Chance to test IRV: FairVote is hosting an on-line poll for Governor of Minnesota race

Thanks to Tom Cleland, a blogger and a supporter of Farheen Hakeem, for the tip on the FairVote poll.

FairVote is hosting a ranked-choice poll for Governor of Minnesota. The poll is a chance to see IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) applied in a race with several, third party candidates. The poll is at:

http://fairvotemn.org/node/1826/simplevote

There are seven candidates on the ballot. In this exercise, voters may choose 6 candidates.

The candidates are:

Mark Dayton (Democratic Farmer Labor Party)
Tom Emmer (Republican Party)

Linda Eno  (Resource Party)
Farheen Hakeem (Green Party)
Tom Horner (Independence Party)
Ken Pentel (Ecology Democracy)
Chris Wright (Grassroots Party)

24 thoughts on “Chance to test IRV: FairVote is hosting an on-line poll for Governor of Minnesota race

  1. Kimberly Wilder Post author

    Tom Cleland, a Hakeem supporter, wrote:

    Remember, with IRV, you can rank your favorite candidate first. Will you vote for Farheen Hakeem? I ranked my ballot as follows, from liberal to conservative:

    1. Hakeem (Green Party)
    2. Pentel (Ecology Democracy)
    3. Wright (Grassroots)
    4. Dayton (Democratic Farmer Labor Party)
    5. Eno (Resource)
    6. Horner (Independence Party)

  2. James O. Ogle "Joogle"

    Re: #4, paper ballots

    You look at the ink below, using a seven member district…there we have a team of seven, seven winners in the state of California.

    The eballots are posted there as proof. If you want a paper copy, either print them out, or transfer them via percil and paper.

    http://usparliament.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=44&sid=233e4c796c2415e7b052d84ce96d4e65

    Whether you have paper ballots or computerized ballots, either way single winner districts attract egotists who are not team players.

    I’m for a stack of paper ballots as proof, I keep all mine in stacks as well as online in the forum when possible.

    But I don’t use single winner districts, they attract egotists. Single winner districts are bogus.

  3. Kimberly Wilder

    I have found that almost all candidates are “egotists”.

    Who would want to run for office if they did not have a healthy does of ego? There is more power and freedom being “The Kingmaker” or adviser.

    I think of the candidate as “The Face”. The guy cruising or at a party with friends, the one that his friends put out first to attract women.

    (And, sometimes, his friends even brainstorm and write his lines for him!)

    LOL!

  4. tiradefaction

    @3

    Multi member districts are impossible with a governors race..which is by definition a single winner office.

  5. James O. Ogle "Joogle"

    Two member district; Governor and Lt. Governor.

    Two member district; President and Vice President.

    Two member districts; Chair and Vice Chair.

    How else will we guaranted gender balance?

    “Join the Frees, opposite gender #1”

    Appluase, clap, clap, clap..applause applause, clap, clap, applause, clap, clap “thank you” Appluase, clap, clap, clap..applause applause, clap, clap, applause, clap, clap “thank you” Appluase, clap, clap, clap..applause applause, clap, clap, applause, clap, clap “thank you, PLEASE! Appluase, clap, clap, clap..applause applause, clap, clap, applause, clap, clap “thank you” Appluase, clap, clap, clap..applause applause, clap, clap, applause, clap, clap “thank you” Appluase, clap, clap, clap..applause applause, clap, clap, applause, clap, clap
    “Please… thank you.” clap…clap.

  6. James O. Ogle "Joogle"

    FairVote ttries, but they are incorrect.

    In California, we have seven state wide partisan seats being elected, so it’s a seven member district. See how it’s done here;

    http://usparliament.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=76

    FairVote may be well intentioned do-gooders, but they’re just leading people down the wrong path.

    IRV is no good.

    Join the Frees, multi-member districts are best,
    the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution rules. We are more democratically legitimate under multi-member districts.

  7. tiradefaction

    @8

    No, they’re in fact different offices (not districts, remember, they are not legislators) Remember we’re also dealing with a congressional model of government, where the executive is separate from the legislature, so a parliamentary way of thinking is incompatible.

  8. James O. Ogle "Joogle"

    Look at the difference between the FairVote eballot and the Free Parliamentary eballot…FairVote doesn’t even have spaces for write-in names, and the elect ONE person.

    They try to attract egotists with single winner districts. The Frees attract team players.

  9. tiradefaction

    I think you’re going to have a very hard time finding politicians without an ego to be honest.

  10. James O. Ogle "Joogle"

    @ 10

    The state of MN is one large district, with at least two seats which cover the entire state. That looks a lot like a two member district to me. I.e. one district with two members being elected simultaneously, who both represent the entire district as a whole.

    FairVote is so bogus…”Chance to test IRV…” please, give me a break.

    If you’re into egomaniacs arguing over who’s the best…you’ll like FairVote. They get the most egotistical types that ever lived.

    But if you want to see people agreeing that we can work together as a team, you’ll like the Saint-Lague system. We have team players, who coordinate for the good of the all.

  11. tiradefaction

    @13

    “The state of MN is one large district, with at least two seats which cover the entire state. That looks a lot like a two member district to me. I.e. one district with two members being elected simultaneously, who both represent the entire district as a whole.”

    But the Governor and Lt. Governor’s offices are not *districts*, not anymore than the secretary of state and the treasurer are districts that cover the entire state. We’re not dealing with legislatures here, this isn’t a parliamentary system where every election is within the legislature and where every branch of government is intertwined together within the same body(ies). Yes, I get it you prefer the parliamentary system, but MN isn’t a parliamentary system, and probably never will be.

    “They get the most egotistical types that ever lived. ”

    I’ve never seen a politician who hasn’t fit that description.

    “But if you want to see people agreeing that we can work together as a team, you’ll like the Saint-Lague system. We have team players, who coordinate for the good of the all.”

    Yeah, again, parliamentary system, not happening. And it seems you’re trying to thrust out your experimental “ideal” system, which is to say the least, naive.

  12. Kimberly Wilder

    There are probably a myriad of voting systems that are better and more democratic than the winner-take-all system that we have.

    I think it is important to listen to and learn about many choices. And, respect those choices that are an improvement, that have support around them.

    If you care so much to cut down other people’s proposals on voting systems, then I think you should be investing your own time and effort in public outreach and education on the method you support.

    One truth about voting systems that people rarely think of, is that, with organizations or small community voting, it might make the most sense to study the situation, the stakeholders, number of offices open, and desired outcome, and choose a specific method that fits the bill. In other words, your organization has a set voting method for simple decisions, and you have a vote in that style about which voting system you will use for bigger decisions like electing officers…

    It’s not easy. But, neither is real democracy.

  13. tiradefaction

    @15

    “If you care so much to cut down other people’s proposals on voting systems, then I think you should be investing your own time and effort in public outreach and education on the method you support.”

    Who says I don’t? Do you know what I do in my daily life? This is quite the assumption on your part…

    I’m not trying to cut down on anybody, but I don’t think fantasy football…erm I mean parliament are going to do any good. But who knows, they may? I’m not stopping him in anyway with his work, so by all means, have fun.

  14. James O. Ogle "Joogle"

    #15

    Ranked voting for nonpartisan and partisan elections is the most advanced system mathematically known. That fact hasn’t changed since the mid-1800s from what I’ve heard.

    But single winner districts are bogus.

    I ask you, when you want to vote on a solution for say sewage spending…do want want to choose between yes and no, or do you want as many multiple choices as possible?

    Under the latter system, the ideas/proposals with highest rankings are at the top, and additional ideas get ranked in consecutive order.

    All ideas with a majority support i.e. 50% plus one vote are considered approved, with very few ties.

    Yes/no decisions, and single winner districts are no good. IRV gives you both. IRV is no good.

  15. '..... just look at the activists ' [Lake]

    Who says I don’t? Do you know what I do in my daily life? This is quite the assumption on your part…

    I’m not trying to cut down on anybody, but I don’t think fantasy football ….… erm I mean parliament(s) are going to do any good.

    [get use to it. The need is great (Third Party Watch, RIP) but the execution leaves some thing to be desired. And the number of zealots whom are cyber bullies whom merely ‘make it up as they go along ……..’]

    [by the by, I hate Congress and the Electoral Kindergarten and disagree with much of your philosophy, but you do seem to have taken a logic course or two along the way ……….]

  16. Michael Cavlan RN

    Kimberley

    Out here in Minnesot-ah.

    There is a Chinese saying that you might just appreciate.

    Will those of you who say it can’t be done, please get out of the way of those who are doing it?

    Grin

  17. Catholic Trotskyist

    8 days until you lose big, big, big, Kavlan. Mbeay maybe you have a chance with PLAS or Catholic Trotskyist Fringe alliance strategy, but you won’t listen; you have a tin ear; GOD AND RALPH NADER HAVE HARDENED YOUR HEART. Keith Ellison will CRUISE TO A FANTASTIC VICTORY, AMEN.

  18. Melty

    Joogle said, “Ranked voting for nonpartisan and partisan elections is the most advanced system mathematically known.”

    I don’t know what you mean by “advanced” but, regardless, the above statement’s too vague to be meaningful. There’re lots of ranked voting methods, each with their own advantages and disadvantages like any voting method. The same goes for rating methods or pairwise methods too.

    I failed to follow your reasoning, but I agree with you that IRV is no good.

  19. UsenetWizard

    @16

    My two cents

    A parliamentary system using PR probably would be an improvement over our existing model (But then again, ours is so bad almost anything would be an improvement, outside some form of despotism), but such a system in America would essentially require divine intervention. Constitution amendment after constitutional amendment after law after law getting repealed. Nice idea if you could snap your fingers, and erase years of legislation, constitutional history, political inertia, and so forth. But I wouldn’t hold my breathe for such an system, at least not for a long long time.

  20. Melty

    I’m not sure if I’m in favor of a proportional representation approach to national legislature or not, but I’m definitely for proportional represention methods for filling boards of appointees. For example, Wisconsin’s election board does that based on the gubernatorial election. I don’t know how common this sort of thing is, but I’m sure plenty more of it could be adopted at state and local levels without too much fuss.

  21. tiradefaction

    @22

    Yup, that’s my thoughts on the matter as well.

    @23

    Proportional representation probably wouldn’t be too hard on a state and municipal level, and probably make a lot of sense.

    It gets more tricky though at the federal level. Aside from the obviously problems in regards to the presidential election, the senate can’t really work with PR either. It’s largely crafted nowadays to give equal representation to every state (2 per state) , which I don’t believe can work under any PR system. The house though, seems like it would work with a PR system, though I’ve heard there’d be problems as well, in terms of exacerbating current power imbalances between large and small states, but I don’t know the specifics on that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *