Virginia elects state legislators in November of odd years. This year over half of the races have only one candidate on the ballot. For the 100 House races, only one person is on the ballot in 62 districts. For the State Senate, only one person is on the ballot in 20 of the 40 races. Thanks to Sandy Sanders for this information. Sanders is working to find a sponsor for a bill in next year’s session to ease the definition of “political party.” Current law says it is a group that polled 10% for any statewide race at either of the last two elections. Virginia’s 10% is higher than any other state, except Alabama is 20% and New Jersey and Oklahoma are also 10%. Also Georgia has a 1% vote test for statewide office but 20% for party status for the district offices.
The reason for low numbers of candidates running for elective office is because of the divisive nature of plurality elections. Plurality elections = elections which are not using ranked choice voting [RCV] in multi-winner districts of two or more.
Pure proportional representation (PR) prohibits plurality elections.
Single-winner districts discourage candidates from running because of the split vote problem and the mechanics of winner-takes-all in plurality elections in which the largest civic group will win almost every election and so new ideas are practically never even discussed.
When a challenger of the 2nd largest civic group appears to have a chance, this can cause a back-and-forth phenomena (two-party system).
Yes/no questions cause the same phenomena in decision-items, a divide of “my or no way”, but multiple decision-items can bring more ideas to be considered simultaneously. Higher levels of voter satisfaction can be more easily achieved, because everyone’ specific proposal can be included when many multiples may be considered for rankings, and then the possibilities of items with higher levels of agreement is increased with each new alternative which is added to the ballot.
I ran for California Governor as a Green in 1994 on a platform of state voting reform through proportional representation and I was targeted by internet bully Cameron Spitzer [Green] while campaigning in Usenet because the CA Green Party had planned for NOTA as their candidate and I was an outsider and campaigned against their plans, I was for “All of the Above”, and in 2012 when I ran and won the LP primary in Missouri campaigning for unity, I was censored and targeted by the LP in a repeat of the 1994 experience with the Green Party.
In 1995, we created a United Coalition between Randy Toler [Green] and Mike Bogatirev [Environmentalist] for POTUS, named the “USA Parliament”.
In 1995 we wrote Ralph Nader before he was a candidate for POTUS and he agreed to allow us to keep his name on our United Coalition, but he never bothered to work with us or return or calls ever since.
Google derived from my name in 1997:
http://usparliament.org/how-google-got-its-name.php
In 2012 I won the Missouri primary as a Libertarian running as Roseanne’s Vice President:
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/a/145021/libertarian-primary-choice-describes-himself-as-outsider-in-own-party/
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/02/james-ogle-edges-uncommitted-to-win-missouri-libertarian-presidential-primary/
We are familiar with the difference between team players and team splitters, we’ve been attracting and identifying team players for more than twenty years.
To understand pure proportional representation (PR), is to understand team psychology, which a very advanced science.
We are now trying to expand the United Coalition by connecting with more people interested in a unifying voting system and candidates vying for elective office interested in a unifying voting system, because unity is stronger than division.
* * *
Those are some highly arbitrary percentages.
Pure proportional representation (PR) would be much more exact.
For example, if Israel had PR, with 120 seats the threshold would be 1/121ths (.82%) (plus one vote, with a total guaranteed satisfaction level of 99.17% (plus 120 votes).
Who would ever argue that point, eighty-two percent (plus one vote) threshold in a 120-member assembly isn’t fair and appropriate?
I am thankful for Richard Winger for this article. I want to propose a reduction in the ten percent clause to at least 5% if not less and also a new idea (I think this is done in other states) that the PARTY not the individual collects signatures and if they get enough – the PARTY gets the ballot access for four years unless they also get the 5% threshold.
If any reader lives in a state that has a PARTY-based ballot access bill/law please send to me – ssanders@varight.com.
Sandy Sanders
Blogger, Virginia Right
http://www.varight.com
Not necessarily the view of the blog of course!
Thanks again to Richard Winger for his yeoman’s work on ballot access. the vote does not matter if there is no meaningful choice to choose when you vote.
S
All States have minority rule in all 99 houses of all 50 State legislatures.
i.e. EVIL and vicious monarchs/oligarchs in control of lawmaking — for the benefit of the varous special interest gangs — aka LOOTERS of public treasuries.
I recounted it is it 61 not 63 in the lower house of the Virginia General Assembly in 2015 but my error is not a victory for democracy and openness.
Sandy