On October 24, Public Policy Institute of California released a poll taken in California. It shows that 61% of voters desire that a new major party come into existence. See the entire poll here. That finding is on page five. Thanks to Independent Voter News for the link.
The United Coalition USA is bringing not just 538 Presidential Electors but also up to 1000 individuals grouped by party or independent (potentially 1000 “parties”).
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc-p7-usa.html
Lowlites of the report —
P. 4
Most Have Bad Impression of Major Parties
Asked for their impressions of the major political parties, fewer than half of likely voters have a favorable view of the Democratic Party (41%) and fewer than a third have a favorable impression of the Republican Party (31%).
—
P. 8
US Senate Election
In the US Senate election, Dianne Feinstein — who is seeking her fifth full term as US Senator — leads fellow Democrat Kevin de León by 16 points (43% to 27%) among likely voters, with 23 percent reporting that they will not vote for US senator and 8 percent undecided.
—
P. 16
Role of Government
Asked about the size of government they would prefer, 54 percent of Californians prefer bigger government and more services, while 39 percent prefer smaller government and fewer services.
—
Note esp the possible 23 percent NON-vote for USA Senator due to the top 2 primary.
What day will RED Donkey communists start eating each other
— after all non-RED Donkey communists are dead/moved out ???
When will the R word start in CA ???
Election night ???
—
PR and AppV
TOTAL Separation of Powers
A misleading question was asked. It followed two questions about whether voters had a favorable or unfavorable impression of the Republican and Democratic parties.
The next question asked was whether the two major parties were doing an adequate job of representing the American people or do they do such a poor job that a third major party is needed.
I have noticed James Ogle and Demo Rep posting a lot on this site. And Richard Winger has been willing to defend them when they are accused of post hijacking. Perhaps Winger could give them login codes so they could post on their own. This would allow them to fully elaborate on their views without having to deal with criticism for hijacking posts.
MV —
Ship, plane, car, horse hijackings — major felonies.
NO such thing as *post hijacking*.
Folks can ignore ANY posts they do not like.
Folks can post a criticism of ANY post —
part of having a response type website.
—
PR and AppV — pending Condorcet.
Ogle is actually commercial spam. His sites which he constantly links are money making schemes. Demorep is just plain cuckoo. I’d boot them if it was my call, but it isn’t.
These are probably ppl who think Dems are too liberal and want a centrist party, ignoring that the Dems ARE the centrist party.
And, surely, none of these people have thought through things that we really need to make this happen — abolition of the electoral college, proportional voting for Congress, etc.
As Will Rogers told H.L. Mencken: “Nobody ever went broke betting on the stupidity of the American voter.”
Too many cuckoo morons to count who are brain dead ignorant about the FATAL defects in the regimes in the USA —
1. ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymanders in legis body elections —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL.
Much, much, much worse primary math.
2. Partisan HACK exec and judic officers
3. All sorts of major violations of Separation of Powers.
Result – the pending Civil WAR II.
—
PR, AppV, TOTSOP
Advanced genius students will detect that 1+2+3 above also existed in
1773-1776 >>> Am Rev WAR (British and American colony regimes) and
1854-1861 >>> Civil WAR I (Free and slave State regimes).
Just enough band aid mini NON-reforms to produce
— the current SUPER-dangerous RED Donkey communist vs BLUE fascist Elephant SUPER/ULTRA mess.
Too many M-O-R-O-N talking heads — esp. on TV cable *news* [talk shows] — to count
— akin to the media MORONS in 1914 and 1939 – esp. newspapers – later radio.
—
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
Demo Rep just rants incoherently, and Ogle just spams. I wish both could be banned or at least limited to one or two posts a day.
When you talk about what specifics any “new party” should have, people are all over the place. If you take away single member districts, and plurality voting, the old parties will break up into their constituent groups, and a multi party system will develop naturally.
Prior to government-printed ballots, voters just wrote down the name of whomever they wanted on their ballot. The only significant purpose of parties then was to print tickets which those in the party worked together to distribute and which were be used as ballots making it easier to promote candidates.
So that’s really the only need for parties – to promote candidates by working together. Eliminate all filing fees, all “qualified party” status, primaries, and require all candidates, even those of parties, to collect ballot access signatures. This will have the effect of keeping the signature requirements reasonable and ensure that a variety of only serious candidates will be on the ballot.
Jeff, we need more serious reform, because the establishment and the esablished party bosses use the election to snuff out new ideas and protect the status quo.
Under single winner districts we end up with the most conciepted, ego-maniacal psychopaths, who use their physical and mental talents to snuff out new comers, outsiders and regular people.
Now there is a new way and it’s called pure proportional representation (PPR). Only PPR guarantees the highest voter satisfaction level. That means a minimum of 66.66% (plus two votes) are guaranteed to count and elect two names in a two-member district.
But to use plurality votes, there is no guaranteed voter satisfaction level and also when multiple candidates run under winner takes all then a small minority set of voters can win.
For example, with more that 345 POTUS candidates who have already files, one can win under plurality voting with less than .3% if they all win about the same number of votes but one name can win with 1%.
So 99% lost under plurality voting, and that’s the same voting system that you say is OK.
But when 66.66% (plus 2 votes) have their votes win then our whole country is far more satisfied.
PR has been around since 1840s (1840s) — likely earlier but suppressed.
Basic PR —
Party Members = Party Votes x Total Members / Total Votes
Exact PR —
Party Members have Voting Power = Party Votes.
Difficult only for SCOTUS math morons — since 1964 gerrymander cases — mere 54 years and counting.
Jeff, your ideas are good ones, but paying attention to the mechanics of vote counting is high priority too.
Example:
In 2012 I won the Missouri LP POTOS primary with 52.6% but if a few of my running mates were also on the ballot, the many POTUS candidates cooperating in our regular radio shows, there may have been a split vote problem. It happens all the time.
Roseanne Barr, Joy Waymire, Tina Cook or Tiffany Briscoe were among the women’s names 9n my team but under plurality voting they may have split the vote and none of us win.
But with ranked choice voting (RCV) we could have split the free speech time equally and we still could have elected the best team with 66.66% (plus two votes) and it doesn’t matter how long the time is as long as equal treatment is protected.
There is no equal treatment in regular plurality elections.
@WZ,
They should have asked who should organize this needed new major party.
1. Voters like myself.
2. The government.
3. Someone else.
4. Clthlu
5. Dunno, uhh, or other non-response.
@JB,
Early in US history, particularly in New England, election by majority was required. Each election was referred to as a trial. If no candidate received a majority of the votes, a new trial would be held in a couple of months. Sometimes this process would be repeated for the entire term of office and no one was elected. Because of this, plurality elections were adopted. It is impossible to have a runoff without government-printed ballots. Now that there are government-printed ballots there is no reason not to have runoffs. Top 2 provides such a system.
In JR’s sample you see multiple alternatives being ranked and then when a 2nd voter also ranks them then only items for which they had both voted can be elected with 50% (plus one vote) threshold.
Electing names to open seats is different because the threshold gets lowered proportionately with each addition open seat.
The Unity Platform USA is like a poll using parliamentary procedures under pure proportional representation and our protocols are much more refined to new details unimagined under plurality voting (plurality voting = not pure proportional representation).
In response to SocraticGadfly, since when has socialism become “centrist?”
Bob —
Since the minority rule election of Bill Clinton in 1992 and the perverted color change of RED communist Donkeys to blue ???
—
PR and AppV – via Condorcet
ONE election day.
Why not have a seven major political party system?