Fox & Hounds Daily, an on-line California politics news source, has this piece by Michael Feinstein on why ranked choice voting would improve U.S. presidential elections. Thanks to Irv Sutley for the link.
Fox & Hounds Daily, an on-line California politics news source, has this piece by Michael Feinstein on why ranked choice voting would improve U.S. presidential elections. Thanks to Irv Sutley for the link.
For NON-math MORONS —
3 choices math —
DIVIDED majorities
26 AB
25 BA
49 Z?
Some of the Z voters may regard A as the more evil and vote for B as their second choice.
—-
For multi-member legislative bodies esp the divided majority may/will have multiple parts.
Condorcet — since 1780s — ALL offices and ALL combinations of —
Test Winners(s) — Test Loser — Other Test Loser(s)
Number ranked votes for each OTL first choice go to highest ranked TW or TL.
If a TW wins in ALL combinations, then it wins [Condorcet Winner – CW]
If a TW loses in ALL combinations, then it loses [Condorcet Loser – CL].
Also have an Approval [YES/NO] vote on each choice as a tie-breaker.
More rounds may be needed after each Loser is removed.
For legislative bodies — each winner’s final votes should be the the winner’s Voting Power in the body.
Top N votes apply for top N exec/judic offices — 2 sheriffs – 3 judges, etc.
Would need computer math in any larger election.
What math MORON will make its usual clueless MORON response ???
One excellent point of this article is that it points out how the top-two primary system actually DIMINISHES the chances that an independent or third party candidate makes it to the final election.
No way to Feinstein one-party system for ranked choice voting in single-winner election districts.
BREAKING NEWS
2/28/2020
National Democratic and Libertarian write-in nominees are in coalition with women in Oklahoma for Bill Weld [Republican] or Tulsi Gabbard [Democratic] for men in Unity Platform USA “limited voting” plan. Oklahoma is a “no-write-in-state”.
California voters categorized as Democratic/Libertarian/American Independent/No Party Preference may request write-in cross over ballot on March 3rd at polls to write in a male or female name in the new three-party system write-in coalition.
Tulsi Gabbard [Democratic] is ballot-qualified and the three certified write-in names in California are Jeff Drobman [Democratic], Sorinne Ardeleanu (R deli anu) [Libertarian] and James Ogle [Libertarian].
Plus Honor Mimi Robson [Libertarian] certified write-in for California State Senator 33rd District.
Massachusetts voters may request ballot from any party to vote for a write-in and the State switches your registration to the party of your request.
In “no-write-in-state” North Carolina, James Ogle [Libertarian] is ballot-qualified, and the female name can be Ruff.
On the Unity Platform USA we ask all Electors to write-in the item “New WTC-7 Investigation”:
http://Www.allpartysystem.com/e-aps-6.php
If a person takes an elective office by a plurality of votes, should not a plurality also be able to remove that person by election from office before the term of office expires?
Could a petition signed by a plurality of voters also remove a person from office?
Should a person removed from office by recall election or petition be allowed to seek re-election? If the voter is sovereign, why not?
If the offices of Presidential Elector are abolished and Presidents and Vice Presidents are to be elected by real popular vote, then they should also be subject to recall as well as Congressional impeachment.
Draft that up as a constitutional amendment and let us consider it.
DFR —
RECALL = UN-nominate petition and UN-elect.
Legislative bodies [due to PR math] and all elected exec/judic officers.
Fill Vacancy stuff during terms.
IF short terms [ONE year] esp for LB and execs, then recall not esp needed.