On January 12, Virginia Delegate Nicholas Freitas (R-Culpeper) introduced HB 2315. It would provide that Virginia would use instant runoff voting for congress and state office. Here is the text of the bill. Thanks to Bill Redpath for this news.
On January 12, Virginia Delegate Nicholas Freitas (R-Culpeper) introduced HB 2315. It would provide that Virginia would use instant runoff voting for congress and state office. Here is the text of the bill. Thanks to Bill Redpath for this news.
I live in Virginia, and I wish this had been in place for our 2013 Gubernatorial election, as I think this would have increased Robert Sarvis’ vote count. I voted for Sarvis, by the way. My only issue is that given a choice between Cuccinelli and McAuliffe, I can’t honestly say which of those two I would have marked as my second choice. They were (and are) both equally bad, though in very different ways.
There begins Rise of Ranked Choice.
Once people get used to the idea of ranked choice voting then it becomes much easier to move towards condorcet methods of choosing the winner.
@ Brandon L:
Yea and this will get most people to accepted Third Parties less demonized in Presidential/State elections, making idea “Spolier” effect slowly irrelevent (even it can very rarely create unintentional cases of Spolier effect within RCV-area/state/nation) in United States politics and this will be can be no longer abused spolier affect idea by Corrupted two parties that United States have for nearly 190 years.
@ Chad Roberts
Ranked Choice is already in place in Maine
@ Walt Ziobro:
Already know that and its start in 2018 if state’s congress proves it, while state’s reactionaries (included Maine’s Republicans) whine its unconstitutional with state’s constitution.
Article IV, Part First, Section 5.
The Governor shall examine the returned copies of such lists and 7 days before the first Wednesday of December biennially, shall issue a summons to such persons as shall appear to have been elected by a plurality of all votes returned, to attend and take their seats.
Article IV, Part Second, Section 4.
The Governor shall, as soon as may be, examine the copies of such lists, and at least 7 days before the said first Wednesday of December, issue a summons to such persons, as shall appear to be elected by a plurality of the votes in each senatorial district, to attend that day and take their seats.
Article IV, Part Second, Section 5.
The Senate shall, on said first Wednesday of December, biennially determine who is elected by a plurality of votes to be Senator in each district.
Article V, Part First, Section 3.
They shall determine the number of votes duly cast for the office of Governor, and in case of a choice by plurality of all of the votes returned they shall declare and publish the same
Article VI, Section 6.
Judges and registers of probate shall be elected by the people of their respective counties, by a plurality of the votes given.
Article IX, Section 10.
Sheriffs shall be elected by the people of their respective counties, by a plurality of the votes given.
Jim… And? Plurality can mean majority, but not vice-versa. Otherwise it would never be possible to win with more than 50% of the vote. In the context referenced in your little post there it simply means candidate that has the most votes… it is not dictating a voting system.
AMcCarrick,
The Maine Constitution used to specify majority and it was deliberately changed.
Plurality does not mean majority. Each has a specific meaning.
The two conditions are not exclusive. It is true that if a candidate receives a majority of the votes that they have received a plurality of the votes.
I hope that this is not too advanced for you.
Jim, the Maine IRV statute directs the Secretary of State to tabulate the ranked-choice votes. That’ll happen weeks before the Governor examines for a plurality, but it definitely has potential for conflict.
Chris,
The constitution simply provides that the SOS collects the lists of votes cast for each candidate, and delivers them to the governor to make the determination. At best the SOS might total the results from the towns in a district. There is nothing in the constitution about sending the ballots to the SOS. To the contrary, the constitution requires that the ballots be counted the same day in each town.
You could conceivably implement Approval Voting under the Maine constitution. A virtue of approval voting is that it permits distributed counting. Under approval voting, it is more likely that the winner will have the approval of the majority of the voters. Under approval voting, a voter may vote for more than one candidate.
A court could reasonably permit RCV to be used for primaries, since nominations are not provided for in the constitution. It could also permit the use of RCV for congressional elections, since there are no provisions for those in the constitution. This would let a court off the hook, without requiring a fantastical interpretation of the constitute. Remember that the bricks and mortar part of a constitution are how a government is constituted. In this case it is describing what the legislative branch and executive branch are, and how the legislators and executive are chosen. You aren’t dealing with something like the equal protection clause or interstate commerce, where a court can decide that it means whatever is convenient.
Maine could also implement a Top 2 primary, and use RCV for that if it makes people happy. The winner of the general election under Top 2 would have a plurality of all ballots cast, even if some were blank.