Mass: Independent Candidate for Sec. of State Calls for Ranked Choice Voting

From the Milford Daily News via TPID:

Independent candidate for Secretary of State Jim Henderson today said he would be in favor of implementing ranked choice voting in Massachusetts. Also known as instant runoff voting, the method involves asking voters to rank candidates on the ballot instead of choosing just one. Candidates are eliminated until one of them has a majority of the vote.

12 thoughts on “Mass: Independent Candidate for Sec. of State Calls for Ranked Choice Voting

  1. James O. Ogle "Joogle"

    Ranked voting, or the single transferable vote (STV) is a good thing. It should not be confused with instant runoff voting (IRV), which uses STV, but IRV is good only for single winner districts.

    Single winner district elections are not good, because they attract egotists. Those who think they are better than everyone else and do not exhibit qualities needed for team work, and for the good of the all.

    The Sainte-Laugue parliament seat distribution system on the other hand allows for team work because that system, unlike IRV, is used in districts of two or more.

    The Sainte-Lague system is lightly different mathemtaically from IRV, because it is used in multimember districts.

    From our experience at The USA Parliament, Inc., we never used IRV, although the wording as written in our rule #3, is embedded in our guidelines.

    We only use rule #4, for the Sainte-Lague voting system, and we plan to expunge rule #3 because IRV attracts egotists who are only for themselves which is harmful to the team on “Normandy Beach”.

    The two-party system is in the concrete bunker, and it is decimating our numbers, and our numbers are being rapidly diminished. One person probably can’t run up to the bunker and overtake them. However, approaching the bunker from the left, the right and center, along with independent “soldiers”, may indeed be a smarter plan and work better.

  2. tiradefaction


    Range voting sounds interesting, and the research on that website is quite thorough and seems pretty good. But what irkes me about the Range Voting crowd is their demeanor. They seem more interested in trolling and spamming any web article that mentions IRV that allows commenting, than actual movement building. They also seem to joust out personal attacks against the FairVote crowd.

  3. James O. Ogle "Joogle"

    Those who use single winner districts, are egotists who are not for team work i.e. two or more working as a coordinate team.

    The USA Parliament, Inc. sports four 100-member teams, each with five executives and other seven member squads, working like “bunker specialists”, as experienced and coordinated battle-hardened fighters.

    Additional voter and non-voters and incomplete super-state parliament teams are also involved.

    If you want to encourage individuals to approach the two-party concrete “bunker” as an egotist individual , who never wants to listen and communicate, but simply wants to approach the bunker or dictate solo, then support IRV and single winner districts.

    However, if you wish to approach the two-party concrete bunker as an elected team of 100, the right, the left and the center, working as a coordinated team effort complete with a wide array of weapons, then support the multi-member district system, the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system.

    No offense to the well-intentioned do-gooder single winner egotists, they mean well, but they are wasting valuable time, fuel and ammo on their ill-planned, fruitless egocentric forays.

  4. James O. Ogle "Joogle"


    Please allow me to clarify; The 8th USA Parliament, founded on August 1st, 1995 exists as a voter registration drive, where ranked ballots elect 100 names in consecutively ranked order, and where #s 1 and 2 are president and vice president who are designated as initial contacts for the ruling coalition, for electing three prime ministers, two secretaries and one set of rules.

    Every consecutively ranked name beyond the first 100 consecutively ranked names, serve as unlimited consecutively ranked back-ups, with very few ties, in case any of the first 100 ranked names “stand down” or the person should pass away.

    Some will defend single winner districts by accusing our supporters of “trolling” or “spamming”, often hiding behind anonymous names. In fact many newspapers simply use what they want to make their own reporters look good, while selectively censoring the information, and many rags simply outright censor the information. On the contrary, I encourage the debate because THEY CAN’T WIN!

    I’m ready to debate anyone here in these newsgroups, as I find they serve a useful purpose of not having to travel far.

    I’m ready to speak favorably of pure proportional representation (PR), and eager to demonstrate miniature examples of actual governing bodies.

    My name;
    James O. Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Registered with Free and Equal Party
    “Join the Frees, opposite gender #1!”

    Ad for “GoNott search!”
    *Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted*
    * * *
    There are two US Parliament email lists;
    1) US-PAR: All voters, non-voters and news media
    (approx. 188 subscribers).
    2) Gonott Search Team (approx. 65 subscribers).
    Please feel free to engage or disengage to list #s
    1) or 2) by sending the message “subscribe” or
    “unsubscribe” to, or telephone
    * * *

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

  5. James O. Ogle "Joogle"

    *meant to write that whenever an elected member of parliament “stands down” or dies under ranked ballots, the ballots/votes are recounted, and #101 is automatically elected to the #100 spot in their stead.

  6. Dale Sheldon-Hess


    That “crowd” is, like, me and three other guys. Seriously, check the number of unique names (and two of those names will be me).

    So, uhh… sorry to bother you?

    Anyway; there is “movement building” happening, just not in the comments section of the blogs you follow which happen to mention IRV. It’s slow-going.

    The only personal attacks I’ve seen–and I try to avoid them, but I’m sure I’ve slipped at least once out there in the wide-wide Internet–are the ones calling out the one or two FairVote board members (never staff!) who happen to have a history of, rather blatantly, lying about the effectiveness of IRV. I love everything else FV stands for (NPV, PR, anti-gerrymandering; the idea that plurality is bad), and in my experience just about every FairVote supporter is an honest and sincere supporter all these good things. They’re just misinformed on the research about IRV and other single-winner election methods… and so, yeah, I (and a few other people) make it a point to try to bring up the research in the comments of every blog post that mentions IRV.

    So, again, sorry for annoying you. But if you’ve seen the research, and find it as compelling as you say, then you can probably imagine why some people would find it to be a big enough deal to bother bringing it up every time it gets mentioned.

    The first step of movement building, is publicity.

  7. Clay Shentrup


    Unfortunately, most of the pro-IRV material out there is plagued with massive factual inaccuracies, largely perpetuated by FairVote and their allies. Claims such as “IRV eliminates the spoiler effect” or “IRV means your best strategy is to cast a sincere ranking” are just false, but FairVote members such as Rob Richie have repeated them again and again throughout the years.

    Instant Runoff Voting has numerous severe problems. Score Voting and Approval Voting are much simpler and more fraud-resistant. I’m proud to be one of the people tirelessly pointing that out and calling FairVote and friends on their frequently deceptive claims.

  8. Jack

    @ Dale
    You take every opportunity where reform is being talked about to bash something that’s winning with ones with no history of success. It’s B – O -R- I – N – G and not helpful. Not all publicity is good publicity.

  9. Clay Shentrup


    Where IRV has been “winning”, it is usually in place of top-two (delayed) runoff, which may actually be a BETTER system than IRV.

    Even if IRV were shown to be marginally better than TTR, it is still much poorer than Approval Voting. And the majority of the common pro-IRV talking points (e.g. “IRV eliminates spoilers”) are patently false.

    The fallacy here is the opportunity cost that isn’t talked about. If you have a certain amount of voting reform power to “spend”, and you use it on a poor reform when you could have gotten a good reform, then you didn’t win something, you lost something.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.