The Tampa Bay Times has this story about Florida’s Amendment Three, the top-two initiative. The story features an analysis that shows Black representation in the Florida legislature would likely decline if the amendment took effect. Toward the bottom, the story also mentions the problem that top-two sometimes disenfranchises members of one of the major parties. It points out that in 2018, there were two Republican candidates for Governor in the primary, but five Democrats. So plausibly, if top-two had been in effect, the November 2018 ballot would have carried only two Republicans for Governor.
Can the FL voters redeem the 2000 Bush v Gore disaster by killing top 2 ???
NOOOO primaries.
One Voter nom pet forms.
PR and nonpartisan AppV – pending Condorcet = RCV done right.
TOTSOP
Excellent points. I hope the voters of Florida understand as well.
The solution to Top Two is Top Six.
I was wrong to tell Richard years ago that the solution to Top Two, a concern of his, was PLAS.
It is, but it skips a step. Top Six.
I went right for the progressive victory scenario, skipping the step that would help people understand.
But now that Top Six is out there , there is no excuse for not implementing it.
With or without legislation or judicial remedy.
Full ballot access for the six significant parties that cover the entire political spectrum.
The GP and/or LP could help the other two if necessary. We know the dems and reps will get full ballot access.
They always do.
With ranked choice voting, you don’t need top-anything. With each itineration, the lowest vote getter gets eliminated. So, RCV is actual Top-x voting on the first round, x being the number of candidates. Then x-1, x-2, x-3, on each successive round, until a winner gets a majority.
Sorry- RCV = another New Age RED communist scheme, like top 2, dreamed up by math MORONS.
34 AMZ
33 ZMA
16 MAZ
16 MZA
99
A+Z = Stalin and Hitler
M = Washington
RCV – M loses
A beats Z 50-49
M mere 99 of 99 first plus second votes
M beats A 65-34
M beats Z 66-33
DR: In your example 67% of the voters prefer Stalin or Hitler to Washington. I’d say such an electorate isn’t going to produce good outcomes no matter what you do.
Here’s a scheme, works best on largish legislatures with short terms:
1. In each district, conduct “normal” pick one voting.
2. DON’T count the ballots.
3. Draw one ballot at random and that is the winner for that district.
Advantages:
1. Over a large legislature, you get very close to PR, but without giving up district representation.
2. Gerrymandering is much harder, since upping your probability in one district necessarily reduces it in another.
3. Over a person’s lifetime, they will probably get a representative they like at least a few cycles. In the current system, minorities in a “safe” district never get represented.
Disadvantages:
I’ll let you point them out.
Walter,
I admit I have not studied RCV very much.
Being a progressive and finding a strategy for even a close call, after years of hopelessness, I was elated with PLAS.
Then years later I formulated Top Ten/Six which verified PLAS.
Again no pressing reason to study RCV.
My preliminary assessment was it is not in place in many places and has little chance of getting fully in place any time soon.
Whereas Top Six and PLAS are immediately available with the system in place.
I am certainly not going to be not supportive of any efforts for RCV. I won’t bad mouth it.
however I would be a fool to support it and abandon PLAS. I will not do that.
If RCV gets in place, I’ll be glad to try it.
If it gets progressives elected, great!
Over the years I have found libertarians to be pretty crazy.
But far less crazy than republicans.
So if it gets libertarians elected, great!
See the 2009 Burlington VT RCV REAL election disaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Burlington_mayoral_election
Too many EVIL math MORONS trying to brainwash folks —
akin to plurality is Swell, top 2 is Swell, RCV is Swell.
Condorcet 1780s — 1780s = RCV done right.
eeyn —
basic PR 000001
Party Members = Total Members x Party Votes / Total Votes
electoral reform is an interesting issue. But users of this site should see BALLOT ACESS is number one. If third party and independent candidates did nt have to spend all there time on this then they could conceivably win any office other than the state wide presidency/senate/governor if they ran the right campaign and canditate over a decent period of time.
In the UK and CANADA there are a small number o third party candidates elected and they get decent votes in seats that they lose to. This is because ballot acess n those countrys is not as restrictive.
Another note you cant call for electoral reform unles you are getting decent third party votes as there is no perceived injustice. so the formula for electoral reform is for the Greens, Libertarians, independents to go all out on winning at least one seat in any state where ballow acess is nt a problem with a two year campaign. then its to call for proper ballot acess in neighbouring states then electoral reform. you will have some DEMS and REPUGS on your side when you reach that level. it wont be easy as electoral reform has nt passed in canada or the uk yet. but fair ballot acess does exist. as do elected third party representatives. so it is a positive example.
What about France?
France seems to have about 5/6 significant nationwide parties with polling around 20% give or take 5-10%.
This is very close to predicted Top Ten/Six numbers.
Independent presidential tickets are unnecessary. Even a vanity or luxury or elitist.
Even if an Independent ticket won, there would still be the unfair/unrepresentative 50/50 dem/rep Congress.
So Top Six is vital. The six significant parties cover the entire political spectrum.
They must have guaranteed full ballot access to be fair and representative.
Electoral reform is actually not all that far from reality.
Top Six.
Constitutional Amendment on the right to Vote.
End/neutralize the Electoral College. Interstate Compact on the National Popular Vote.
What say you, Richard?