The Press-Enterprise, daily newspaper for Riverside, California, has this story about how the top-two system injures California’s minor parties. It may be behind a pay wall.
The Press-Enterprise, daily newspaper for Riverside, California, has this story about how the top-two system injures California’s minor parties. It may be behind a pay wall.
The minor parties need to look in the mirror to understand their difficulties. The single winner district party bosses elected under plurality elections create a policy of division and reward for conciepted ego maniac male candidates.
Us men are uniting by putting our opposite gender #1 with consecutively ranked alternating genders, equal treatment and equal time for all candidates including recognized write in names, under pure proportional representation (PPR).
The United Coalition USA has been using PPR for more than twenty-three consecutive years and PPR works best.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc-p7-usa.html
Oh yes, we need to look in the mirror Ogle…despite being some of the strongest supporters of Ranked Choice and Proportional Representation, and some of the victims of the current plurality system ourselves. Such electoral reforms are a central part of my campaign for County Board for instance.
That comment of yours was about as far from reality as one can get, with only the Democrat Party spoiler theorists being any worse.
So, is James Ogle the old Demo Rep after an acid trip? Wow.
JH and SG –
Is JO in his own alternative universe with or without drugs ???
REAL PR has NO quota stuff – sex, age, whatever.
Basic P.R. —
Party Members = Party Votes x [[[ Total Members / Total Votes ]]]
Difficult only for incumbent gerrymander oligarchs from Hell – and math morons with AREA fixations.
Joshua, I checked and liked your campaign page.
I am registered Green Party myself, but proclaiming One Party, because the California Green Party is finally working their way closer to pure proportional representation and I am the one they ran NOTA in 1994 when I ran for CA Got on a platform of state voting reform through pure proportional representation (PPR).
So Herd and I have formed a national Libertarian/Green ticket for POTUS and he is pushing PPR on as California State LP exec.
He and I are teaming up for a fun campaign to get behind our opposite gender #1 with consecutively alternating ranked genders thereafter.
That way our unity team can promote an idea that under PPR when 2/3rds of the voters alternate between the two genders when they vote we are guaranteed the top female and top male (or visa versa).
If our team starts gathering steam we’ll try to connect with your campaign in Illinois.
We already have campaign volunteers in Montana and Mississippi and I will find out whether they can travel. I will get back to you when we know. PPR is the unifying message.
I love Illinois. I went to college in Chicago.
I tend to favor Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (gives Independents a chance to run as well), but thank you for Liking my Facebook Page James Ogle! I think the important thing is that more of the electorate knows there are alternatives to the incredibly flawed plurality voting system (and the even more flawed Top Two system in CA).
@DR,
Why do you need political parties? What if you like John Conyers but don’t like Debbie Dingell?
Why not everyone is elected and get to vote the votes received in the legislature?
JR —
Obviously about 90 plus percent of voters are too lazy regarding politics —
thus some sort of Platform stuff slammed together by left/right party elites.
—
See ancient Greece — LIMITED number of Voters voting on stuff.
Same for EARLY Rome regime — total corruption later.
The defective AREA representation stuff in the DARK AGE for the olde English House of Commons was MAJOR *progressive* compared to the tyrant killer/enslaver regimes in most of Europe for centuries.
With the England-France Hundred Years War and the later War(s) of the Roses gangs in England — the top killers/enslavers in England literally got killed off — permitting English Parliament to get going in 1485-1689 — aided by printing in mid-1400s.
Semi-*modern* times only since 1689 – English Revolution.
Systematic destruction of monarch/oligarch systems since 1689 — 1789 France, 1860 Italy, 1918 Germany – Austro-Hungary, Russia, Ottoman regimes, 1945 Germany more, Japan
Longer term — Voters — direct votes on bills or choose an agent/proxy — need 100 percent safe voting systems.
—
PR and AppV – pending advanced reforms.
My understanding of the math in elections is:
RCV in single-winner districts = one-party system (like SF today)
Plurality voting in single-winner districts = two-party system (like most of USA today)
Top Two = three-party system (when voters or parties unite, the 33.33% plus one, guarantees to elect a 3rd party or independent)
MMP = not pure proportional representation (bad for outsiders and independents because party bosses prepare the lists)
PPR = total votes cast/total seats = lowest/equal threshold for all. (Best, and the bigger the assembly, the lower the threshold.)
Approval Voting = not pure proportional representation
Pure proportional representation (PPR) requires ranked choice voting (RCV) and single transferable vote (STV).
Cambridge Massachusetts has use PPR on paper ballots for more than 60 years, they love it and it works fine. With nine at-large seats, the threshold is 1/9th of the votes (plus one vote), or 10% (plus one vote), depending on which one of two equations, Mike Ossipoff’s or mine:
By Mike Ossipoff [Peace and Freedom] in 1992
Divide the election’s total number of votes by the number of seats. This is the 1st quota.
Divide this quota into each candidate’s votes, and round off to the nearest whole number. That’s that candidate’s seat allocation.
If, due to rounding, this awards a number of seats different from the desired number of seats, then adjust the quota slightly up or down until when paragraph two is carried out, it will award all seats.
* * *
By James Ogle [One] in 2018
Total number of votes / total at-large seats (plus one seat) = Hagnebach-Bischoff Quota
Any candidates reaching quota (plus one vote) is elected
Calibrate quota up or down (within 1/10,000th accuracy) until all seats are elected and filled.
* * *
Difference between legislative and exec/judic offices.
Cambridge, Mass wastes 10 percent minus 1 of the legis votes.
—
PR and AppV – pending Condorcet
@James Ogle: You write, “So Herd and I have formed a national Libertarian/Green ticket for POTUS and he is pushing PPR on as California State LP exec.
He and I are teaming up for a fun campaign to get behind our opposite gender #1 with consecutively alternating ranked genders thereafter.”
Why are both of the candidates on your national ticket men if you are forming a campaign based on alternating genders among the candidates? Shouldn’t you have a male presidential nominee and a female VP nominee or vice versa?
Joshua, you present a good question. Anyone can give me a call at (831) 224-5786 to chat about this process of teamwork under PPR.
Look at Prez/VP in the 8th California Super-state Parliament and the 10th USA Parliament.
One has a gender balance at Prez/VP and one does not, that’s because the voters picked them as a two-member team so the voters decide.
Both committees elected Prez/VP to four year terms and the national terms will likely be trimmed to end in April of 2020 instead of August 2020.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc-p7-usa.html
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc-p7-usa-ss11.html
The United Coalition USA has the team all set up.
The party bosses will try to do everything to destroy the unity so there is no guarantee that our team will actually determine the candidates.
We are outsiders looking in and the party bosses will certainly try to destroy, censor, degrade and divide our team so we don’t have much of a chance unless we work harder to unify the voters.
http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/
Brit STV stuff 1800s.
LOW LOW LOW knowledge about REAL election reforms in USA —
due to 1776 era rotted Brit AREA systems — ie gerrymander/plurality ROT in the Brit House of Commons
— same G/P ROT political disease infections in ALL State legislatures and the later USA Congress.
ROT for centuries.
—
PR and AppV
@DR,
I don’t see what laziness has to do with it.
@JO,
How can any system that ends up with a voter being represented by their 5th choice be regarded as pure?
JR – the many lazy voters
(having real lives to live — NOT having 24/7 fixations on the latest HACK machinations)
would have their proxy/agent party hacks voting for them —
EXCEPT perhaps in super-dangerous times — ie direct votes on life or death CRISIS issues — civil/foreign WAR.
@DR,
That would happen under your system, except a voter could not choose their preferred agent.
JR, the STV (single transferable vote) allows one vote to count.
It may not be the voters’ first choice, and under the vote counting like in Cambridge MA, the lowest vote getter is eliminated first round by round.
The results are that for nine seats, 90% (plus nine votes) of the votes counted to elect at least one name. It may not be the voters’ first choice, but since the 90% (plus nine votes) is guaranteed to elect a name year after year, the voter can vote for whom they really want so many more candidates can vie without worrying about the split vote problem where none of their preferences would be elected.
After counting votes in this system every year for twenty-three consecutive years I can remember many cases where far more voters are satisfied.
The guaranteed satisfaction level is always the same and predictable under ranked choice voting (RCV).
It’s based on the same principle and math similar to where the threshold of 50% (plus one vote) would be guaranteed and the percentages in multiple winners is always the same, predictable and the closest percent possible to create ties that are broken only by one vote.
That’s why the Hagenbach-Bishoff quota math hasn’t ever been improved. Because you can’t get any closer that a tie which gets broken by one vote.
All the candidates need is equal time and equal treatment because the voting system is already perfect.
The party bosses will do their best to be biased and unfair but the mathematics are perfect.
The web links listed above were updated today and now President and Vice President come up there fine on the United Coalition California and United Coalition USA home pages.
United Coalition USA:
President: James Ogle [One]
Vice President: Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian]
10th USA Parliament
https://usparliament.org/
* * *
@Joogle,
If the quota is 10, and I and 11 voters vote for Larry, why should Larry only get 10/11 of my vote, and Curly 1/11. If I wanted Curly as my representative, I would have voted for him.
Let Larry exercise 11 votes in the legislature. This weight is purely proportional to his support.
Condorcet — correct math for Number Votes.
For PR elections — elect N (at least 2) per district —
to avoid giant ballots.
Voting Power = Votes (direct and indirect from losers).
Computer voting — IF function in spreadsheets.
SF CA —
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Possible-new-election-twist-for-voters-who-want-13109151.php
Possible new election twist for voters who want to rank more than 3 choices: Try 10
—
The RCV infection gets worse.
JR SECOND ABOVE —
Possible continuous proxy/agent changes in voting powers — IF limited number of proxy/agents
— esp if they are physically meeting
— ie continuous *elections*.
Again – election = making choices.
IE – New Voter in Area — picks a proxy agent or directly votes on bills.
Move out/Pass away Voters in Area = reduced proxy/agent voting powers.
In Cambridge MA, with nine seats, the threshold is 1/10th of the votes (plus one vote).
The first nine names to break the 10-way tie with one vote are elected.
It’s the same principle in a single-winner election where one name/item is elected when one vote breaks a two-way tie, one name/item wins with 50% (plus one vote).
In electing a 100-member assembly, the threshold is 1/101ths (.99%) plus one vote.
As the number of seats elected, the threshold goes down and the guaranteed satisfaction level goes up.
Guaranteed satisfaction level in single-winner is 50% (plus one vote).
Guaranteed satisfaction level in nine-member district is 90% (plus nine votes).
Guaranteed satisfaction level in 100-member district is 99% (plus 100 votes).
Always the same threshold and guaranteed satisfaction level in all elections using RCV and STV. Never changes.
MAJOR differences between legis and exec/judic offices.
—
PR and Appv – pending Condorcet.
@Joogle,
Imagine there are 100 voters.
George gets 12 votes,
John gets 10 votes.
Tom gets 8 votes.
If the quota is 10, then under your system George, John, and Tom might be elected, but the election of Tom might come from transfers from George, perhaps their last preference. How can the George supporters be considered satisfied?
Under a pure proportional system George would get 12 votes in the legislature, and would thus have influence in proportion to his actual support.
@DR,
I can’t tell if you are endorsing my method, or offering a criticism.
There would be no reason to limit the number of representatives. Some of the less-supported representatives might have restricted roles.
Let’s say the nominal size of the Michigan legislature was 215 members (cube root rule), but there are 747 persons who receive votes. Then they would elect the 215 persons who would serve in person and have speaking rights, and would also elect committee members. The other representatives might be limited to voting on final passage, and perhaps have limited sponsorship rights.
I like your idea of continuous election, but I’m not sure that it could be realized without compromising the secret ballot. If this were possible, an individual vote might have a longevity of one year, after which it expired. Voters who died or moved away would have their influence disappear. Voters who did not vote again within a year would have lapsed support, but could vote again at any time. If a voter became dissatisfied with their representative, they could vote early, and cancel their previous vote. Newcomers could also vote at any time.
To simplify administration and preserve voter privacy, votes might be tabulated monthly.
If a representative died or resigned, any support they had received would gradually be reduced over the next year. Perhaps they could have a temporary successor to exercise their votes.
Yes to JR’s method. The only way to have pure proportional representation is if each candidate’s power is determined by their support.