On April 17, U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer declined to grant injunctive relief to help proponents of two Illinois initiatives, one statewide and one local. They had asked for a cut in the number of signatures and permission to submit electronic signatures. The case is still alive. Plaintiffs will file a brief by May 13. Morgan v White, n.d., 1:20cv-2189. Thanks to Sam Cahnman for this news.
I notice she’s also the judge in the ballot access case. Do you think her decision here could give an indication of how she’ll rule in that case?
The issue is about plurality voting and is the same mathematical problem that is easily resolved by the equation known as Droop Quota where under ranked choice voting (RCV) in multiple-winner election districts (i.e. using numerals 1,2,3,etc.) then the representation is proportional in percentages to votes cast.
Proportional representation (PR) is also a form limited voting where voters get fewer votes than open seats using “Xs” when voting.
Pure proportional representation (PPR) is even more advanced because it uses numerals (i.e.1,2,3,4,etc.).
When the correct math is used in the two-party system, this allows real competition of third parties and independents, then the assembly is no longer a two-party system.
The exact percentages using one-man-one-vote, one whole vote per paper ballot, not what the L.P. uses, it’s called pure proportional representation (PPR).
PPR voting is also far more time-saving because all seats get elected in one election instead of a series of single-winner elections.
Single-winner districts take more time and result in winner-takes-all which is a one-party or two-party voting system.
The winner-takes-all system is a one-party system, because the biggest faction wins 100% of the seats, one election at a time and the 2nd biggest (women?) gets nothing.
The L.P. is using the one-party system (approval voting, multiple Xs per voter) and the plurality voting (Xs, one X per voter) in USA elections are two-party voting systems.
There is a mathematically perfect third alternative known as pure proportional representation (numerals, 1,2,3,4,etc.), but can only be used in multiple-winner election districts of two or more (ranked choice voting in single-winner election districts is one-party system).
Fortunately the election of Prez and VP is an at-large two-winner national election district (or 538 winners when calibrated down, under Droop Quota) and the United Coalition USA has been demonstrating the correct math every year since 1992 when we obtained the Droop Quota.
The only argument I could see in favor of not giving relied to the initiative proponents would be if the evidence indicated that they were not already making a legitimate good faith effort to get on the ballot prior to the Coronavirus scare. Even if this is the case, I still do not see why the judge could not have extended tbe deadline and/or reduced the signature requirement.
Doesn’t sound like a good sign for the parties, especially since it’s the same judge.
I think it might be possible that the judge is trying to avoid having two rulings resulting in two different standards for initiatives versus candidate ballot access, since according to Richard’s post yesterday she seems much more inclined to just put us (I’m one of the candidates in the ballot access lawsuit) on the ballot instead of making us get signatures. Ironically, the folks who filed the lawsuit for initiatives might not have asked for enough relief in their case.
ALL these cases = judics trying to be made into a second legis branch.
ALL sorts of time deadlines and timespans in consts and laws —
ALL to be changed via courts using CV-19 reason ???
Reminder–
The USA Congress and ALL State legis and many larger local legis bodies are ALL ANTI-Democracy minority rule OLIGARCH regimes — who love the NOW election systems that got them into POWER.
esp ANTI-Democracy gerrymanders —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged packed/cracked gerrymander areas = 1/4 or less CONTROL —
with much, much, much worse extremist primary math.
——
ONE election day — NOOO primaries.
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
JO wrote in part —
Fortunately the election of Prez and VP is an at-large two-winner national election district (or 538 winners when calibrated down, under Droop Quota) and the United Coalition USA has been demonstrating the correct math every year since 1992 when we obtained the Droop Quota.
—–
NOT quite —
538 EC votes in 50 States + DC main gerrymander areas — plus USA Rep gerrymander EC areas in ME and NE.
Elephants may PANIC very shortly and rig more in States they CONTROL.
See above 25 pct CONTROL math.
Oh boy. Just what everyone needs, ogle vs. Demo Rep title bout!
I can’t figure out what either one of their comments is supposed to mean. It’s like they have their own sublanguages of jargon that the general public would near a special dictionary to make heads or tails of. But it seems at least they understand each other even if few or no other people do.
The USA has a late DARK AGE politics structure —
esp minority rule gerrymanders
partisan hack execs/judics
fatal SOP violations
combined too evil rotted for the many brainwashed dummies on this list to detect.
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP.
Sop..standard operating procedure?
Pr… Public relations. At least there’s one I know but what does it mean here?
What is appv? Totsop? Are these acronyms? If so for what? Foreign language? If so which one? I tried Google translate and came up empty.