On February 19, the Washington State House Appropriations Committee passed HB 1156 by 22-11. It allows local governments to use ranked choice voting for elections for their own officers. The bill does not require local governments to use two rounds. But the bill says if a local government chooses to use two rounds, then the top five candidates would qualify for the second round.
The bill had passed the House State Government & Tribal Relations Committee on February 11. It now goes to the House floor.
Two rounds? I’m assuming these elections would be non-partisan? So why two rounds? Is this single-transferable or some weird hybrid of instant run-off and single non-transferable to determine the top five?
Condorcet = RCV done right.
The one-party dictatorship system from FairVote and others must be stopped. The one-party and two-party voting systems are no good.
Unacceptable. No way. America is a melting pot.
The United Coalition USA has been bringing the correct math since 1992 when Mike Ossipoff and I personally advised Rob Richie about how his ranked choice voting (RCV) in single-winner election districts is a one-party dictatorship system.
Participate in legit democracy, signed paper ballots under pure proportional representation (PPR) and the 1Ogle Method.
Voting going on now;
http://Www.1ogle.com
@Aiden
The bill gives the option for localities to either keep the top two, go to a one round IRV election, or a two round rank choice election where the first round uses STV then the second round uses IRV for five candidates. I’ve been following FairVote Washington for a while which is probably the most organized FairVote chapter in America and if you listen to all of their pitches and arguments they very much emphasize the benefits of being able to eliminate the primary under RCV and have a one round high turnout election. I think they included a 5 winner STV “primary” just in case jurisdictions were too weary of completely eliminating the primary, particularly ones where a lot of candidates run like Seattle. So even if they do keep the two round system, at least the first round will use rank choice as well, unlike say Alaska’s system who’s first round will use plurality voting.
I think the most interesting thing to watch is what system are they going to push for state and congressional elections? They already said they’re planning a ballot initiative for 2022, but have given no details yet on whether they plan to keep a two round system or just go for a one round system. I suspect it’ll depend on what cities like Seattle decide. If they junk the primary and go for a one round race, I think that’s what they’ll push for statewide. If they opt to use a STV jungle primary, I imagine that’s what they’ll push for state and congressional races. I’m hoping they go bold and go for a one round system. That’ll likely be the best out of all possible options for minor party candidates in Washington, as I don’t see them anytime soon instituting partisan primaries.
I absolutely hate the idea of one round open election (and would refuse to vote if it comes to this – this is one of many reasons I will NEVER live in California). There really should be an algorithm applied such that a party can only move forward from a party primary (ideally also using stv) a number of candidates that is equal to half the number of open seats (rounded down to the nearest whole number) and then add one to that. 5 seats open, 3 nominees per party. 6 seats, 4 per party. Anything else will still guarantee that minor parties get sidelined and screwed over. If STV were used in California in place of their two round system, you will still only see Repubs and Dems elected because of the unlimited nature of candidates per party. Otherwise just force everything to be non-partisan.
Huh, I’m totally ok with a one round RCV election. I’d prefer a restoration of partisan nominees myself but I doubt Washington state will ever bring those back, at least not anytime soon. I think America’s anti partianship is silly but it is what it is. I do agree a jungle primary STV race might still prevent minor parties from advancing (though the more seats they added the easier it would be for them to advance) which is why I hope they just go for one round. That way, at least minor party and independent candidates aren’t denied access to the general election.
ONE round –
PR – legis
APPV – execs/judics
pending ONE round Condorcet with AppV tiebreaker for all offices.
The problem is that if you have a single election you’ll end up with say 10 Democrats, 8 Republicans, 6 independents, and then 2 – 3 candidates from each minor party. Filling say 5 seats we’ll get probably 3 Dems and 2 repubs in this scenario; throw in maybe an independent every now and then. As a Libertarian I still wouldn’t be represented.
The problem with the US (and state) governments today is majority rule…. any system the maintains a result where one party can govern unencumbered will lead to no change in partisanship or hatred for “the other side”. In fact it may get worse, because the public would perceive the election as being more representative of the other side. The way the government works right now is the Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leaders DICTATE to their party members in each chamber how to vote on legislation. Don’t follow the party leadership, you don’t get your funding from the party for your next election (leadership is literally blackmailing members for votes). The only people that matter in the legislature is the Senate majority leader, and the Speaker of the House. Everybody else elected is literally a butt in a seat to determine the majority party so they can determine who the speaker and senate leaders are. Literally nothing will change unless the electoral system itself effectively prohibits majority rule. STV without restrictions on the number of nominees per party will not change a damn thing, and at the same time needlessly increases complexity of the election; in other words, it would be utterly pointless.
To put it more bluntly, under the current system (and under a single round stv system) in partisan elections to the legislature, the actual individuals being elected don’t matter, the only thing that matters is the letter next to their name. Congress is no longer a deliberative body, it is a party leaders tell you to sit down, shut up and do what you’re told system. Any kind of “deliberations” shown on TV are literally what TV was destined for, entertainment. It’s to make one side or the other feel good. In reality it is utterly useless theatrics.
The system I’m describing as what I would prefer is this:
Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Socialist, etc. all have THEIR OWN party primary using STV. In the case of a district electing 5 members in the general election, each party’s primary would result in a maximum of 3 nominees per party who ALL would be in the general election. So your general election ballot would like this: 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats, 3 Libertarians, 3 Greens, 3 Socialists, etc. Independents would be unlimited to the extent that they would need to petition to the general election ballot. Now partisan Republicans and Democrats HAVE to select at least 2 members of other parties or independents to fully vote for all 5 seats.
@Aiden
You’re preaching to the choir. I would prefer partisan nominations as I believe in the social utility of political parties. None the less, if the choice is between a Top XX jungle primary (even if it uses STV) versus a “blanket election” (one round with RCV) I’d take the one round blanket election. I think in most states, we should advocate for retaining partisan nominees. But in Washington State I don’t think that’s a realistic idea given the last time they had a “pick a party” primary system the voters seemed to hate it.
Also the STV in the local options bill is proposed to be applied to the jungle primary, not multi seat legislative elections. Albeit a Top 5 primary, instead of a top 2 primary. Certainly an improvement but as I said I think the blanket election is better in comparison.