Virginia U.S. House member Don Beyer will re-introduce his Fair Representation Act next month. He has introduced it before. It requires multi-winner U.S. House districts, ranked choice voting for congressional elections, and independent redistricting commission in every state, for drawing U.S. House districts.
ATTN DB —
gerrymander math 000000001
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged packed/cracked gerrymander areas = 1/4 or less CONTROL = oligarchy
ALL State regimes since 1776.
USA regime since 1789.
—–
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
IMO, states should only be required to create multi member House districts if any single member district would otherwise be smaller than some minimum size, say 1,000 square miles, about the size of the smallest state, RI. This would generally have the effect of requiring multi member districts only in metro areas, which probably have the greatest political and ethnic diversity. Rural areas could still be single member districts under such a rule, which are typically more politically and ethnically homogeneous, and generally happier with their reps.
Also, states should have the option of using either using RCV, approval, or cumulative voting in multi member districts.
Also, a minimum district size would, in itself, make gerrymandering more difficult because there would be fewer left over square miles to tinker with.
RCV/IRV FATAL Defects Apr 2018
RCV/IRV ignores most of the data in a Place Votes Table.
The *Middle* is divided – as usual.
34 A-M-Z
33 Z-M-A
16 M-A-Z
16 M-Z-A
99
With RCV/IRV, M loses. A beats Z 50-49.
A = Stalin, M = Washington, Z = Hitler
—————
Place Votes Table
— 1 — 2 — 3 — T
A 34 – 16 – 49 – 99
Z 33 – 16 – 50 – 99
M 32 – 67 – 0 – 99
T 99 – 99 – 99
i.e. RCV/IRV will cause even more extremist winners due to rigged majority *mandate* stuff.
M has a mere 99 of 99 votes in 1st and 2nd place.
Also — symmetry — Z has 50 in last place — should lose. M then beats A 65-34.
————
Head to Head (Condorcet) Math – from 1780s — repeat 1780s.
M beats A 65-34
M beats Z 66-33
Condorcet is obviously correct by the math of having a 3rd choice beat each of 2 existing choices head to head.
A > B
C comes along.
IF C > A and C > B, THEN C should be the winner.
*******
Condorcet math — ALL elections —
legislative, executive, judicial.
ALL combinations of —
Test Winner(s) vs Test Loser — Test Other Losers
Number ranked votes go from TOL to TW or TL.
Would need computer voting to do all the combinations in any *larger* election.
Also– vote YES or NO (default) on each choice for a tie breaker when a TW/TL does not win/lose in all combinations.
For 2 or more exec/judic offices (e.g. 2 judges), the 2 or more top ranked number votes are used in the TW/TL/TOL math.
Legislative body elections — the final Winners would have a Voting Power equal to their final votes (direct from voters plus indirect from Losers).
—-
Thus — Proportional Representation — legis and nonpartisan Approval Voting (YES/NO) exec-judic — pending Condorcet head to head math.
Fair Representation would include proportional representation
Good idea but guessing it has no chance of becoming law.
Abolishing slavery 1776-1860 — no chance of becoming law.
THEN 1861-1865 — with about 750,000 DEAD.
That was an issue that divided the nation and was at the forefront of public debate for decades. This….isn’t.
NONSTOP minority rule gerrymanders since 1776 — due to Brit House of Commons minority rule gerrymanders since 1200s — 700 plus years.
3 added gerrymander systems in 1787 USA Const — since 1789.
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
You can be as apoplectic as you want. That still doesn’t make millions of people care.
Only MORONS love the current FATAL features in the regimes in the USA —
1. Anti-Democracy minority rule gerrymanders
2. extremist caucuses, primaries and conventions
3. partisan hack execs/judics
4. fatal SOP violations – esp exec vetoes.
Supposing that’s true, it still doesn’t make this legislation any more likely to become law.
Voters should be able to give equal ranking to multiple candidates.
A voting system should not enable a voter to give multiple ranks to a single candidate. A ballot with such possibility is prima facie evidence of not being simple and easy to understand.
Voters should rank candidates with numerals. The purpose is for the ease of the voter, not for computer processing.
So called exhausted ballots should be treated as a vote for the last ranked continuing candidate. If that prevents elimination of any other candidates, then a runoff would be held with all contnuing candidates.
Segregated partisan primaries or procedures that require expression of political beliefs should be outlawed.
STV should be conducted using either the NZ method or Meeks method. Threshold should be Total/N. If this prevents election of some candidates leave the seat vacant.
Loser