On September 24, Congressmember Jaime Raskin introduced HR 4464 into the U.S. House of Representatives. It mandates that all states used ranked choice voting for congressional elections (both in primaries and in the general election). It has eleven co-sponsors. Raskin is from Maryland. The co-sponsors are all Democrats, and include four from Massachusetts, two from California, two from Tennessee, and one each from Maine, New York, and Virginia.
The text is not yet up on the web page for Congress.
It really should be up to each state what method of voting to use.
The bill is perfectly Constitutional Walter, since it only affects Congressional elections; the Constitution, in Article I section IV, specifically allows for Congress alter the method of its election, in this case, from first past the post/plurality voting to ranked choice voting. Such a change, if somehow passed through both chambers of Congress and signed by Trump (or whoever is President if he is impeached before then), would be an immense boon to our country as it would make it far easier for third party and Independent candidates to be elected.
@ Joshua Hellmann:
I don’t question the constitutionality of the bill. I recognize the opportunities it can create for third party and independent. However, I think Congress should let each state decide for itself what voting method to use.
Article I, Section IV:
“The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislatures thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.”
Does this bill fit within that? I think it’s an open question.
Joshua Hellmann- it really doesn’t matter if President Trump is impeached. It whether he is removed by the Senate that matters.
Any olde stuffable ballot boxes still around ???
Any 2000 FL punch card ballot stuff still being used ???
What States do NOT have a uniform / statewide voting systems ??? —
esp do NOT have scan ballots ???
See USA Code, Titles 2 and 52.
USA Code morons failed to put ALL USA election laws into such Title 52.
The unconstitutional part is of the bill is the part about primaries. There is no requirement for a state to even have primaries. Or recognition of political parties for that matter.
Would this bill throw out California’s top two? How about Louisiana’s runoff?
The USA Congress can obviously enact a TOTAL election law for USA Reps and USA Senators.
The USA Congress almost collapsed many times in 1775-1787 due to a failure of some States to send appointed State delegates to the USA Congress.
—
TYRANT power given to Gen Washington in 1780-1781 – to seize whatever needed for USA Army/Navy and French allies >>> later 5 Amdt part — just comp clause.
Perhaps only 1.3 million adults in USA in 1781 in all 13 States and VT – many child dependents — many 12-21 year old Americans fighting the Brits – military service pensions into 1860s – 80 years later.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4464/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr4464%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1
Check if if/when HR4464 text shows up– within a week ???
@DW,
The current law specifically permits runoffs. It could just as easily require runoffs.
Congress should illegalize segregated partisan primaries.
Primary day shall be the first Tuesday after the first Friday in October (28 days before the regular election day). Federal ballots would be a separate ballot, using RCV. Candidates would qualify by petition (200 signatures). Primary elections would be open to all voters, and it would be illegal for a polling book to include any indication of party affiliation.
The federal government would operate overseas polling places (embassies, consulates, military bases, other locations). Because the federal ballot would be consistently formatted, it would be straightforward to generate ballots remotely.
Any candidate who reached 15% during the primary would qualify for the general election. If a candidate received a majority of first preferences, they would be elected. Otherwise, a minimum of two would advance
Jim – where do you find any mention of political parties in the US Constitution? Nope. Not there. A state is surely free to have ONLY non-partisan elections – no party names on a ballot, with whatever non-partisan ballot access laws the state enacts. Any limitation on state powers in regard to this issue is surely disallowed by the 10th amendment – unless modified by adoption of an amendment. If the CONgress enacted such a law, I suspect even a more progressive SC would find it unconstitutional. Any other finding by the SC reminds me of the current problems in the UK because they lack a written constitution, and therefore the judiciary is free to make up the law as they go. The rules in US are a bit more well defined – it at least has a written constitution, even it is only worth the paper it is written on.
NOOOO primaries. NOOOO partisan registration [PURGE] lists.
—
PR and Appv and TOTSOP
“and it would be illegal for a polling book to include any indication of party affiliation” – that sounds an awful lot like restricting candidate speech
Richard:
If I’m wrong, let me know, but as I understand what its proponents state, Rank Choice Voting, requires or at least heavily suggests that ALL the candidates on a ballot be ranked by preference of the voter. SO, how does it deal with a write-in candidate, particularly one with a strong enough campaign who then ends up coming in 1st or 2nd? I know that it rarely happens but we have had write-in candidates win Federal office, like Alaska a few years ago. Since several cities in the San Francisco Bay area have started using this format within the last decade or so, maybe this situation has already occurred.
D CA
WI Name and a Number rank ???
May also require a WI box for scanner ballots.
@BL,
Are you 18, a US Citizen, not a felon, nor adjudicated to be mentally incompetent?
Before a clerk hands you a ballot why do they need to know your party affiliation?
OR… sell you a firearm?
@DW,
The 10th Amendment does not apply to congressional elections. Without the US Constitution, states would not be electing representatives and senators.
Congress has an interest in election uniformity. That is why they set the uniform election date, and require use of paper
ballots.
They can require uniform ballot access. Any candidate qualifies who files a petition with a reasonable number of signatures. It should not matter where you are running, just as it doesn”t matter when you run for city council, which district you represent.
If the ballots are uniform, then it simplifies delivery to voters who are out of state or out off the country on election day. Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan can vote in federal election, why can”t American soldiers?
@DFC,
Promoters of RCV are not really interested in full preferences. They just want to get it in place. That is why they have promoted IRV3, since they can adapt existing voting machines, even though many voters are confused.
The last SF mayoral election was likely decided by incomplete preferences.
There are a number of ways to handle incomplete preferences. You could assume a voter whose ballot was exhausted, would have voted for the last-placed contining candidate. If that would have prevented exclusion, then there would be a contuation in a runoff.
RCV / Condorcet Number votes —
major reason to have ALL mail ballots — to reduce bad votes.
Cost to process —
— each mail ballot in Oregon ???
— each RCV ballot in SF CA ???
HR 4464 Bill text is now up
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4464/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr4464%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1
BUT does ZERO about ANTI-Democracy minority rule in the USA Congress ——
1/2 votes x 1/2 gerrymander Areas = 1/4 CONTROL.
—
PR — in ALL legis body elections