This article describes (although not in very much detail) the oral argument held today in the Maine Supreme Court over ranked-choice voting.
UPDATE: here is a more detailed story.
This article describes (although not in very much detail) the oral argument held today in the Maine Supreme Court over ranked-choice voting.
UPDATE: here is a more detailed story.
The RCV system will create a one party system in every district it is used and so only the egomaniacs who are from the biggest civic group will identify with implementing the one party system and this fight is harmful to the cause of pure proportional representation (PPR) because very few people can articulate and explain how the correct math for PPR works to unite.
Maine’s RCV system is not good and not unifying because it is being implemented for single winner districts which shuts out all 2nd, 3rd, 4th, largest etc. interest groups.
As an example, the United Coalition’s team of POTUS candidates won the only primary that allowed Libertarian Party candidates because individuals from several political parties coordinated and won that primary with 52.7% in MO’s 2012 primary.
But the national Libertarian convention viciously fought to snuff out our team prohibiting the winner to speak to the delegates.
So since a smaller minority party had no use for the unifying message which won the only primary, it seems that the two-party system in power will have similar difficulties.
You will rhetorical claims of teamwork and blatant lies like “I am the answer to the two-party system” but equal treatment and equal time for winners for those demonstrating support for the unifying messages of PPR are a threat to biased party bosses elected under pluralist strategy and pluralist elections.
The Libertarian Party’s POTUS nominating convention uses single winner plurality ballots.
The United Coalition had been using the correct math for PPR for more than twenty-three consecutive years and PPR works fine.
Condorcet = Number Votes used correctly.
AppV- tiebreaker.
The correct way to conduct elections is to prohibit all single-winner districts and all plurality votes and to use only pure proportional representation (PPR) with no exceptions anywhere.
Just out of curiosity how do you deal with executive positions where there is only one winner and how big would you make each pool of representatives (10 each, whole state, whole country?)
We use executive by committee, for example in a five member executive, approval requires 3/5ths vote.
Quantity varies, in general bigger the better, but other factors like supply and demand and population numbers can come into play.
In the International Parliament, only 1000 seats (527 filled), so we’re not trying to make the assembly bigger.
In the California Super-state Parliament, we stayed with a cap at 100, then 1000, now 250, and our guidelines change the cap number as the majority coalition votes to change the rules.
On the paper ballot for the 7th California Super-state Parliament election, we have 242 nominees.
So with about eight write-ins we reach capacity.
But the demand is low, but even so, we don’t want to keep people out.
For a bigger entity the dynamics change, many factors, so those who have interest in changing the cap have different reasons.
One of our members wants two International Parliament (IP) Senators from every country (205 countries) but others want one at-large world district of 500 where the threshold is 1/501ths (plus one vote) or slightly less than .02% (plus one vote).
My personal opinion is that I like very low thresholds whenever possible. But a five-member executive with a 1/6th (plus one vote) for each executive is fine.
The top ranked executive picks first, maybe they pick President, or maybe another role, but the highest ranked picks their title first.
Title names/roles for executives are determined by the rules approved by the guidelines.
So one set of guidelines has certain titles that can be chosen by the winners.
The idea is maximum fairness, yet structure, but every entity can have different ways for executives to pick titles.
So rules are restricted on what they choose, other may allow any title, that is up to the approved guidelines.
Our team approaches single winner districts for executives as a team.
It’s OK for the team to try to have a team member win a single winner seat.
When one person wins, the whole team wins.
Our team does not try to create new single winner executive elections nor do we allow plurality votes for our own team. With team psychology, we only look at the team in the mirror, to make the team better.
We can participate in pluralist single winner districts but we ate critical of them and we want to change them, to 2 to 10 member executive committees, depending on circumstances.
The First International Parliament, had a ten member executive:
http://www.international-parliament.org
The ten execs rank the 60 Cabinet Ministers, using our innovative “parliamentary go-ahead”, one of several of our innovations.
Since we prohibited single winners within our voting system for 23 years, it worked out fine for team psychology, even though we didn’t know it for about the first 15 years of prohibiting single winners.
So existing entities under plurality elections like the Libertarian Party, would have a difficult time learning team psychology, since their single winner districts are top to bottom.
Ours is a new policy and policy is easier set top to bottom from the beginning, but it’s hard to go in as an outsider to set policy.
Very good luck with a multiple executive in a time of WAR or Rebellion —
Re sample rebellion — see the 3 executive Stooges in the 1967 Detroit Riot/Rebellion —
Prez, Guv, Hizzoner Mayor — pointing moron fingers and mouths at each other while the city burned and died.
1950-2010 Detroit – about 60 (repeat 60) percent population loss
ie on schedule to have ZERO human population by 2050
— but lots of plants and animals in the ruins.
Regarding the team psychology, teamwork means communicating, practising, repetition, trust building, etc.
For example we can phone members on the team, players to coordinate, and through PPR we can use team actions in polutics like taking turns, etc.
But when you work with pluralists who don’t use PPR, you are trying to engage with people who think being rude, fighting, slandering, being impolite is ok, etc.
It’s easy to ask if someone is interested in a unifying voting system, if not we turn and walk away.
In that way we can avoid wasting time on people disinterested in teamwork.
So the PPR identifies the good team players from the bad and helps save a lot of time that could be wasted.
One person can only do so much, so you always appreciate need the team psychology and the PPR structure for collaboration and efficiency in politics.
It may take trial and error of course but never expect teamwork from those disinterested in PPR because plurality elections and those involved are by far much less dependable than team players who are affiliated under PPR.
Maine elects 151 state representatives, 35 state senators, 2 US representatives, 1 US senator, and 1 governor. It has four qualified parties that nominate by primary. So in total, there are 760 separate races, where voters are segregated based on geography and political affiliation.
Only 4 of those 760 contests have so many as three candidates (0.53% or about 1/2 of one percent). It is illegal for unenrolled voters to vote in any of these races.
The Tennessee Libertarians only thought they were being absurd compared to this.
While I tend to agree with James’ objections to RCV (see my article on Australian elections in Voice for Democracy), the system has been used Down Under for a full century. It does give third parties and independent candidates and their supporters a fairer say than the USA’s antiquated system, but Proportional Representation is the only fair way to elect legislators.
Casey, go to SF where BAN has supported RCV since 1994 when Mike Ossipoff and I informed Rob Richie that he was following the Hagenbach-Bishoff method incorrectly and how the one party system in SF will viciously oppose outsiders to win a single seat on SF county supervisors. That is what you are interested in cementing in place in more places but regular people have been snuffed out in SF under RCV in single-winner districts. I am opposed to its use for single winners everywhere and have tried to demonstrate teamwork but I have been inadequate at my work.
The United Coalition’s effort in 2018 is on Earth Day and we can build on the team in California there but not in SF, thanks to the censors, bullies and psychopathic egomaniacs who have implemented RCV in SF.
@JO,
If you were going to change the election system in SF, how would you do it?
Would you keep the directly elected mayor?
How large would the Board of Supervisors be, and how would it be elected. Would the elections be partisan? When would the elections be held, and what would the terms be?
Would you separate the city and county governments, and if so, how?