The State of Illinois recently created a Ranked Choice Voting Task Force to study possible implementation of Ranked Choice Voting, with an emphasis on possible adoption for presidential primaries in 2028. A final report is due by March 1, 2024, but, as of today, according to this link, it appears that 16 of the 20 members of the Task Force have yet to be appointed.
Wouldn’t surprise me a communist state like Illinois would push this.
The Democrats often like to operate on timescales of decades when the situation call for timescales of a few years. This incrementalism is almost as bad as doing nothing at all for the third party candidates/supporters and Independents being impacted by the current rigged, undemocratic election system.
Approval voting would probably be better for Presidential primaries. It would be easier to apportion delegates, and much easier for voters to use, than ranked choice voting.
In any event, parties using primaries should be given a choice as to which voting method to use in their own primaries.
HOW MANY PARTIAL/ILLEGAL VOTES USING RCV IN RECENT ELECTIONS ???
——–
THAT SAID –
CONDORCET = RCV DONE RIGHT.
—-
NOOO EXTREMIST PARTY HACK PRIMARIES
—
P-A-T
COMMIE rank confusion voting can’t be done right. Max plan!
I second the Max Plan.
Those of us with reversible thumbs give it all our thumbs up.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/13/irs-whistleblower-hunter-probe-took-notes-00115623
H. BIDEN PROBE ROT – MORE *INVESTIGATIONS* DUH.
—
NONPARTISAN ELECTION OF USA PREZ/VP AND MORE USA EXECS –
SOS, AG, TREAS, MARSHALS, DIST ATTYS
END THE DE FACTO PREZ MONARCHY
https://www.yahoo.com/news/joe-biden-becoming-dangerous-remove-182245726.html
J BIDEN MENTAL ROT
FAKE NEWS ???
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2023/09/13/psychopaths-walk-among-us-how-to-know-if-youre-dating-one/70832333007/
HOW MANY PREZ CAND P PERSONS ???
HOW MANY TROLL MORON P PERSONS – ESP ON BAN ???
YES/NO APPROVAL VOTING TIEBREAKER ALSO WITH CONDORCET ABOVE.
Biden’s mental rot is definitely not fake news. The publication you cite covering it might be. Most of your links are from known fake news purveyors, so chances are it is as well. You should adjust your reading list. Better sources have been suggested repeatedly.
You’ve never addressed the main objection to “nonpartisan” elections. I don’t think you are capable of it. Jim Riley is, but doesn’t want to. Anyone else?
Did AZ just admit to being a psychopath???
That’s how I read it too!
FOLKS LOVE THE PARTISAN HACKS IN THE *JUSTICE* SYSTEM –
USA AG, MARSHALS, DAS, JUDGES.
—
NONPARTISAN EXECS/JUDICS – VIA APPV – PENDING CONDORCET
@CKF,
I think AZ believes that the executive should be like George Washington who would never rule by decree and was known as the Chief Magistrate in the Federalist. Are you in favor of an imperial presidency? All Hail Caesar?
Jim Riley believes if private political clubs want to support a particular candidate there is no reason for the state to designate the club as “qualified”. In fact the only ones who really favor that scheme are those in office who want to keep potential competitors at bay as “unqualified”, or who make a living as political advisors.
Why does CKF believe judges should be partisan?
CKF wants gradual evolution towards the MAX PLAN. I’m not in favor of imperial presidency, big government, large nation states, large states, or any of that. I want micronations and governments that could be drowned in a bathtub without anyone noticing. The last part is probably a slight exaggeration.
As any number of people have pointed out, de jure nonpartisan governments are not actually nonpartisan. This is not a theory; it’s actually the most common thing at the municipal level and in some judicial, Nebraska legislature and other such races where party labels are not included on the ballot, but the party of political candidates is nevertheless well known. In Tennessee, it’s very easy to qualify as an independent but very difficult to qualify as a party, so ballots are often crowded with large numbers of independents, many of whom wish they could have a party label, since their names alone don’t tell voters anything, few voters research candidates just because they’re on the ballot, and they and their party don’t have enough resources to advertise adequately.
That’s basically what happens in officially nonpartisan elections. The biggest, most well funded, most well known and well connected candidates, parties, factions, etc get an advantage over less well known, less well financed, less well connected ones. Their less well advantaged competition, who rely on a ballot label much more, particularly in the earlier election cycles of trying to build a following, get screwed when that option is not available.
If anything I think voters should vote by party, and the selection of office holders should be up to the winning party and its internal process. But I’m relatively happier with a combination of candidates and party labels on the ballot rather than candidate names only.
As for keeping out “unqualified,” than can be done by raising the qualification fee, signature requirements, number of supporters required to appear, or whatever the scheme is. It has all the barrier effects of party qualifications as a barrier, but without giving outsider candidates the option of networking with a minor party that has used its ballot label over time to build a cohesive enough following to make qualification plausible. Furthermore, the candidate (who often realizes he can’t win) loses the option to use the race to help build the party brand as a vehicle for other and or future candidates.
The only candidates and parties officially nonpartisan elections help are the establishment ones, who don’t need any additional advantage.
THE PARTISAN EXECUTIVE ROT IS CONNECTED TO PARTISAN HACK APPOINTMENTS, LEGIS VETOES AND JUDIC PARDONS – [OLDE BRITISH MONARCH ROT]
THUS THE TYRANT EX/CURRENT PREZS — T AND B
REMEDY – TOTAL SOP
ELECTING MORE NONPARTISAN EXECS WILL CAUSE EACH TO WATCH EACH OTHER
AND BOTH LEFT/RIGHT LEGISLATORS TO WATCH ALL OF THEM.
FOR ADVANCED FOLKS — SEE SPIRIT OF THE LAWS BY MONTESQUIEU 1748 FRENCH >>> IN ENGLISH 1760
— IN TIME FOR USA AM REV WAR >>> STATE CONSTS >>> 1787 USA CONST —
BUT WITH THE VARIOUS FATAL BRIT DEFECTS —
BLOWING UP IN 2016, 2020 AND COMING 2024 PREZ ELECTIONS
Naturally, AZ totally failed to address the actual argument, and just mindlessly repeats his slogans like the non player character he is. AZ suffers from cognitive decline like Beijing Biden and is incapable of any thought or ability to address counterarguments.
Nonpartisan (officially, but not actually) election happen frequently for judges and most of the time for municipal office. They have none of the effects he claims.
@CKF,
On a scale of 100 to 0, where 0 is the Max Plan, and 100 is an absolute imperial megastate, where do you think various countries are at on this gradual evolutionary path?
Louisiana, Washington, California, and Alaska have a variety of party labels on the legislative ballot. Why are they better than Nebraska? If everyone knows the party in Nebraska what is different?
You are contradicting yourself when you say that you want lesser known parties get on the ballot, but want the winning party to appoint all office holders. You would have Ronna McDaniel or Jaime Harrison appoint all governors, legislators, postmasters, police chiefs, police officers, etc.?
Why do put ‘unqualified’ in quotes – is it because you know that is a false characterization? Do you tell your neighbor to not vote for a particular party because they are “not qualified”, don’t just take my word for it, it is an official determination by our state government, and they are looking out for our best interests.
Many years ago Illinois used Cumulative Voting to elect members of the State House of Representatives. Each State Senate district would elect one Senator, by plurality vote. In each district, voters would elect 3 State Representatives. Each voter had 3 votes, which they could cast for one candidate, or divide among 2 or 3 candidates.
The norm would be that the Democrats and Republicans would nominate 2 candidates for Representative in each district. The larger of the two parties would elect 2, the smaller party would elect one, thus providing for some minority representation in each district.
Eventually some court ruled that this system violated the “one man, one vote” principle elucidated by the Supreme Court, and Illinois adopted the more common single seat districts with plurality vote.
END OF IL CV CIRCA 1982
—
P-A-T
Huh?
@Pat,
End of Israel Curriculum Vitae Around 1982.
1982 was when Israel switched to use the American term of resume.
Oy gevalt.
@GB,
It is an interesting story:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jillistathistsoc.110.3-4.0352
Cumulative voting (CV) was part of the 1870 Constitution. Unlike some forms of CV where a voter can allocate his votes among the candidates, in Illinois a voter could vote for three candidates, giving one vote to each; for two candidates, giving 1-1/2 to each; or plumping for one candidate, giving all three votes that candidate.
Parties soon learned to only run two candidates. With a modest majority, an even split among three candidates, which might happen if voters blindly voted D or R might mean the majority party would only elect one. To maintain tighter control, the minority party might only run one candidate.
It was observed that in Democratic-leaning areas a liberal Republican might be elected since he get cross-over votes, as well as votes from deliberate ticket splitters. In Republican areas, a moderate Democrat (what we would call a Blue Dog) might be elected. For a while the House Speaker was a Democrat from suburban DuPage County.
In a study of 816 races over decades, only 12 races had 3+2 candidates, none were 3+3, almost all were 2+2 or 2+1.
After a OMOV decision the legislature failed to redistrict and the entire House was elected at large. 118 Republicans and 118 Democrats were on the ballot, and voters were instructed to vote for not more than 177! This may have caused OMOV becoming conflated with the demise of CV.
In 1970, CV was amended to require a party to have at least two candidates. Minority parties adapted by running some nebbish who would not campaign, so that their real candidate would be elected.
What eventually triggered the elimination of CV was when the legislature voted a 40% pay raise. The governor immediately vetoed it, which was immediately overridden. From introduction to override of the veto it took seven hours. The governor claimed that the original proposal was for a 140% raise. If the governor had simply waited until the end of the session there would not have been an opportunity to override his veto.
This resulted in a popular constitutional initiative to “reform” the legislature. In Illinois, the initiative is restricted to the Legislative Article, and must make procedural AND structural changes. The ‘AND’ has been strictly construed by the Illinois Supreme Court.
The structural change was to reduce the House of Representatives from 177 to 118 members. The procedural change was to switch from CV elections from 3-member districts to plurality election from one single member districts. The campaign was waged on cutting back on the number of representative who had received the 40% pay raise. Cumulative voting was not a central issue.
The after effect has been a more polarized legislature, and less diversity in the caucuses. The single-member house districts nested in a senate district are drawn to be twins. Senate districts are drawn outward from Chicago to ensure Democratic majorities like sausages. They are then sliced down the middle into two House districts.
Instructed to vote for no more than 177? Sounds almost AZ ranked replacement list proportional representation level crazy.
@My Struggle,
A little more research discovered that the at-large election was the result of a provision in the Illinois Constitution that said if the legislature failed to redistrict an at-large election would be held. The Constititution has since been amended that if a commission consisting of 4 D’s and 4 R’s fails to redistrict, that a 9th member be drawn at random between a D and an R appointed by the Supreme Court.
The 1964 ballot was 33 inches long and orange. It was the answer to a riddle what is as big as a bath towel and is orange? The 118 Democrats were in one column and the 118 Republicans the other. A voter could mark a circle at the top of the column to select all 118 nominees of one party. They could then select up to 59 individuals of the opposite party, though the parties urged the voters to skip that.
The Democrats headed their ticket with Adlai Stevenson III (son on the 1952 and 1956 VP candidate) and John A. Kennedy (no relation to the JFK). The Republicans were headed by Earl D. Eisenhower (younger brother of Dwight D. Eisenhower, president from 1953-1961).
There was about 10% variation among individual vote totals but all 118 Democrats received more votes than all 118 Republicans and were elected. The top 59 Republicans were also elected. The 2:1 D:R supermajority was the largest ever, though they are currently close 78D:40R.
Kopf means head, not struggle. Although in the case of “vote for no more than 177” the head can certainly struggle.
@MK,
Mein Fehler, I had read a different word.
Richard J. Daley (Chicago Mayor from 1955-1976) was elected as a Republican to the House of Representatives under CV in 1936. The Republican incumbent died 15 days before the election, too late to reprint the ballots. The Chicago machine organized a write-in campaign for the young Daley who was 34 at the time. He along with two on-ballot Democrats were elected.
There was a question about where he should sit at the capitol in Springfield. There was a motion to have him sit with the Democrats. The Republican leader rose to say he didn’t care one way or the other avout the motion, I just want to know where he wants to sit. Daley pointed, “with those guys over there”. The Republican leader replied, “let him, we don’t want him on our side.”
Thank you for the historical tidbit.