Douglas Goodman and Nevadans for Election Reform is hoping to qualify a Nevada ballot initiative for the 2020 election. It will abolish primaries, and use Ranked Choice Voting for the general election. Here is the web page.
Douglas Goodman and Nevadans for Election Reform is hoping to qualify a Nevada ballot initiative for the 2020 election. It will abolish primaries, and use Ranked Choice Voting for the general election. Here is the web page.
It appears to provide that party bosses get to dictate who their candidate is on the general election ballot. That is not freedom of association. Freedom of association would mean that citizens could organize however they want to support candidates of their choice. It doesn’t mean that you are free to go to the county courthouse which maintains a record of your political beliefs, and that if enough people sign up for the same party, that you can prevent other candidates from running.
Simplify the system: Candidates qualify as individuals by petition or an in lieu of fee (suggest 1/10 of 1% of gubernatorial vote, or a fee equivalent to signatures collected at one per 10 minutes at minimum hourly wage. Based on 2014 results for a statewide office, this is 547 signatures or $752. A combination of the two could also be used (a signature is worth $1.375).
No party names should appear on the ballot – just like in San Francisco, but political parties or other organizations, including ad hoc groups are free to support candidates.
None of These Candidates (NOTC) should be considered the last preference of all voters, including those who express no preferences. Counting should continue until NOTC has 1/3 of the vote, or only one candidate remains. If NOTC receives more than 1/3 of the vote, the last transfer (the one that caused NOTC to surpass the 1/3 threshold) will be reversed and all continuing candidates will move to a runoff.
The ‘party bosses’ dictating who their candidate is would, in fact, be citizens organizing however they want to support candidates of their choice.
It’s okay if party “bosses” nominate their party’s candidates, provided that no one is prohibited from running as an independent.
Condorcet head to head math — MOT IRV/RCV.
Demo Rep… can’t you get through your head already that it that is completely impractical to implement. There’s a reason NO country uses it. Outside of a few hundred ballots it entirely too cumbersome.
@CP,
Under the proposed scheme “citizens organizing however they want” are those who register their political beliefs with the state. But the party bosses would apparently choose the candidates (it is unlikely they would organize primaries).
It would be like the way that you became a Rotarian, a Lion, an Elk, a Baptist, Presbyterian, or Atheist would be to go register with the state.
If the state does not maintain records of the political beliefs of its citizens, then there is no basis for recognizing which parties are “qualified” to nominate, or in which _individuals_ nomination rights are vested in.
If you eliminate the party labels, then a bunch of enthusiasts who consider themselves to be “Libertarians” would be free to recruit candidates, provide financial support, run ads, block walk, hold rallies, etc. You eliminate state regulation of their activities, other than financial reports, just like any other political group.
AJ —
IRV/RCV with its *complex* math is being used.
See esp. San Fran. CA.
Condorcet uses ALL of the rank voting data — not the partial use in IRV/RCV.
in the meantime —
PR and AppV
SAN FRANCISCO VERSION RCV
http://sfgov.org/elections/marking-your-ballot
Ranked-Choice Voting [CLICK OPEN]
LIMIT 3 CHOICES
One more *extreme* FATAL example of RCV math —
49 A–M–Z
1 M–A–Z
49 Z–M–A
99
Place Votes Table
—1–2–3–T
A–49–1–49–99
M–1–98–0–99
Z–49–0–50–99
T–99–99–99–297
The clueless RCV/IRV math M-O-R-O-N-S love to ignore the mere 98 votes for M in 2nd place.
Head to Head (Condorcet) —
M beats A 50-49
M beats Z 50-49