On January 21, a forum was held at the University of San Diego by several groups that are interested in elections. The purpose of the forum was to consider a top-four system using ranked choice voting in the second round. The sponsoring groups were the League of Women Voters of San Diego, the Independent Voters Project, Fairvote, and RepresentUS.
It is very noteworthy that the Independent Voters Project co-sponsored this meeting. The Independent Voters Project has been a major proponent of California’s top-two system. Here is an article about the meeting published on Independent Voters News.
In my opinion, a top-four system would be far better than top-two, but a top-four system is still basically irrational. In both a top-two system and a top-four system, there are no party nominees. If society wants to abolish party nominees, then a rational system would only have one round of voting, combined with ranked choice voting. The whole purpose of ranked choice voting is to make single round elections feasible. That saves money for election administration, cuts down on the cost of campaigning, and eases the burden on voters of having to make multiple trips to the voting booth.
Also a top-four system would still shut out minor party candidates from the general election, in races for Governor and U.S. Senator, especially when no incumbent is running. When no incumbent is running for either of those two offices, there are invariably four or more well-funded, well-publicized major party members running. Minor parties wouldn’t place in the top four, and that would cut down on the range of ideas presented in the general election season.
How before CA RED communists (aka Donkeys) kill/enslave all non RED Donkeys and then eat each other ???
—–
ONE election Day
Nom pets only
PR and AppV pending Condorcet — RCV done right
TOTSOP
What percent of partisan races in CA using the top 2 primary have had NON Ds/Rs in the general election ???
Answer – irrelevant.
See above — NOOO primaries.
THE TOTAL ROT / DANGER –
1. 25 pct ROT in legis elections —
1/2 [or less] votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander areas = 1/4 [or less] CONTROL.
2. Partisan hack exec/judic officers – with top exec hacks [Prezs, Guvs, etc] often controlling legis bodies.
What a lazy argument. “if society wanted to abolish party nominations”
Voters are unable/unwilling to rank many candidates. See latest SF mayoral election, or previous elections for district 10.
What should be done is to make election possible in the primary, and move the primary to closer to the runoff. For congressional races, permit write-ins in the runoff if there is a majority in the primary. Add a none-of-these candidates for the runoff. If it receives a plurality, declare a vacancy and start over.
For the primary let the Top N advance where their cumulative share of the vote is 75% or more of the vote (unless there are 3 or fewer candidates to start with). Remove trailing candidates one-by-one. Let the candidate donate their votes to another candidate. If they donate the votes to a candidate that has already advanced, it could change ballot order (ballot order would be based on primary result). If a trailing candidate accumulates more votes than the original last advancing candidate had, they would also advance. At this point, all but the Top 2 may withdraw.
NOOO primaries.
Candidates ranking other candidates — BEFORE election days — public lists.
—
see Nov 2018 RCV math in USA REP – ME 02 – mere 4 candidates
8,253 of 23,427 [2 IND losers] did NOT vote for the D [elected after RCV math] or R [got plurality before RCV math]
The Independent Voters Project must be Kool-Aid drinkers or a front group. Everybody with a brain knows that top-two or “jungle” primary systems are intended to:
A. Cut out third parties;
B. Cut out independents.