suggests ranked-choice voting and a fair policy by the news media would help them. The Harvard Political Review is a quarterly publication of the Harvard Institute of Politics, and has existed in 1969. All its articles are written by Harvard undergraduates.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
BIG Donkey and/or SMALL Elephant at top of story.
Once more USELESS article failing to note —
INDIVIDUAL candidates get elected.
UNEQUAL ballot access laws.
Separate is NOT EQUAL — perhaps even taught to Harvard undergrads – in law skooool perhaps ???
14-1 — EQUAL protection
What percent of Harvard students later become a SCOTUS MORON ???
I hope that they learn from the Saints Lague parliament seat distribution system being used in their own town of Cambridge where the nine seats are elected at-large and not like the one party system in SF where RCV in single winner districts.
I spoke in SF at BAN headquarters in 1993/4 about pure proportional representation while a candidate for Governor of California with Green Partu in 1996.
I was an outsider, having switched from Environmentalist Party to Green Party in 1993.
Soon after Cameron Spitzer had me kicked off Citizens for Proportional Representation after I organised their elections and nobody respected our team of multiple candidates. As it turns out we were correct while they went on to establish the one party system in SF.
We showed them the correct math but they got it wrong in SF.
San Francisco voted STV down.
Cambridge uses an inane method of counting votes.
Why not simply give each candidate the number of votes they receive.
JR WROTE
Why not simply give each candidate the number of votes they receive.
—-
SUCH IS EXACT PR — WITH LOSER VOTES MOVED TO WINNERS = ALL [100.000 PCT] VOTES COUNT.
HOWEVER – TOTAL RESISTANCE FROM MOST GERRYMANDER HACK MONSTERS – ESP. IN USA SENATE —
WHO SCHEME HAVING EACH HACK BE *EQUAL* — HAVING ONE VOTE EACH — AKA COUNTING HEADS/HANDS IN VOTES IN LEGISLATIVE BODIES — EVEN THOSE WITH ELECTRONIC VOTING — GREEN/RED COLORS.
QUESTIONS — HOW DID GREEN GET *GO/YES* STATUS AND RED GET *STOP/NO* STATUS ???
— WITH RED STUCK ON ELEPHANTS IN 1990S ??? ONE MORE DONKEY COMMUNIST PLOT ???
THUS- DEMOCRACY VS OLIGARCHY/MONARCHY [AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN].
@DR,
The Blue-Red meme was established when USA Today published a county map of the 2000 presidential election that showed Bush as red and Gore as blue. But colors have long been associated with party ballots
Colorados y Azules
https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/pqrsu
@DR,
What do you mean by loser votes? Are some voters losers, simply because they have a different political view than most? Don’t all voters deserve equal dignity before the law?
Sample 5 candidates – elect 3 in legislative body.
2 will lose — votes for losers get moved to winners via loser candidate rank order lists pending Condorcet.
—
I believe the red/blue switch machination was a bit earlier on the internet – circa 1994 —
not sure if the color code morons involved were internet colorblind.
RED = Donkey Communists — since 1865/1890/1912/1918/1932/1964/1968/1992/2000/2008/2016 Esp.
@DR,
Why do there have to be two losers? Why can’t everybody be a winner?
Wikipedia says that Tim Russert invented the current red/blue scheme so as to not associate Democrats with communists.
JR — See the MOB scene in the USA H Reps since 1873
— more Reps in ex-slave States due to 13 Amdt (ending slave = 3/5 free person machination) and 14-2 Amdt.
A reason that skooool classes have max 30-40
— SOME attention paid to SOME teachers
— ie 3D speaking persons in legis bodies
101 = 1- percent each, 51 = 2- percent each.
What percent of the population can pay attention to politics stuff every awake second ???
— esp. the New Age young and super-stupid — mainly distracted by latest media moron stunts.
—
Russert’s communist plot/scheme failed.
Communist Donkeys = blood R-E-D as in ex-USSR flag and RED China flag
— more obvious than ever with types like Pelosi, H. Clinton, Sanders, etc.
Jim, the ranked choice voting system does reward the candidates their rightful votes and at the same time it resolves the “split vote problem”.
The split vote problem harms voters’ intentions by having multiple candidate choices in one ideology with majority support, end up losing the majority on the city council since their votes were split among many like-minded individuals causing none of them to win a seat. That also discouraged participation since more candidates brings more split votes.
By using IRV, voters still have one vote that counts, and there is no split vote problem.
Google and the California Green Party doesn’t want anyone to know about how the Environmentalist Party and the Libertarian Party have been working closely with pure proportional representation for more than twenty-three consecutive years.
How Google got their name:
http://usparliament.org/how-google-got-its-name.php
How Google ACTUALLY got its name: https://skillcrush.com/2013/11/12/horribly-google-called-google/
Brandon, Google doesn’t want you to know the truth about how they got their name, because they launched off the back of the United Coalition USA in October of 1997 and they sell advertizing around divisive news.
The United Coalition USA bring a unity phenomena that’s sweeping the world but Google doesn’t bring that. When you click “Go” to search, “Go” isn’t a number. The United Coalition USA requires consecutive numerals for unity and “Go” isn’t a numeral.
Google is no good and they are opposed to the United Coalition USA, so the way they got their name from my logo will not be revealed to you by them.
If go-ogle was not registered as a copyright logo/mark, then it was legally lost in action.
Ogle, they are opposed to it because it is a crackpot egotistical scheme of yours. You really should seek help.
@DR,
How many students in a virtual classroom? Why do you think that unthinking maleducated new age voters can effectively rank dozens of candidates? Just have them place an X next to one nane.
@joogle,
I wanted Sally to represent me, and you transferred it to Bill and claim it is rightfully his! It is my vote, and you assert it belongs to Bill by right!?!
In Cambridge the first step is to roll a dice. Why not just have a lottery to start with?
Jim, should you vote for Sally, and Sally’s total needed your vote to reach the threshold, then your vote is part of that 10% (plus one vote) threshold which elected her name.
If your vote wasn’t needed by her to reach the threshold electing her name, then your vote is single-transferred to your next choice, and then the same scenario applies to your vote as with Sally’s, until all the seats are elected with the same threshold and so guaranteeing that 90% (plus nine votes), elects all nine seats in Cambridge.
Demo Rep, I am not challenging the legality of Google getting the idea for their site from my name, in my conversation in Usenet when they joined my conversation there in Oct. of 1997, I am only exercising my bragging rights.
JR —
another major mob scene —
start of a Star Trek movie – legis body for zillion planets/species.
—
Exact PR — would use districts — limited total candidates.
—
JO —
good luck in getting an historical footnote in any Google wiki.
Have to get past *experts*
Demo Rep, meanwhile our team is setting up the PPR Electoral College, despite the actions of Google’s Sergey Brin and CA Green Party’s “Internet Coordinator”, Cameron Spitzer and the other Green Party bullies who were present in the conversation in 1997, and who oppose pure proportional representation (PPR).
Our team gets stronger by working together despite the party bosses who don’t have the capacity to understand teamwork under the mathematics of PPR.
The window between 1992 and 1997 in Usenet when our team flourished and before Sergey Brin, Cameron Spitzer and other forces extinguished the opportunity, was a unique time while the internet was growing 10% a month, and I witnessed a lot of spin throughout Silicon Valley and Hollywood (including Star Wars) where screenwriters like Zachary Scott Gordon wrote our story lines and characters into their movie.
Men, our team is confident that Heather Horst [Libertarian] for US President 2020, the only female candidate of 16 Libertarians to file SEC Form 2 thus meeting all qualifications, and so now we are already building the PPR Electoral College around her name:
http://www.usparliament.org/google2020.php
@DR,
You did not address my concern about the inability of voters to rank candidates.
There are ways to address your unease about a “mob” scene. Speaking and committee roles could be vested in fewer members, who would be selected by all members. In many legislatures members have multiple committee assignments and may not be able to attend all meetings.
@joogle,
I wanted Sally to represent me, and you are shuffling ballot papers and throwing dice to determine that my support is for Bill who was my 15th choice. I tossed coins to determine my lower rankings.
JR
With Condorcet there would be voter ranked candidates —
districts for esp. legis bodies — and also for exec officers [2 or more top cops] and judges [1 to 4 per trial/appeals courts]
— ie limited numbers of candidates per office (esp. after 1st Condorcet election)
— to go with all paper mail absentee ballots — see Oregon.
Possible proxy voting in legis bodies —
those N top speaking reps show up, talk and vote.
However — might be lots more reps in committees – esp. re: tax and spend – working on bills
— NOT being tools of the usual suspect special interest gangsters.
Major current ROT — local regimes having few reps — in urban cities and counties.
—
My local urban area has semi-nonstop bribe cases involving current / past local incumbent rep felons in the courts — esp. about pay-to-play local govt contracts.
Local reps approving local major contracts.
See nonstop major/TOP corruption in some State regimes — NY, etc.
Various Fed undercover purges/indictments since Fed aid cash is involved – State or local.
JR, your top choice #1 is the choice which will likely count in Cambridge Massachusetts style ranked choice voting.
But should the candidate not need you #1 tic, then in that case your #2 tic will help elect a name. Either way, your single vote, along with 90 % of votes cast (plus 8 votes), will be pretty much guaranteed to elect a name.
There is only slightly more than 90% chance that anyone’s vote will elect a name.
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 the 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.
FOR NEW FOLKS-
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.
The problem with the math in the last post is that the post is about a single-winner election which guarantees a one-party system since the biggest faction of voters will always win.
At least in single-winner plurality elections, they have random winners, because of the split vote problem, and that’s a two-party system.
All single offices will be nonpartisan — exec or judic offices.
Examples –
ONE state governor
ONE local mayor
ONE trial court judge
—
posting problem in the partial repeat of first part.
No way will single winner districts to be considered democratically legitimate.
Only pure proportional representation (PPR). No other way is acceptable by United Coalition USA.
New policy, 100% unity, team psychology only. No single-winner ego-maniacs, concepts and psychopaths, usually male. Our team has a new plan for the whole.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc-p7-usa.html
JO–
PAY SOME ATTENTION PLEASE —
MULTI-MEMBERS IN LEGISLATIVE BODIES — AT LARGE OR IN DISTRICTS.
1 OR MORE PERSONS IN EXEC/JUDIC OFFICES.
—
INSANE NONSENSE TO EXPECT 2 OR MORE USA PRESIDENTS, STATE GOVERNORS, STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS, ETC.