Missouri Representative Dan Stacy (R-Blue Springs) has introduced two bills to convert Missouri elections to ranked-choice systems. HB 27 applies to federal and state office. HB 28 applies to local office. Thanks to Ken Bush for this news.
Missouri Representative Dan Stacy (R-Blue Springs) has introduced two bills to convert Missouri elections to ranked-choice systems. HB 27 applies to federal and state office. HB 28 applies to local office. Thanks to Ken Bush for this news.
What percent of RCV ballots in the USA are NOT done correctly — SF, Cambridge, etc. ???
Hmm, A Republican that actually want to make his party more serious? How odd but still it slowly getting into Mainstream as planned.
Wonderful to see Republicans getting behind RCV as well.
I hope that the mainstream wises up about bringing the one-party system.
The SF-style system of RCV as used in single-winner districts, guarantees a one-party system, since only one party will win – the largest always wins under RVC with no exceptions.
Do you think SF Democrats will let a Republican win in any of the eleven single-winner districts in SF? Do you think that SF Democratics will allow one Libertarian or Green win, that the Democrats are opening doors in SF?
RCV has insured the power base for the SF Democrats.
Now that one-party system might be replicated in other areas. Not good. Not good at all.
The party bosses have been working on keeping the lid on the one-party system since 1994 when Cameron Spitzer and the Green Party internet coordinators had my name kicked off of Citizens for Proportional Representation (CPR) because I had organised their elections correctly.
The Green Party didn’t like the fact that the Environmentalist Party was working with Igor Chudov [Libertarian], a computer scientist who owns http://www.algebra.com, and who served as our Prime Minister for about ten years.
As it turns out the USA Parliament and the PPR Electoral College have been doing it right all along but the Green Party set us back 23 years.
Finally the California Green Party is trying to do it right.
I am running for US President as a Green, the one that they ran NOTA against, and we’re bringing all parties and independents working together.
But this needs to be unbiased to work correctly and so I will be bringing that unbiased math and Presidential candidates to the Green Party in 2019/20 to make things right.
Go Herd/Ogle [Libertarian/One] for US President in 2020
http://www.usparliament.org/google2020.php
Libertarians are accused of taking votes more from Republicans than Democrats. I don’t know how true that is, but if you are a Republican and believe that, this would be smart from your point of view. You will get the bulk of second-place votes on Libertarian ballots, making it more likely for you to win in the second round.
I’m surprised that Republicans haven’t previously seen that RCV can be an advantage for them, especially with LP growth far outpacing Green Party growth. This legislator sounds like he’s begun to realize this.
The bill which is pre-filed (not introduced) would use RCV for primaries as well as general elections. This might be in response to nominations made by a relatively small plurality. At the general election, a Republican would be conxerned that a Libertarian candidate would act as a spoiler.
Because it applies to primaries, it might serve as a reason to maintain barriers to new parties.
Top 2 is much simpler, and eliminates the need for exclusionary partisan primaries, or stringent party qualifications. All candidates would have equal ballot qualification, which tends to produce easier requirements. A typical politician wants it easy for him and hard for his potential opponents.
The legislation has a weird implementation for multi-seat offices. I don’t think Missouri has any multiseat offices at the state or federal level. The text of HB 28 doesn’t appear to be available yet.
NO primaries is really simple.
PR and AppV – pending Condorcet — RCV done correctly.
There is only one correct way to use RVC (ranked choice voting).
The correct way is for all nine at-large seats to be elected simultaneously as one whole district as done in Cambridge Massachusetts with the threshold of 10% each (total votes divided by number of seats plus one) plus one vote.
That brings a guaranteed voter satisfaction level of 90% (plus nine votes).
The RCV in single-winner districts like in SF, Oakland and Maine with only one single winner per district, the threshold is 50% (plus one vote) and there only the largest party/civic group can win.
The United Coalition advocates that all single winner districts be eliminated including RCV and Top Two.
While we appreciate JR’s research on the Missouri bills, we stand opposed to all single-winner election districts of any kind which bring the two-party system and in many cases when “advanced” voting systems such as AppV, RCV, Score, Range are used, the split-vote problem gets mitigated and so only the biggest faction always wins guaranteeing the one-party system.
Top Two starts as a two-winner district but the 2nd phase becomes a single winner district.
There is only one acceptable voting system, pure proportional representation like in Cambridge Massachusetts and the United Coalition has been using it correctly for more than twenty-three consecutive years and PPR works fine.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc-p7-usa.html
PR – legis bodies
Ratio = Total Votes / Total Members
= 100 percent of votes *count*.
Surplus votes moved down.
Loser votes moved up.
Technically, 100% do not count.
It’s the same principle with simple majority rule where one vote breaks a 50/50 tie.
In that case, 50% (minus one vote) may not “count” (1/2)
As you add more open seats, the minimum threshold keep going up; 66.66% (plus two vote)(1/3),
75% (plus three votes)(1/4), 80% (plus four votes) (1/5), nine seats= 90% (plus nine votes)(1/10), etc.
These numbers are always exact and the same, as long as whole single votes are used.
See again the latest Cambridge, Mass city council votes [9 elected] —
MORE than 10 percent of total votes did NOT *count*.