Californians for Electoral Reform, which has been working for proportional representation and ranked choice voting in California for decades, is throwing itself into a campaign to expand the size of the California legislature. The current legislature has only 40 State Senate seats, and 80 Assembly seats. CfER will work for a proposal to expand the State Senate to 80 members, and the Assembly to 240 members.
The change requires a state constitutional amendment.
Bring limited voting to existing elections before trying to create more smaller single-winner election districts.
The Libertarian One 2020
http://www.1ogle.com
CEO Buck Rogers
1/25/2020
“The pain you feel today is the strength you feel tomorrow. For every challenge encountered there is opportunity for growth.”
The Libertarian One 2020
http://Www.1ogle.com
PSA for Iowa February 3rd Caucus
https://youtu.be/TXh-A_YUn7g
Are they going to launch a ballot initiative petition for the 2020 election?
Look at the 400 New Hampshire State Senate districts to see how smaller election districts do not bring competition for third parties and independents.
The United Coalition USA has been bringing the correct math since 1992 and we were blocked.
Our team must roll back the work done which brought the one-party system to SF, Oakland and Maine because RCV in single-winner election districts allows only the one biggest to always win and that’s a one-party system.
We are got blocked, snuffed out and censored since 1986 when Clint Eastwood ran against us. In 1992 we brought the Ad Hoc Coalition to Santa Cruz city council elections but the use at-large slate voting city elections under plurality voting so only one of three slates won 100% of the seats with about 50% of the votes.
PLAS would make use of the present system.
Top Ten would level the playing field.
Do not get bogged down with expanding legislatures, amendments, initiatives, US parluiament, RCV or any other voting systems.
PLAS can win 50/50 for the GP and LP.
Replace a dem with a green, replace a rep with a lib. On ALL ballots.
Now, one place where expansion would probably work and be worthwhile-the SCUS.
Expand it to fifteen with three more greens and three more libs.
There may be something happening in/around Sinai.
Associated Press.
US general says troop surge in Middle East may not end soon.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-general-says-troop-surge-in-middle-east-may-not-end-soon/ar-BBZgBJk?ocid=spartandhp
by Lolita C. Baldor, AP
A second chamber of slightly larger districts and slightly longer, staggered terms is so pointless. I’d rather see them push for a unicameral of 240 or even 320 seats in the same effort. This does make the senate a nice size to transition it to a pure PR body as a next step, though.
Wrong Amdt in the wrong place and wrong time by the New Age now usual suspect math M-O-R-O-N-S.
—
PR and Appv – pending Condorcet
TOTSOP
Congrats on the new middle name, James.
Respectfully, to riff on an old phrase? Go google yourself.
Ogle is a liar who claims he inspired the name “Google.” He did not because the claimed moment of inspiration (October 1997) was a month after the name was already trademarked (September 1997).
James Ogle, tell us about Tiffany?
You know, the registered democrat who stole the BTP nomination from me for Mother Russia in 2012.
Say it aint so, J.O.
“JAMES OGLE” PRESIDENT CANDIDATE
GOOGLE SEARCH — MERE 6,630 ITEMS
They should work with John Cox, who proposed a neighborhood-based legislature who would elect committees to serve in Sacramento. They would also vote on final passage of all bills.
But let’s base districts on votes cast, rather than population. Districts would have roughly 5000 votes cast, and would be based on cities and unincorporated areas. The city of Los Angeles would have 224 districts. 5000 votes correponds to about 16,000 persons on average, so is amenable to personal campaigning.
Everyone who received a threshold of the vote (perhaps 5%) would be elected, and would be granted voting rights equal to the number of votes they received. In effect, voting for a candidate would be equivalent to granting the member a proxy. Votes for candidates below the threshold would be redistributed based on the losing candidate’s preference. For example, if Alex received 125 votes, which was below the threshold, they could transfer those votes to Bobby who had received 437 votes. Bobby would then exercise 562 votes. Candidates below the threshold could also combine their votes to permit one of them to serve.
There would be 80 districts which would have approximately equal turnout. Districts could be adjusted after each election. The members from each of these districts would elect a member to serve in Sacramento. The members from the district (100 to or so) would meet and select a representative by majority vote. Members would also have the ability to recall a representative or to fill a vacancy. They would meet at least twice annually, once to debate the budget. Ordinary votes on final passage would be cast electronically without assembling and would be calculated on a ststewide basis.
The 40 senators would be elected by statewide proportional vote of all members. Perhaps there could be some qualification level of support to qualify.
MORE or LESS govt. — 6,000 plus years.
even a 3 [ repeat 3 ] Member legis body is enough – on ALL the major issues- Tax / debt rates, who pays NET taxes, etc.
Ratio PR – TOTAL Votes / 3 = RATIO — surplus votes down / loser votes up.
EXACT PR – TOP 3 via Condorcet – each to have a voting power equal to final votes received — direct from voters and indirect via losers.
Larger Legis Member bodies needed only to get some faction representation of larger factions.
IF/WHEN A 100 pct secure internet exists, then voters can vote on ALL ***main*** stuff in peacetime –
esp taxes/borrowing as pct of GDP and GSP,
larger spending stuff,
compensation of top officers, etc.
—-
PR
AppV
TOTSOP
@DR,
Weighted voting does not work for a 3-member body. In an unweighted body, two members voting together prevail. To have a different result under weighted voting, requires one member to be able to cast 50+% of the vote. He is in effect a dictator.
With five members, the two strongest members must prevail. An unweighted system is equivalent to each member having 20% of the vote. It would be possible to have two members with 24.5% each unable to overcome three members with 17% each. Even though their voting weight is 44% greater, it is effectively the same.
Or you could have one stronger member with 40%, and the others with 20%, 15%, 13%, and 12%. The strongest member and ANY other member would prevail. But that renders 20% and 12% as the same.
But as the body increases in size, these differences disappear. In a body of 100-200, where the stronger members might have 2% of the total vote, the effect disappears.
Voting would not be over the internet. It is easier to secure voting among several 1000 persons than several million, particularly when voting is not secret.
And you disregard the impact of having more personal representation. You would likely know your representatives.
JR
If one were speculating about redesigning the system from scratch, I’d suggest considering a system without defined terms and with no geographical districts. Voters could go online anytime and register or de-register with one candidate of their choice, statewide. Any qualified citizen can ask to be candidate at anytime and have their name put up on the registration site.
Anyone who passes (for example) 11,000 registered supporters gets a seat in the legislature. They keep their seat unless/until they drop below 9,000 registered. Sitting legislators would have the option to close off new registrations if they wanted to encourage potential supporters to sign on with some other like-minded candidate.
The advantage I see is that every voter would have a representative who is really “theirs”, and a faster and more definite way to hold them accountable.
It’s true the system would result in some 1%-er extremists getting seats, since 1% is never enough to win a district but is enough to get 11,000 statewide.
With all these pipe-dream initiatives floating about whatever happened to the secession one or the couple that were to subdivide the state in two or three separate states? As long as we’re dreaming here lets get to it!
NOW gerrymander math —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 gerrymander areas = 1/4 or less CONTROL — the NOW communists/fascists.
—–
Exact PR
49 communists + 49 fascists + 2 LP = 100
A-N-Y 2 factions = MAJORITY.
Will C+F agree on ANY thing – except to get their personal loot [legis comp) ???
Same math with a zillion member legis body — ie ALL the voters as legislators.
@eeyn,
There could be an issue with a secret ballot under your alternative.
California legislative districts are huge. Almost 1 million for a senate district, and 500,000 for an assembly district. Even if the assembly were expanded to 500 members, each district would have 80,000 persons. Representatives would still be remote, and elections expensive. The Cox proposal would have elected legislators from small districts where it would be possible, perhaps necessary, to campaign door-to-door. But to avoid a mob in Sacramento, members would vote on final passage of bills from home, and delegate much of the work to a select committee of their members.
California has a huge disparity in the number of votes cast between districts, almost 3:1 for the senate (435K voters in SD-1 choose a senator, compared to 146K voters in SD-14). Voters in SD-14 have 3 times as much influence as those in SD-1. Basing weighting on votes cast eliminates this disparity.
Limiting votes to small areas limits the amount of influence any member can accumulate, even if every voter voted for them. You don’t have to transfer votes. Candidates would run even if they might only get 20% of the vote, since they could still have influence. And districts don’t have to be perfectly equal, since a representative from a larger district could accumulate a bit more power, rather than the current situation where every legislator has to represent equal numbers of persons.
When districts don’t have to have equal number of voters it is easier to district, since you can apportion districts to cities and counties, and then draw districts which are more likely to represent actual neighborhoods.
It is also gerrymander-proof. Under conventional systems why do you move 1000 R voters from District 37 to District 46? You want to bury them in 46, and help elect a D in 37. But now they can vote for an R in either district.
@CO,
A constitution defines how the government is constituted, such as how the legislature is structured and elected. Changing the structure is a proper subject for amendment.
The last proposal fell just short of getting on the ballot. With a proportional component it would have widespread support.
The proposal to divide the state had enough signatures but was blocked by the California Supreme Court.
As noted a while back —
A legislative body exists ONLY because ALL Voters can NOT assemble in person and vote on legis stuff.
Even in early olde small pop townships – the voters would mainly vote only on township officers and very limited/basic issues.
How many small pop townships remain in the USA – with those olde 1/2 year meetings of ALL voters ???
—
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
JR
I’m skeptical of huge legislatures (1000+ members). It isn’t practical for all of them to be involved in drafting legislation and offering amendments. At some point it’s indistinguishable from rule by direct initiative, and we know the problem with that: it’s all about who gets to frame the questions, write the budgets, work out the details, and those people will be few. Everyone else just gets to say yes or no on a question posed by the real authority.
It’s like our damn school bond elections in TX. You either vote yes on a $25M bond or vote no and have no new school at all. There’s no way to say I want a $22M bond, and I think the legislators in a 5000 member lege would be in much the same position.
Also, as a voter I’m not sure I’d see a big advantage in having 1/5000 share in picking a legislator who has a 1/5000 say in the legislature, vs having a 1/500000 share in picking a legislator who has a 1/50 say in the legislature. It works out to 1 in 25,000,000 either way.
They might be better off dividing California into 3 or 4 states. Then, they would also increase their representation in the US Senate as well.
THE CRISIS may come if/when *just enough* large pop States go RED commie donkey –
and DEMAND Democracy to end the ANTI-Democracy minority rule oligarchy gerrymanders in the USA/ State/Local election systems.
See ignoring of 1777 Art Confed in 1787 to secret Fed convention.
Note Art VII.
May make Civil WAR I like a pre-skoool rumble in a sandbox.
See ignoring of 1777 Art Confed in 1787 top secret Fed convention.
How many members in a legis body for a MOB scene —
controlled by a monarch / few oligarchs ???
—
100 USA Senate — TYRANT majority **leader** ??? Duh.
435 USA H Reps — TYRANT Speaker ??? Duh.
@eeyn,
There could be a different dynamic. In California, there would be around 2500 districts, each electing perhaps 5-10 members. With a threshold of 5%, it is possible that 19 could be elected. But it is unlikely that 19 candidates would run in a community of 10,000 to 15,000. The pay would be low ($1) the prestige not high. It is quite likely that there would be more independents. They would not only represent the community, they would be representative of the community, someone you would see at the barber shop, or at the DQ. Even if you didn’t know them, you would know of them. If you knew their address, you would know where they lived.
So each member of the Assembly would be elected from among group of 150-250 legislators. They would tend to see themselves as equals, and would be choosing which among them would serve best in Sacramento.
They would likely be more responsive to this group – who could replace him. It would be more like you were a member of the bond committee and suggesting they didn’t need that extra $3M.