On October 25, the New York Reform Party filed a lawsuit in state court over this year’s ballot format inside New York city. See this story, which has a photo of the ballot. The ballot outside New York city is different, and this lawsuit only challenges the New York city format. Thanks to Frank Morano for this news.
MORE BALLOT ACCESS/FORMAT CASES BEFORE OR EVEN DURING ELECTION DAYS ???
HOW MANY MORE CASES AFTER THE POLLS CLOSE AND STATS ARE REPORTED
— ESP. FOR 2020 BALLOT ACCESS (ESP USA PREZ) ???
IE HOW TOTALLY SCREWED UP ARE THE PARTY HACK ELECTION SYSTEMS IN SOME REALLY ROTTED STATES ???
NO SLEEP FOR SCOTUS CLERKS ???
WHERE IS THAT ***MODEL ELECTION LAW*** ???
In New York City, ballot (party) lines are in columns. In the remainder of New York state, ballot line are in rows. I think this may be a carryover from the iron behemoths. There are 10 statewide party lines in New York this election, which are ordered based on the 2014 gubernatorial vote. SAM is ranked ahead of the Libertarian Party between the two petitioning parties.
New York City ballots have six columns. The first six parties are arrayed left to right. The last four are arrayed right to left on the next row. This places the 8th ranked Reform party to the right of SAM and the Libertarians. Elsewhere in the state there are nine rows. That is why SAM and the Libertarians share the 9th row.
In New York City outside Staten Island, ballots are so long that they won’t fit in the scanners. Instead voters tear a ballot apart on a perforated line and feed the two sheets in separately.
If New York eliminated partisan nominations, and went to an office block format ballot, these problems would largely go away.
I hope they go off the ballot again. They’re really functioning as a Republican support party. We already have the Conservative Party for that. I hope the Women’s Equality Party goes of the ballot too. They’re like a second Working Families Party. I also hope SAM fails because it’s a pointless movement and nobody is going to run on that line for the next four years.
I personally really don’t like the Libertarian Party. I’d support a Communist Party if we had one. My sentiments aside though, I don’t think the Libertarians will get their 50,000. They’re talking like they will, but they had a stronger candidate in 2010 and he couldn’t do it.
I think (hope) the enrollment form after this election will have:
Democrats
Republicans
Conservative Party
Working Families Party
Independence Party
Green Party
I’m not sure about the order but the Greens, who I support, are about to move down a couple of rungs. And it’s their own fault for bickering about petty issues instead of organising for four years. They need new leadership.
Obvious- will the NY Legislature hacks increase the 50,000 ???
= fewer minor CON-fusion parties. Duh. Might actually fit on ONE sane sized ballot (both sides).
One more retroactive / DP mess if done shortly after 2018 election day.
A bit more sane States have a percentage of total votes test — esp. for State Governor.
—
ONE election day.
Ballot access only via equal nominating petitions / filing fees
[ie office blocs]
PR and Appv
New York should eliminate party enrollment and partisan nominations. If political organizations want to keep track of their members they may do so. Candidates should qualify by having supporters appear at government offices. Qualification would require 1/10 of 1% of the previous gubernatorial vote. Currently this would 3925 for statewide offices, For Congress 62 to 216, 141 average. For senator, 23 to 99, average 63. For assembly, 7 to 49, average 27.
For statewide candidates, assemblies of voters could be organized by county. A candidate would make an appointment.
Election would require a majority, with a runoff if necessary.
When, if ever, will JR detect Dark Age gerrymander math —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL = evil/vicious OLIGARCHY.
—
REAL 25 percent control in CA — due to CA gerrymander commission and top 2 primary —
esp with Nov gerrymander districts NOT having 1 D and 1 R
and low below average voter districts
— due to counting hoards of illegal foreign invaders in 2010 Census.
@DR,
New York should equalize voting districts by citizen voting age population. The underlying principle of Reynolds v Sims is that equal protection of voters, not anyone else.
You have not explained how use of STV would address this issue, except with statewide electorates.
http://ballot-access.org/2018/09/14/california-political-consultants-now-disfavor-top-two-system-somewhat/#comments
Demo Rep on September 16, 2018 at 3:17 pm
———
Pay SOME attention.
—
Still waiting for some JR comment about the 25 or less percent CONTROL with single member gerrymander districts — Fed, State or Local.
REAL control – approx 5-15 percent in primaries with NO incumbent
— new HACK monarch/oligarch takes over a gerrymander district.
Gangster party HACK monsters go behind closed doors and pick top control freak monarchs — aka Speakers, etc.
—
PR and AppV
@DR,
Someone is not unrepresented simply because they voted for someone else or did not vote.
If representatives exercised the number of votes they received, there would be no need to constantly change districts. In reality, you may be locking in a partisan alignment. For example, in a 5-member district as a party goes over 30% they will begin to elect 2 members. It won’t be until they approach 50% that they gain an additional member.
JR wrote:
“If representatives exercised the number of votes they received, there would be no need to constantly change districts.”
Please, keep representative votes to the whole number “1”.
Do not start changing votes in a chamber or assembly away from one whole vote. That would add not only complicated math to what should be fair and simple but also embarrassing moments for the whole concept of representative democracy.
Pure proportional representation brings the highest guaranteed voter satisfaction levels to people casting one vote.
The public barely understands ONE member in a legis body = ONE vote in the body —
due to the JUNK MORON civics/govt classes in high skoools.
ALL party stuff = more or less control freak STATISM — left/right versions.
Still waiting for some JR comment about the 25 or less percent CONTROL with single member gerrymander districts — Fed, State or Local.
Exact PR [in multi-member districts, at least 5 members] — Each member has a voting power equal to direct votes plus indirect votes [via loser candidate rank order lists] – pending Condorcet.
What percent of STV votes are NOT complete ???
See Cambridge, MA and SF, CA
See the coming corrupt/fraud USA Senator so-called election in CA — ie NONVOTES = ZERO *representation*.
JO –
Theory –
How about a 3 or even 2 member legis body in a PR exact system ???
Any law will or will not get indirect majority rule — aka indirect Democracy.
How many members before a cabal or mob scene happens ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal
Mob scenes — see recent various left v right street gang fights.
How many of the 435 USA Reps can recognize each other — withOUT any security IDs ???
@joogle,
Addition is not complicated mathematics. In fact it would be more than reasonable to require a demonstration of the ability to add prior to permitting one to vote.
Ordinary decent citizens can not comprehend how STV works, particularly the arcane Cambridge method. Imagine if you showed how it worked. First we gather all the ballot boxes, and then we roll the dice to decide which is opened first. Then you shuufle the box and draw the ballots one by one as if you were a dealer in a casino. I’m surprised that they don’t refer to the filing fee as an ante.
JR, pure proportional representation (PPR) does not bring a two-party system, but algebra is required, although more complicated than addition, the equation where a 50/50 tie is broken by one vote the the one which is solidly predictable just as all the possible equations under PPR depending on how many seats are elected.
On the following web page there are several videos that have been posted on YouTube since 1983 where the explanation in audio is much more favorable in our case here on BAN.
Mathematics of Pure Proportional Representation (PPR) in Cambridge MA
By James Ogle [One]
10/18/2018
Electing Nine Seats In Cambridge Massachusetts Using Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) http://www.usparliament.org/stv.php
In Cambridge Massachusetts, should there be 10,000 votes cast for nine City Council Members, the threshold for being elected would be 10% (plus one vote) for each Council Member.
The total number of votes cast divided by the number of open seats (plus one seat) is the threshold, plus one vote which breaks the threshold.
So any candidate garnering 1001 “#1 tics” is elected.
Any additional ballots beyond the 1001 figure, are single transferred to the voters’ #2 tic, because only the votes electing the name are needed.
Say that three council members were elected in first round, since three names had met the threshold of 1000 (plus one vote=1001 votes).
From all the names garnering fewer than 1001 votes (1001=10% of 10,000 plus one vote), all those under the threshold were not elected in “round one”.
Next is “round two”.
With three of nine seats elected in round one, there will be more “rounds” to follow, to elect all nine seats.
In round two, of the names remaining, the one name with the fewest votes is eliminated from contention since they have the least likely chance, and all the ballots from the eliminated name are single-transferred to the voters’ 2nd choice.
That’s the single transferable vote (STV).
Should any names reach the threshold of 1001 votes after the name with fewest #1 tics is eliminated and those votes had been transferred to the voters’ 2nd choice after round two, then that name(s) is elected.
Continue to “round three” where the name with the fewest votes is again eliminated and all ballots from the eliminated name are again single-transferred to the voter’s #2 ranked name.
Should any voter reach the threshold in round three, then that name is promptly declared elected.
Continue the round by round elimination of lowest vote getter, the single transfer of ballots to each voter’s next choice, and the election of names which reached the threshold, until all nine seats are elected.
By using this method, 90% (plus nine votes), would be the “guaranteed voter satisfaction level” once all nine seats are elected.
* * *
While the John Cheese video may be from around the late 80s the YouTube version wasn’t actually up until after October 1997 so before YouTube, I had my own copy of the VHS video of Cheese’s show “The Case for Proportional Representation” in around 1993. I had Lani Guinier sign my book around 1993 and she still lives in Cambridge Massachusetts as far as we know. She is a Dean at Harvard Law School.
The “Too Two” single-winner election districts like in California are no good because the end up faulty as a single-winner district.
That’s no good because USA is a melting pot and so we need more that two parties. Since single-winner districts pretty much guarantee a two-party system and since there are also very serious civil rights issues, that’s all the more reason you should consider the advanced mathematics of PPR.
The personalities of the team players are more fun than those of the single-winner district power grabbers too, because under multi-wimner districts it is advantageous to display teamwork and cooperation for the good of the whole.
Therefore single-winner districts are eliminated by our team, the majority coalition of voters, our Electors.
@joogle,
Here are the results for the most recent Canbridge city council election (2017)
http://rwinters.com/elections/council2017.pdf
Look at the first column. Of the 22524 valid votes, 2616 were for Denise Simmons and 45 were for Bryan Sutton. In a pure proportional representation system Simmons would have 2616 votes and Sutton 45. This is simple.
How many pages of kabuki joogledygook would it take for you to explain your overly complex system.
JO-
See the dismissive PUNK comment by the PUNK Bill Clinton about PR and Guiner —
one more minority rule Prez election in 1992 — the END of the WW II *leadership* era
— the post-war dismissive flippant PUNKS take over — B.Clinton, Bush II, Obama, Trump.
—
Mere 10 plus percent wasted votes in Cambridge, Mass
— due to Cambridge math plus voters non-complete votes for ALL choices.
See earlier posting.
JR, your figures are exactly like mine, but each name gets only one vote on the BoDs, and the exact threshold elected all Council members.
The main difference is my system has a cap at nine Council Members.
I do like more seats than nine of course, the bigger the better.
But should the city statutes open the cap to one that expands and contracts with the vote totals it can be done but since each member was elected with the same threshold under pure proportional representation, their votes ate all equal as one vote (or 2016 votes).
Their votes are all equal since the threshold is equal for all nine seats (1/10th of votes cast, plus one vote).
About 10 percent of the votes WASTED in Cambridge City Council – STV math AND *exhausted* [incomplete] ballots.
How many REAL votes in legislative bodies PASS by 50.1 to 54.9 percent or FAIL by 45.1 to 49.9 percent ???
REAL majority rule [Democracy] or REAL minority rule [oligarchy tending always to monarchy].
The latter — since 1776 in the USA due to minority rule gerrymander systems.
—
PR and AppV