Here it is, hot off the press on Monday, September 9.
Comments
FairVote Releases Updated Study : “A History of Third Party and Independent Presidential Candidates” — 16 Comments
Why is it a problem that people express their most preferred candidate? Why the need to mathematically manipulate people to achieve a manufactured illusion of a majority?
A better solution to this “problem” is the Liberty Ballot, a write-in only ballot with a voter verifiable secret ballot receipt. Truthful election results have a credibility that no manipulation of censored ballots can achieve.
While ranked choice voting is a solution, it’s not the only one. Run-off voting in swing states is an option. Run-off voting is used in several states already, such as Georgia and Louisiana, as well as many other countries.
Approval voting for President is also an option. In fact, there is no reason that different states cannot use different methods to vote for Presidential electors in their states. One great unrecognized benefit of the Electoral College is that it allows each state to use the voting method that its people prefer.
IMO, the option that could be implemented most quickly and easily would be approval voting. No change in the design of the ballot is required, No need for an actual run-off. Simply have the legislature authorize the counting of all over-votes for President.
IMO, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Colorado case opened the doors for the presidential election to be considered national with national voting standards.
Because of the importance of the office, if you junked the electoral college, you would have a national election with a runoff two weeks later if nobody gets a majority, just a plurality. France does it this way.
DATED July 16, 2019 — OLDE BROKEN PRESS ???
1860 >>> 750,000 DEAD IN 1861-1866
—-
CONDORCET = RCV DONE RIGHT
“if you junked the electoral college, you would have a national election with a runoff two weeks later”
Easier said than done. Not likely that a Constitutional amendment to that effect would pass any time soon. Even the NPV proposal seems to have reached a limit. Anyway, the NPV has implementation issues that I don’t think it’s proponents have fully considered. As it stands now, the NPV doesn’t provide for a run-off. In fact, it would give the election to anyone who got 40% of the popular vote.
Maine and Nebraska are showing the way. If you don’t like the way the Electoral College is chosen, your state can change the method used. No need for a Constitutional amendment, or some difficult to implement grand compact.
“CONDORCET = RCV DONE RIGHT”
Is that the only possible solution?
In fact, if a state wanted to, they could write into their law that all their electoral votes would be rewarded to the winner of the national popular vote. No need for any interstate compact.
I DARE you, California. Just do it.
And, let’s be honest about something: it has become increasingly difficult for ANY candidate of ANY party to get 50% of the popular vote for President. Reagan was the last President to win election in an unambiguous popular landslide. Both major parties are trying to gimmick the system to give them the edge.
Maybe we should just get rid of this idea of giving the Presidential election to any candidate who can eek out a mere, narrow plurality, and choose all the electors proportionally, from whatever parties, who would just meet and negotiate the final election, sort of like what the Founders intended. Could it be any worse than what we have now?
WZ –
END PREZ VETO
END PREZ PARDONS
END PREZ NOMS OF FED JUDGES
—
PART OF
PR
APPV – NONPARTISAN EXECS/JUDICS
TOTSOP
Honest question. Besides 14-2, where does the US Constitution mandate public elections for president?
@AZ, WZ,
Condorcet done right would let groups of voters evaluate pairs of candidates. For example, if there were 20 candidates, there would be 190 groups of voters, with each group evaluating one pair of candidates. Each candidate would get a W or L for each match-up (19 results for each candidate). These would be shown in a league table.
@AC,
14-2 does not mandate that there be an election for presidential electors, but rather that if a State chooses to have a popular election for presidential electors it be open to all males over the age of 21 (subject to the apportionment penalty). See 14-2 applied to judicial officers, not all of which are elected.
@Just Me,
But France uses paper ballots with in-person voting only. Once you get computers involved it takes much longer.
Why is it a problem that people express their most preferred candidate? Why the need to mathematically manipulate people to achieve a manufactured illusion of a majority?
A better solution to this “problem” is the Liberty Ballot, a write-in only ballot with a voter verifiable secret ballot receipt. Truthful election results have a credibility that no manipulation of censored ballots can achieve.
While ranked choice voting is a solution, it’s not the only one. Run-off voting in swing states is an option. Run-off voting is used in several states already, such as Georgia and Louisiana, as well as many other countries.
Approval voting for President is also an option. In fact, there is no reason that different states cannot use different methods to vote for Presidential electors in their states. One great unrecognized benefit of the Electoral College is that it allows each state to use the voting method that its people prefer.
IMO, the option that could be implemented most quickly and easily would be approval voting. No change in the design of the ballot is required, No need for an actual run-off. Simply have the legislature authorize the counting of all over-votes for President.
IMO, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Colorado case opened the doors for the presidential election to be considered national with national voting standards.
Because of the importance of the office, if you junked the electoral college, you would have a national election with a runoff two weeks later if nobody gets a majority, just a plurality. France does it this way.
DATED July 16, 2019 — OLDE BROKEN PRESS ???
1860 >>> 750,000 DEAD IN 1861-1866
—-
CONDORCET = RCV DONE RIGHT
“if you junked the electoral college, you would have a national election with a runoff two weeks later”
Easier said than done. Not likely that a Constitutional amendment to that effect would pass any time soon. Even the NPV proposal seems to have reached a limit. Anyway, the NPV has implementation issues that I don’t think it’s proponents have fully considered. As it stands now, the NPV doesn’t provide for a run-off. In fact, it would give the election to anyone who got 40% of the popular vote.
Maine and Nebraska are showing the way. If you don’t like the way the Electoral College is chosen, your state can change the method used. No need for a Constitutional amendment, or some difficult to implement grand compact.
“CONDORCET = RCV DONE RIGHT”
Is that the only possible solution?
In fact, if a state wanted to, they could write into their law that all their electoral votes would be rewarded to the winner of the national popular vote. No need for any interstate compact.
I DARE you, California. Just do it.
And, let’s be honest about something: it has become increasingly difficult for ANY candidate of ANY party to get 50% of the popular vote for President. Reagan was the last President to win election in an unambiguous popular landslide. Both major parties are trying to gimmick the system to give them the edge.
Maybe we should just get rid of this idea of giving the Presidential election to any candidate who can eek out a mere, narrow plurality, and choose all the electors proportionally, from whatever parties, who would just meet and negotiate the final election, sort of like what the Founders intended. Could it be any worse than what we have now?
WZ –
END PREZ VETO
END PREZ PARDONS
END PREZ NOMS OF FED JUDGES
—
PART OF
PR
APPV – NONPARTISAN EXECS/JUDICS
TOTSOP
WZ — NONPARTISAN APPROVAL VOTING — PENDING CONDORCET [WITH APPV TIEBREAKER]
Honest question. Besides 14-2, where does the US Constitution mandate public elections for president?
@AZ, WZ,
Condorcet done right would let groups of voters evaluate pairs of candidates. For example, if there were 20 candidates, there would be 190 groups of voters, with each group evaluating one pair of candidates. Each candidate would get a W or L for each match-up (19 results for each candidate). These would be shown in a league table.
@AC,
14-2 does not mandate that there be an election for presidential electors, but rather that if a State chooses to have a popular election for presidential electors it be open to all males over the age of 21 (subject to the apportionment penalty). See 14-2 applied to judicial officers, not all of which are elected.
@Just Me,
But France uses paper ballots with in-person voting only. Once you get computers involved it takes much longer.