On September 24, Republican opponents of ranked choice voting asked the Maine Supreme Court to stay its own ruling on whether voters will use ranked choice voting for president in November. See this story. Probably the Maine Supreme Court will refuse, and then the Republican Party opponents of RCV will ask for U.S. Supreme Court review.
Donkeys and Elephants both equally LOVE pluralities in rigged gerrymander areas ???
To HELL with each looting gang of killers.
—-
PR and AppV
TOTSOP
How does the U.S. supreme court have jurisdiction over state law? Are they claiming rcv violates federal constitution?
Also, are the ballots printed already? Is anyone voting yet? I know in some states people already are.
The Republican Party is depending on Justice Ruth Ginsburg’s 1999 opinion that struck down Colorado’s law that required petitioners to be registered voters. The First Amendment was the basis for that decision. The case is not about ranked choice voting; it is about Maine’s requirement that initiative and referendum circulators be registered voters in the towns in which they work.
EACH STATE IS A SOVEREIGN NATION-STATE.
LAST PARA OF 1776 DOI, 1787 CONST ART VII.
INTERNAL STATE POLITICS — NONSTATE RESIDENTS — NONE OF YOUR BIZ.
TOO MANY UNCON SCOTUS OPS TO COUNT.
Thomas, if they’re not, Maine is violating federal law. The UOCAVA requires ballots to be printed and sent no less than 45 days before the election, and that was last Saturday.
BTW, Maine now has over 233,000 ballot requests according to their Secretary of State, of which over 4,500 have been sent. Requests from Democrats outnumber those from GOoPers almost 4 to 1.
Didn’t you hear trump? He’ll throw the ballots out and fill the seat to validate it all. Why validate a crooked fixed con game? No votes matter. The usa election is now about as valid as Belarus. Trump is president for life and then will choose his own successor who will probably be a blood relative.
These “opponents” from the Maine’s GOP and @Brian S Jenkins, had to need to STFU by this point and also needed to understand for them, that there’s no time left by doing this BS temper tantrum-like meltdown for almost four years now. As the presidential election is just few and third-fouths more weeks away, anyhow.
@Thomas Actually no, the US constitution doesn’t reference of how the American population to vote on different methods, thus means the nation can do change its voting system for the federal and presidential levels, but it wasted due of these stupid reactionary and nationalistic BS, has been prevented it to changing it. But these state constitutions do, however, technically violate under the former biggest symbolic and effective constitutions.
Plurality and minority rule gerrymanders [1/2 or less votes x 1/2+1 gerrymander areas = 1/4 or less CONTROL] = the ZERO politics IQ ROT since 1776.
Media too evil/moron stupid to detect the ROT math.
Now more ROT with top 2 primaries — one more math MORON ***reform***.
RCV will do ZERO to end gerrymander math — may entrench gerrymander hacks even more.
—-
PR and AppV – pending Condorcet.
TOTSOP
Chad, that’s not completely true. States must maintain a republican (that’s little r) form of government and must adhere to “one man, one vote,” which means no “white primaries” or “electoral colleges” on the state level, to name two such methods that have been employed.
There is a certain irony in observing the Republicans arguing for the enhanced rights of petitioners, against the expansion of a voting method previously supported in a prior referendum
The “one man, one vote” principle is not expressly stated in the US Constitution, and is probably better expressed as “one man, one ballot” In this way, the specious arguments made against ranked choice and approval voting because they allegedly give some people “extra” votes falls away. Under either alternative voting method, no one gets any more or fewer ballots than anyone else, and every voter has as much power in the way that that voter chooses to use his or her votes as anyone else.
ONE qualified Elector – ONE vote
14-2-15-19-24-26 Amdts
@RW,
The Maine court threw the Republicans a lifeline by differentiating from the Colorado case.
In Colorado, it was claimed the regulation was needed so the SOS could locate the circulator. In Maine they knew where the circulators resided, since they found they weren’t registered there.
SOS (driving down Oak Street, looking for an address): 113, 123, there it is.
SOS (gets out of car, hails man mowing lawn at 123): Are you Joe Smith who lives at 123 Oak Street
Joe Smith (wearing a shirt that reads ‘The Joe Smith at 123 Oak Street’ – a gift from his children): Ayup
SOS: OK, I just wanted to make sure I couldn’t locate you (he suddenly spins three times, closes his eyes real tight, and snaps his fingers twice, and gets back into his car).
Joe’s neighbor: There are some odd fellows in Augusta.
Joe Smith: Ayup
@BSJ
No need to reprint ballots. Just ignore the extraneous markings past 1.
The referendum can be held in 2022.
Walter, this is the real world in which Reynolds v. Sims and Wesberry v. Sanders are case law, not whatever world you want to inhabit.
BSJ-
Much of BAN is about election reforms being put into written CONSTS.
Now esp PR and nonpartisan AppV — pending Condorcet.
BSJ –
SCOTUS hacks got into the Census pop fixation in the 1964 gerrymander cases.
VOTERS elect legislators [and vote on ballot issues] – NOT total populations.
4-4 RFG = MAJORITY RULE regimes in law making —
NOOOOOOO rotted monarch/oligarch minority rule regimes as in Europe in 1787.
That *New Order of the Ages* on back of USA 1 dollar bills.
@Brian Jenkins:
Is not the objection that ranked choice voting violates the “one man, one vote” principle an absurd misapplication?
Is each round of voting published for citizens to see?
The objection is indeed absurd, Walter. Every voter will have his/her ballot count the same under IRV just as under FPTP.
The real GOP objection is that they can’t win 50%+1 of the vote without chicanery. Oh, they’re using prettier language than that, but that’s the real objection. (If Mr. Winger really wanted to support broader ballot access, he’d oppose the GOP suit, because ranked choice/ IRV allows voters to express a preference for a minor party’s platform without fear that loss of their votes will allow a hostile major party to be elected.)
Max —
YES
See Maine elections website.
The only way to bring a three-party voting system is limited voting.
Unfortunately ranked choice voting in single-winner election districts is not limited voting, it’s a one-party system and that’s unacceptable.
America is a melting pot and the one-party system and two-party voting systems are unacceptable.
No way to Maine’s bogus one-party voting system. FairVote and Green Party bosses should roll back their harmful work of ast 28 years.
The United Coalition USA has been bringing the correct math for pure proportional representation since 1992.
United Coalition USA
http://www.pprelectoralcollege.com
Bsj @ 1015 mostly correct, but I think Richard supports the suit if he does on a narrower ground that disqualifying petition circulators based on what town they are registered to vote in, requiring them to be registered voters at all, limiting them to gathering signatures from their town, etc, is itself chicanery , contrary to established precedent, and would set a new bad precedent if it holds up. That’s a separate matter from whether rcv / irv for president will ultimately take place in Maine. If I’m not mistaken Richard agrees that it should. But he may think that this end does not justify the means of disqualifying signatures based on what town the circulator is registered to vote in.
JO wrote –
The only way to bring a three-party voting system is limited voting
—-
NOT quite –
LEGIS PR —- Total Votes / Total Members
= EQUAL votes to elect each member >>> Multi-parties with even 5 or more Members.
Try to olde ROT out of brainwashed brains.
The USA is now effectively a one party state. Everything that indicates otherwise is a lagging indicator, smoke and mirrors or window dressing.
typo
Try to get olde ROT out of brainwashed brains.
— akin to putting olde divine right of kings into a politics graveyard in the 1600s —
English Civil War 1642-1649 – King Charles I convicted of Treason, beheaded —
set stage for France 1789-1792, etc. — ongoing – Saddam, Khadafi, etc.