On Wednesday, December 5, U.S. District Court Judge Lance Walker heard arguments in Baber v Dunlap, 1:18cv-465. This is the case in which some Maine voters, and Congressman Bruce Poliquin, argue that ranked choice voting violates the U.S. Constitution. See this story. Judge Walker promised a ruling by next week. The plaintiffs argue that ranked choice voting discriminates against the voters who voted for candidates who placed third and fourth.
Last gasp of the minority rule / plurality FACTION ???
Condorcet — RCV done correctly.
I suppose it never occurred to Poliquin that there might be 8,200 voters who simply refused to vote for either Poliquin or Golden. If I lived in Maine, I’d have been one of them!
IMO, they have it backwards. Ranked choice voting doesn’t discriminate against 3rd and 4th place voters, But it might discriminate against 2nd place voters whose candidate had a plurality in the first round.
For new folks and olde folks with bad memories —
RCV = Quite possible FATAL discrimination against 3rd and lower choices.
—–
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.
Only 33% of ballots were regularly marked.
There were four candidates. Regularly marked means that only 3 or 4 preferences were marked, and they each were for a different candidate. Whether a voter expresses the 4th preferenc doesn’t matter.
The ballot format likely induces voters to make mistakes that would not happen if they simply used numerals.
Votes like
Smith 124 would not happen if there was a square box for each numeral.
JR — TOTAL indictment of the ENTIRE rotted publik skooooool systems
— producing zillions of math morons — later tax slaves / cannon fodder.
thus
PR legis — candidate rank order lists
Exec/Judic — AppV
@DR,
Are you proposing a system like used for the Australian Senate?
Have you dropped your demand for Condorcet?