The Maine legislature will be in special session in late October. One of the agenda items is ranked choice voting. See this story. Thanks to Electionline for the link.
The Maine legislature will be in special session in late October. One of the agenda items is ranked choice voting. See this story. Thanks to Electionline for the link.
SORRY – RCV (AKA IRV) IS DEFECTIVE.
34 A–M–Z
33 Z–M–A
16 M–A–Z
16 M–Z–A
99
WITH RCV, M LOSES, 50 A > 49 Z
CONDORCET HEAD TO HEAD MATH (AROUND SINCE THE 1780S – REPEAT 1780S)-
65 M > 34 A
66 M > 33 Z
MODERATE MIDDLE M HAS A MERE 99 VOTES IN 1ST + 2ND PLACE
—
Since the ME highest court ruled the RCV law unconst, obviously a const amdt is needed.
Hmmm.
How many MORON State Consts (like ME) mention mere *plurality* to get winners in primaries and/or general elections ???
—
PR and AppV.
Maine should pass a Top 2 Open Primary that uses IRV.
@D.R.
The Maine Constitution does not mention primaries.
Back before there were government-printed ballots, Maine would conduct what were termed “trials” as they tried to elect a legislator or congressman by a majority. If no candidate received a majority, another trial would be held in a month or two. This process could continue ad infinitum (Latin for someone repeatedly repeating PR and AppV). Because the elections were by write-in, sometimes a scattering of votes would prevent a Democrat or Whig from receiving a majority. Sometimes their were factional splits, or a 3rd (anti-slavery) party, and there might be a 3-way deadlock for several trials.
In 1843, Maine did not hold their election (1st Trial) for the 28th Congress until November 13, 1843 (the 28th Congress began on March 4, 1843). Because of a deadlock in ME-6, the seat was not filled until the 6th trial on November 11, 1844 (20 months into the 24-year term). The congressman-elect was not seated until the lame duck session of the 28th Congress. Maine had started its election for the 29th Congress two months earlier in September (Hannibal Hamlin was elected from ME-6 for the 29th Congress, before the district had elected its representative for the 28th Session).
As a consequence, Maine changed their constitution to only require a plurality for the legislature. Congressional elections were held using the procedure used for the legislature. Thus there is no requirement in the constitution for majority election. In Maine it is constitutional to have IRV elections for Congress, since there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits them.
So you want to screw over any political party that aren’t the Republicans and Democrats? That is ALL that a top-two system does. California general elections used to get 4-10% of the general election vote going to third party candidates in a variety of elections, and now with the awful top-two system, the voters don’t get that choice. I don’t understand you, how the hell is less choice for the voters on election day EVER a good thing?
How many minor party candidates were on the general election ballot in Maine in 2016?
Are you so naive that that you don’t realize that the system of segregated partisan primaries is intended to ensure that minor parties face barriers to even get on the ballot unless they can demonstrate a “modicum of support”, and to coerce voters to align with major parties so that they can even vote in a primary?
Do away with all taxpayer funded primaries and have every party nominate by caucus/convention!
BL –
Official primaries came along in 1888-1890 to end DICTATOR hacks (aka party *bosses*) controlling nominations in those party caucuses/conventions — ie via major threats and bribes.
Now – with total gerrymanders — the official primaries produce the extremist hacks who later get elected in the rigged gerrymander districts.
—-
NO primaries.
PR and AppV
@B.L. Why should the government regulate which groups may “nominate” candidates? If the Friends of Brandon Lyon want to support your candidacy for some office, why can’t they just support your candidacy? They could encourage you to run, provide you financial support, display yard signs and bumper stickers, create a web site, block walk, or twitter storm in your behalf.
Political scientists and observers of society have been studying political parties at least since James Bryce in the 1880’s. There are hundreds of scholarly books about political parties. Students of political parties invariably conclude they are necessary for well-functioning societies. You should review this literature. Maybe you won’t agree with it, but at least immerse yourself in it.
People form parties, even when it is illegal, even if it can get them executed. Parties are just like-minded people who want to work together for what they see as a social good.
Tyrant regimes love those ONE party systems — old 1917-1991 USSR commie regime, 1933-1945 old Germany nazi regime, etc.
Lots of the 2017 State regimes are trying to be tyrant regimes via unequal ballot access laws, top 2 primaries and gerrymanders.
SCOTUS has intervened in nominations since at least the 2 Texas White primary cases circa 1928-1932.
—
PR and AppV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_primaries
More after 1932 — past stuff now like the Dark Age / Stone Age.
—-
NO primaries.
PR and AppV.
@Richard Winger,
Let’s assume that your premise that parties are necessary for a well-functioning society, and that you understand the distinction between necessity and utility. I’ll also assume that you agree that Governments are instituted to secure Life, Liberty, and Property (or pursuit of Happiness).
Then, should governments organize political parties, since they are necessary? Or if political parties are voluntary associations, should governments place barriers in the way of their creation, to ensure they have mass popular support? Should governments conduct segregated partisan primaries for these necessary political parties? Should individual citizens be required to reveal their political beliefs in order to vote in these segregated partisan primaries. That is, if parties are necessary, shouldn’t it also be necessary that individuals affiliate with them?
There are PUBLIC nominations for PUBLIC offices by PUBLIC Electors-Voters by PUBLIC laws.
—
NO primaries.
PR and AppV.
I think I have been clear for many years that I think government-adminstered primaries for parties to choose their nominees is a bad idea, not followed in other democratic countries.
The US signed the Helsinki Accords. All the nations that signed the Helsinki Accords pledged not to merge political parties with the state.
Then I don’t understand your opposition to Top 2 which eliminates government-administered primaries to choose party nominees.
Top two is a terrible limitation on voting rights in general elections. It forces the voter to vote for one of only two candidates, or not vote at all. This is especially true in California, where write-in space is not on the November ballot for top-two offices. The right to vote includes the right of choice for whom to vote.
How many write-ins with 14th Amdt, Sec 2 enacted in 1868 ???
IE– how many voters could not get a *private* printed party ballot (aka *ticket*) —
so had to write-in their votes (back when there was better handwriting) ???
If Top 2 were implemented with IRV in the primary, then that serves as the election in which all voters may vote for any candidate, and may also rank their choices, eliminating spoiler effects. The general election becomes a runoff.
You believe that there is an expressive purpose in voting, to the extent that write-in voting should be allowed in a December mayoral runoff. I disagree. While some voters may use their ballot for expressive purposes, that is not the purpose of an election.
Moreover, you appear to accept the maintenance of government-administered segregated partisan primaries, along with barriers to new parties and independent candidates, merely so you may vote a write-in in the general election, which may not even require a majority for election.
How about this federal law, replacing the 1872 law which was put in place prior to the implementation of government-printed ballots, and the 20th Amendment.
(1) The first Tuesday after the first Wednesday in September is Open Primary Tuesday (this is 8 weeks before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November).
(2) States may conduct congressional primaries on that date, so long as all candidates and all voters may participate. Restricted (partisan) congressional primaries may not be held within three weeks of that date.
(3) Congressional candidates may, at most, be required to file a petition with one-tenth of one percent of the last gubernatorial vote in the district (roughly 50 to 300). Alternatively, candidates may pay a filing fee equal to the signature requirement divided by six times the minimum wage in the state (around $60 to $750). Candidates may mix signatures and a filing fee (each signature is equal to the minimum wage divided by six. States may require a minimum number of signature of 10% of the total, or 20, whichever is greater.
(4) States may include other races on that date, so long as all candidates and all voters may participate. If they conduct partisan primaries for other offices on that date, they must be held at separate locations.
(5) States may provide for majority congressional election during the Open Primary.
(6) States may use IRV for congressional elections so long as a voter may rank all candidates on the ballot and any declared write-ins, including equal rankings, and a voter may complete the ballot by writing numerals next to each candidate on a paper ballot.
(7) States may also employ provisional IRV for overseas ballots, such that those voters may cast a provisional ballot during the primary, which will be used if they do not return a regular ballot prior to the general election.
(8) If a State conducts an Open Primary for congressional offices, the general election will be on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
(9) Any such election must require a majority of votes cast for any candidate. This may be achieved by restricting voting to two candidates, IRV, or a separate runoff.
Notes: The uniform date for the Open Primary would focus national attention on the election, so that even voters who are not white, old, and Republican or Democrat will be aware of the election. The possibility of majority election will also enhance interest.
Congressional authority is limited to congressional elections – but they do have the authority to have congressional elections conducted without confusing restrictions on participation. States would likely be inclined to use similar elections for other elections, rather than hold separate elections.
Louisiana would move its congressional primary from November to September. Washington would probably do so. California would likely move its primary to November of the preceding year.
Maine would quite likely adopt the plan, since it permits use of IRV, permits uniform systems for legislative, congressional, and gubernatorial elections, and provides for plurality election in November, consistent with the State constitution. There are likely voters in Maine who remember voting in September. While Maine could permit majority election in the congressional primary, it is more likely that they would want elections to be conducted in a consistent fashion.
Elections = making choices — for war/peace, public officers, ballot issues, breakfast, lunch, dinner, etc.
Condorcet head to head math in longer term – NO primaries needed or wanted.
Elections, like other complex and important human activities, have many purposes. Here is an analogy: some people teach that “the” purpose of sex is reproduction. But most people would agree that sex has many purposes besides reproduction. The same is true for elections.
Definition of purpose:
1. The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
That political consultants may make a living is not a purpose of elections, though because of elections, political consultants do make a living. That there is social interaction associated with elections (e.g. James Carville and Mary Matalin) is not a purpose of elections.
What would happen if there was no reproductive sex for the next 100 years?
What would happen if there were elections, but no one was chosen?