BICAMERAL ELECTORAL COLLEGE III 2020:

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Countering Progressive Election Disinfo

'Democrats’ push for so-called “election reform” laws that President Joe Biden claimed last week to be the only thing standing athwart a return to “Jim Crow” racism. The legislation is, in fact, an effort to federalize elections, discard every rule aimed at ensuring voter integrity, and in effect rig the process to Democrats’ advantage.'

'Indeed, after years of faithfully spreading conspiracy theories about the Capitol riot and Trump colluding with the Russians to steal the 2016 election, it was inevitable that liberals and leftists would be in a genuine state of panic about the possibility that they are living through the last years of a Weimar Republic-like prelude to Trumpian fascism. They believe that all resistance to Democratic legislation and leftist policies such as critical race theory indoctrination, or even public rudeness to Biden (“Let’s go, Brandon”), are evidence of an insurrectionist spirit.'

'Yet audiences for left-wing outlets that are publishing innumerable think pieces along the lines of, “What Will It Take to Stop the 2024 Election Coup,” “The Republican Plot to Steal the 2024 Election,” “Seven ways Republicans are already undermining the 2024 election,” “Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun,” or “No One Is Coming to Save Us From the ‘Dagger at the Throat of America’,” to cite just a few examples, are almost certainly buying what those who are breathlessly warning of the danger ahead are selling. Indeed, the authors of these pieces probably believe it too.'

'That these conspiracy theories masquerading as defense of democracy bear more than a slight resemblance to the conviction on the part of some Trump supporters that there was no way their man could have fairly lost in 2020 is an irony lost on the left. As much as they are certain that any doubts about 2020 are the product of Trump’s “big lie,” their embrace of their own collection of conspiracies about vote suppression and Republicans stealing elections is nothing less than another “big lie.” ~ BY: JONATHAN S. TOBIN | JANUARY 17, 2022

'Just 12 hours after the U.S. Senate rejected the Democrats’ election bill, the Bipartisan Policy Center released a report on election reform, while proposing a path forward for bipartisan federal legislation. The report itself was a collaboration between a number of noted think tanks and reform organizations that are liberal, conservative, and moderate....The goal was to develop a list of minimum voting standards to ensure election integrity in four areas: voter registration, casting a ballot, counting the vote, and cyber and physical security. Rather than creating new mandates, the report recommends providing federal funding to help states meet those voting standards.'

'Only two states met all the minimum requirements. One of them was Colorado, which was only too happy to host the 2021 All-Star Game moved from Atlanta. The other was Georgia, itself. Yes, Georgia, the state that the Democratic Party and a thousand talking heads smeared as racist.'

'The report also raises questions about reporters in the mainstream media and their ability to think for themselves, let alone dig into a complex national story with many moving parts. Instead of reinforcing the Democrats’ narrative about Georgia’s election law, the failure of the press has simply reinforced the Republican narrative that the media is largely a megaphone for Democratic Party talking points.' ~ By Greg Orman | February 02, 2022

'The radical left recently attempted to strip away that right with a law that would give the federal government control over your local elections. It failed in Congress in large part because the left tried to make you believe the lie that the same federal government that botched the Afghanistan withdrawal leaving Americans behind, that loses more than $60 billion a year in Medicare fraud, and that could not stop hackers from stealing $100 billion from COVID relief funds could somehow run your state elections. Additionally, the bill was basically a blank check to cheat. It banned photo ID requirements to vote, prevented states from cleaning up their voter rolls, and forced states to provide drop boxes for absentee ballots with no security protocols, just to name a few.'

'As someone who has worked in politics for decades, advising office holders and candidates at every level of government, it’s hard for me to remember a single policy this universally popular across political, racial, and gender lines. But election integrity measures are, and new polling data from Rasmussen shows just how popular:

'North Carolina’s legislature tried to prevent outside private money, known as “Zuckerbucks,” from influencing local elections by passing a ban on it, but Gov. Cooper and an unelected partisan board of elections prevented this voter protection from becoming law.' ~ By Hogan Gidley | February 03, 2022

'Unwilling to accept defeat, Senate Democrats have introduced S. 2747, mistitled the “Freedom to Vote Act.” It is sponsored by Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and co-sponsored by seven other senators including the supposedly “moderate” Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)'

'Despite its Orwellian title, S. 2747 would decimate election integrity and inhibit Americans from achieving free elections. Despite being labeled as “paired-down” or a “compromise” by the media, its provisions are unprecedented, blatantly unconstitutional, and extreme.'

'Speaking about S. 2747, Senator Klobuchar claimed that “[w]e have seen unprecedented attacks on our democracy in states across the country. These attacks demand an immediate federal response.”

'However, her statement is false. Contrary to her claims, the United States is a federal, constitutional Republic, not a “democracy.” Furthermore, the “unprecedented attacks” by state legislatures are merely attempts — often halfhearted — to restore election integrity after decades of increased deterioration.'

'For more than a year, Democrats and their allies in the corporate media have decried what they call the “Big Lie” that America’s 2020 election was flawed or stolen. But almost weekly now, revelations are emerging that the election was, in fact, marred by illegalities, irregularities and mismanagement like former President Donald Trump has argued, leaving a nation increasingly doubting the reliability of its election system.'

'Here are 20 of the most important revelations uncovered by Just the News over the last 15 months of reporting, complete with substantiating evidence and links" ~ By John Solomon | Updated: March 10, 2022 - 1:22pm

Unfounded Electoral Accusations, Exaggerations, False Narratives And Intrigue

'Thanks in large part to Donald Trump and the GOP’s war on democracy, secretary of state races may be some of the hottest contests in 2022 and for the foreseeable future.'

'But in the future, he said, “you can imagine a secretary of state saying, ‘I can’t certify these results,’ ” which could throw everything into chaos. This could get worse if a pro-Trump legislature is simultaneously trying to hand him its state’s votes in defiance of the electorate’s will.'

'Try to imagine a situation in which one of these Trumpists is secretary of state in 2024 in a state such as Georgia or Arizona, and once again Biden pulls out a narrow victory over Trump in their state. They got elected by saying such a thing was by definition evidence of a fraudulent election. They know Trump will brand them a traitor if that result stands. So what will they do?' ~ By Paul Waldman | January 12, 2022 at 4:14 p.m. EST

'But in the wake of the Republican Party's Big Lie, and Donald Trump's ongoing fixation on installing allies in key positions, secretaries of state — and this year's campaigns to elect secretaries of state — have taken on extraordinary importance.'

'And with this in mind, there's an organized effort underway to ensure that these offices are filled with radical conspiracy theorists — just in time for the 2024 presidential election.'

~ Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

'The 135-year-old law that Panetta is referring to is the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Congress passed the ECA, Panetta notes, “following the disputed 1876 election between Samuel Tilden and Rutherford B. Hayes, which was marred by allegations of fraud and the disenfranchisement of Black voters.”

'Panetta continues, “However, the suggested changes to the law would do little to constrain the power of state and local governments. By overseeing vote counting and certifying election results before they are sent to Congress for ratification, these levels of government arguably have as much power, if not more, than Congress and a sitting president to steal an election.”

'After the 2020 election, Trump was unable to stop the ratifications of Biden’s victory at the state level. And he saw the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021 as his last chance to stay in the White House.'

'Panetta adds, “Such trends raise the risk of a disputed or possibly stolen election in the 2022 midterms. It also makes the current push to reform the ECA not just about preventing a replay of January 6, but averting a worse crisis that could send the country into a constitutional tailspin.” ~ Alex Henderson | February 01, 2022

'Republican lawmakers have pushed conspiracy theories and other baseless claims in attempts to undo the results and make wholesale changes before the 2024 presidential election.'

'Trump and his allies wanted the Legislature to overturn the results of the last election, but it did not have the power to do that and the state’s 10 electors were awarded to Biden.'

“There is zero chance as long as I am speaker that we are going to have the Legislature take over awarding electors and all those kind of things,” Vos said. “It’s not going to happen. That’s just a false argument. We’re going to win the election because we’re going to change the rules to make sure that they’re fair to everybody, not to one side.”

'Vos and Republicans contend that having uniform election rules, similar to the law that says polls must be open for the same hours statewide, are about fairness, not giving one side an advantage over the other.'

'He accused Democrats of “fearmongering.”

'There are numerous pending lawsuits related to the probe, including a fight over subpoenas Gableman issued to the elections commission and the mayors of Green Bay and Madison.' ~ By SCOTT BAUER | January 7, 2022

'Belief in their own propaganda and an obsessive hatred of Donald Trump are once again threatening to capsize those who want to stop him and the Republicans from retaking the White House and dominating Congress.'

'But the outcome of political struggles in America over the next three or four years is so important to the rest of the world that one should not surrender to undiluted Trump-bashing and assume that everything negative about him is true.'

'Instead of analysing the complex reasons for the Trump triumph, the Democrats and much of the Trump-hating American media took refuge in a conspiracy theory. This alleged that Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin had interfered decisively in the poll in favour of Trump and had swung the election in his favour. Evidence for this was thin, the seminal document supporting this thesis being a titillating but dubious report produced by a former British intelligence agent named Christopher Steele.'

'Mainline media such as The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN reported the details of the Russia-Trump plot uncritically. Much of the Democratic counterattack during the Trump presidency wasted its powder trying to prove that he was hand in glove with the Kremlin. The Russians denied any such thing, but were probably secretly pleased that they were judged such prominent players in American politics.' ~ By Patrick Cockburn | November 13, 2021 7:00 am

Abram's Theatrics

'Since November 2018, Abrams has alleged repeatedly that her election was “stolen.” She filed a lawsuit against Georgia’s elections officials that continues to this day, though a federal judge appointed by President Obama has thrown out the most headline-generating allegations. She has raised millions of dollars off of her stolen election claims and has since built a national profile based on lies about the integrity of Georgia’s elections. She has referred to Republicans as domestic enemies.'

'In Virginia, Abrams demonstrated that she still has no interest in conceding her 2018 race. During a campaign stop, she told the crowd, “Just because you win doesn’t mean you won.” Not only did Abrams not win her Georgia election but she lost by 55,000 votes, more than four times President Trump’s November 2020 deficit.' ~ By Brad Raffensperger | October 21, 2021

'The claims of voter suppression rest primarily on the fact that as Georgia secretary of state, Kemp enforced a statute passed by a Democratic-majority legislature and signed by a Democratic governor in 1997. It required the voting rolls to be periodically purged to remove names of voters who were dead, or who had moved away or were incarcerated. Under this law, 600,000 names of people who hadn’t voted in the last three elections were removed from the rolls in 2017 by Kemp’s office.'

'If you assume that most of the 600,000 were Democrats who were denied the right to vote — rather than voters who were deceased or who had moved or been jailed — that gives credibility to Abrams’s story. But there aren’t many people stepping forward since November 2018 to say they were wrongfully removed from the rolls, let alone the tens or hundreds of thousands necessary to substantiate Abrams’s claim that the election was stolen.'

'Abrams and the Democratic presidential candidates seeking her support are setting the country up for a 2020 election in which neither side trusts the system. Under those circumstances, we can expect that the tradition in which losing candidates graciously accepted their losses will soon be a relic of a bygone America that no longer exists.' ~ By JONATHAN S. TOBIN | June 9, 2019 6:30 AM

'If the argument were applied equally — to both parties — then the mainstream media would be shouting at the rooftops how Mrs. Abrams’ ongoing campaign is delegitimizing our electoral process, upending a legitimate election. Yet, crickets.'

'It should come as no surprise. After Mr. Trump won the presidency in 2016, Democrats and the mainstream media used every tool at their disposal to delegitimize the election. His opponent, Hillary Clinton, blamed the Russians, called him “illegitimate,” and the press happily obliged her in perpetuating the narrative — despite the harm it did to the electorate.'

'It seems to me election integrity is a bipartisan issue. When your team loses, you want to be 100% sure your vote counted and have faith in the process. That’s why improving our state election laws is vitally important. Reforms should be made soberly, transparently and without hyperpartisanship and ramped-up rhetoric. Both sides want it. And need it.' ~ By Kelly Sadler | Tuesday, April 20, 2021

Volleying About Election Integrity Efforts

'House Democrats voted Thursday to improve election security, including requiring states to maintain a paper trail for all votes cast, as they sought to stiffen defenses against potential cyberattacks.'

'The bill would also promote stress testing of voting systems, and would decertify technology that doesn’t meet guidelines.'

'Democrats previously passed the paper ballot provisions as part of a massive campaign and election overhaul earlier this year. That bill would have canceled voter-ID laws, created a public financing system for campaigns, forced new disclosure rules on interest groups and made numerous other changes to the way elections are run.'

'Republicans said they support shoring up election security, but said there was no evidence that election results were actually hacked in 2016 or 2018.'

'Republicans said their biggest issue with Democrats’ bill was that it amounted to a federal takeover of how states operate their elections.' ~ By Gabriella Muñoz | Thursday, June 27, 2019

'In recent years, much attention has been placed on what kind of voting equipment is in use around the nation—and specifically whether the systems use a paper ballot or provide some other form of paper trail. State statutes govern this choice and thus state legislators are the policymakers in this area. Federal voluntary guidelines do not, at this point, address whether certifiable equipment must have an auditable paper record.' ~ 6/27/2019

'As the US House and Senate consider various legislation to address issues of election integrity and security, prominent conservative leaders have sent a letter to Congressional leaders calling for new and consistent federal funding to help states manage threats to elections. The letter was sent by Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, along with a coalition of conservative grassroots organizations, including R-Street, FreedomWorks, The James Madison Institute, the Open Competition Center, and others.'

A bipartisan effort coming from a pro "Freedom to Vote" Act, anti-Trump, election-steal denier coalition.

Mail-in Voting Vulnerabilities

'Voting by mail makes it easier to commit fraud, intimidate voters, and destroy the protections of the secret ballot. It puts elections into the hands of the Postal Service. Without the oversight of election and polling officials, ballots can be lost, disqualified, and even stolen.'

'Securing the integrity of elections should not become wrapped up in partisan politics. Yet since the inception of the COVID-19 pandemic (and some would argue even before then), many leading Democrats have scoffed at the reality of voter fraud and the importance of election integrity—even though it is their own voters and supporters who often are affected by such fraud.' ~ Kaitlynn Samalis-Aldrich, Hans A. von Spakovsky | May 10th, 2020

“There are two big problems with vote by mail,” Adams said. “Number one, are the sort of things we discovered in the Justice Department when I was there — of people voting the ballot for other people through undue influence. That’s the first one. The second one — the voter rolls are a mess.”

'Adams’ organization has sued several states and counties for refusing to maintain accurate voter rolls, allowing the names of thousands of dead voters, felons and non-citizens to remain in the system. Messy voter rolls make election fraud much easier, Adams says.' ~ By MARGARET MENGE | APR 16, 2020 AT 1:41 PM

'The whisteblower — whose identity, rap sheet and long history working as a consultant to various campaigns were confirmed by The Post — says he not only changed ballots himself over the years, but led teams of fraudsters and mentored at least 20 operatives in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania — a critical 2020 swing state.'

'Mail-in voting can be complicated — tough enough that 84,000 New Yorkers had their mailed votes thrown out in the June 23 Democratic presidential primary for incorrectly filling them out.'

'In 2017, more than 500 mail-in ballots in New York City never arrived to the Board of Elections for races that November — leaving hundreds disenfranchised. They eventually were discovered in April 2018. “For some undetermined reason, some baskets of mail that were bound to the New York City Board of Elections were put off to the side at the Brooklyn processing facility,” city elections boss Michael Ryan said at the time of discovery.'

'With mail-in ballots, partisans from both parties hash out and count ballots at the local board of elections — debating which ballots make the cut and which need to be thrown out because of irregularities.'

'The insider said any ballots offered up by him or his operation would come with a bent corner along the voter certificate — which contains the voter signature — so Democratic Board of Election counters would know the fix was in and not to object.' ~ By Jon Levine | August 29, 2020 5:24pm

Legislative Vote

'Presidential elections in the United States are not popular vote contests. The writers of the Constitution configured the process so that only the members of the House of Representatives would be elected by popular vote. The Senators were to be selected by state legislatures, and the president would be selected by the Electoral College. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1913, stating that the election of senators would occur through popular vote. However, presidential elections still operate under the electoral system.'

'Interestingly, it was not until the 10th presidential election in 1824 that the popular vote had any effect whatsoever on the outcome. Until then, presidential candidates were chosen by Congress, and all of the states had chosen to leave the choice of which candidate would receive their electoral votes up to their state legislatures. In 1824, however, 18 of the then 24 states decided to choose their presidential electors by popular vote.' ~ Martin Kelly | Feb. 16, 2021

'The Constitution specifies that the president and vice president be chosen through the votes cast by electors chosen by the states, rather than by a direct popular vote. At first, some electors were chosen by state legislatures, but by 1836 all states but South Carolina chose electors through a statewide popular vote. (S.C. followed suit in 1860.) Today, all states but Maine and Nebraska have a winner-take-all system in which all of a given state's electors vote for the winner of that state's popular vote. While not legally significant, the number of popular votes given nationwide to each major presidential candidate are listed here for elections beginning in 1872.'

'In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton explained that the electors Clause giving state legislatures this plenary authority was intended to put an “obstacle” in the path of those who would use “intrigue” and “corruption” to elect the president. Now more than ever before in our history, state legislators must exercise that authority.'

'Each state legislature has the authority to meet on its own initiative to exercise the power granted by the United States Constitution to appoint electors of the legislature’s choosing. The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken directly on this issue: “This power [to appoint electors] is conferred upon the legislatures of the states by the constitution of the United States, and cannot be taken away from them or modified by their state constitutions.” McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 34-35 (1892). This appointment power “transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a State.” Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S, 130, 137 (1922).' ~ By William J. Olson and Patrick M. McSweeney | Monday, December 7, 2020

'It’s also important to recognize that this would not be an unprecedented move. It was common in the early days of the United States for state legislatures to select the electors, rather than submitting the matter to the populace. Indeed, such a system provided us with our first five Presidents, all universally great.'

'Once the system entirely fell apart, we got Andrew Jackson. The quiet, learned competence that defined our earliest Presidents gave way to great orators and the occasional demagogue.' ~ Published by Garrett Ham on July 31, 2020

Winner-Take-All # aka # All-Or-Nothing

'The Electoral College is a central pillar of American democracy. Without it, our country’s leaders could be voted in by the overflowing metropolises without regard for the farmers and factory workers in less populated states. But the Electoral College isn’t perfect. Some have argued it badly distorts the vote.'

'Americans seeking to improve the presidential election system and see that less competitive states are not ignored should reform, not abolish, the Electoral College. As it happens, the Constitution allows states to do just this by allowing votes to be divided proportionally according to congressional districts.'

'By eliminating the winner-takes-all model, we can constitutionally reform the Electoral College, our best safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. In order to uphold the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, we need to ensure that the votes of Americans reasonably and proportionally impact elections. Proportional representation also minimizes gerrymandering and boosts voter turnout.' ~ Catherine Alles | Thursday, March 28, 2019

'In Federalist 68, Alexander Hamilton indicated that electors would be “most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” It was to be a deliberative body with the sole task of selecting our nation’s leaders.'

'While the form of the Electoral College remains largely unchanged, its practice has changed considerably. This is largely due to the laws that have been adopted among the states to support the two-party system. Chief among these include the selection of electors who are to be loyal to their party’s ticket and the adoption of the winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes. The latter requires that whomever wins a plurality of a state’s votes receives all of the state’s electoral votes. These changes would forever alter the original operation of the Electoral College to an institution designed to serve the ambitions of the major parties.'

'The winner-take-all method is not enshrined in the Constitution, nor are laws at the state-level to bind presidential electors.'

'Indeed, today’s version bears little resemblance to what the Framers crafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.' ~ by Robert Alexander | 11:27 AM EDT, Wed September 30, 2020

'The shift to statewide winner-take-all was not done for idealistic reasons. Rather, it was the product of partisan pragmatism, as state leaders wanted to maximize support for their preferred candidate. Once some states made this calculation, others had to follow, to avoid hurting their side. James Madison's 1823 letter to George Hay, described in my earlier post, explains that few of the constitutional framers anticipated electors being chosen based on winner-take-all rules.'

'James Madison proposes a constitutional amendment that would require states to use the district method, writing that "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted;'

'The defeated Andrew Jackson joined James Madison's pleas for a constitutional amendment requiring a uniform district election system, but to no avail. In every U.S. presidential election since, the statewide method has been predominant.'~ DEVIN MCCARTHY | AUGUST 21, 2012

Party Poisons

'Our Founding Fathers were generally uneasy about political parties. For the most part, they believed that parties had the potential to tear the new nation apart. To these men, “political parties” meant factionalism, which they believed, could be fatal to the development of the United States as a unified country. It is no surprise, then, that political parties are entirely omitted from the US Constitution.'

'In letter to Johnathan Jackson in 1780, John Adams said, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

'The generally hostile attitude toward political parties among the Founding Fathers was articulated most forcefully by James Madison in Federalist 10. There he argued that one of the most important functions of a “well-constructed Union” was to break and control the “violence of faction.” Madison clearly understood the enormous dangers that could attach to the founding of political parties in America. And it is because of attitudes like Madison’s, widely shared as they were among many of the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, that political parties were excluded from the US Constitution.'

'The framers of the new Constitution desperately wanted to avoid the divisions that had ripped England apart in the bloody civil wars of the 17th century. Many of them saw parties—or “factions,” as they called them—as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government.'

“He had stayed on for a second term only to keep these two parties from warring with each other,” Randall says of Washington. “He was afraid of what he called ‘disunion.’ That if the parties flourished, and they kept fighting each other, that the Union would break up.”

'While the Federalists would never win another presidential election, and disappeared for good after the War of 1812, the two-party system revived itself with the rise of Andrew Jackson’s Democratic Party by the 1830s and firmly solidified in the 1850s, after the founding of the Republican Party. Though the parties’ identities and regional identifications would shift greatly over time, the two-party system we know today had fallen into place by 1860—even as the nation stood poised on the brink of the very civil war that Washington and the other Founding Fathers had desperately wanted to avoid.' ~ SARAH PRUITT | UPDATED: MAR 7, 2019, ORIGINAL: NOV 6, 2018

First-Past-The-Post

'In distorting the relationship between the popular vote and seats, first-past-the-post also tends to encourage strategic voting. Almost 33 percent of voters in the October federal election voted strategically to prevent one or another party from winning. What we have is essentially a two-party system, with minor parties squeezed out by strategic voting.'

'The whole philosophy of strategic voting is predicated on a rational calculation to not only prevent a particular party from gaining power but also avoid wasting votes. Strategic voting mutes minority voices and prevents alternative policy platforms from being represented in the House of Commons. It also fosters political vindictiveness and a revenge mentality, both of which run counter to the democratic principles of dialogue and consensus. A democratic society must be open and receptive to new ideas and perspectives. A revenge mentality breeds intolerance, which is bound to erode democracy.' ~ by Sirvan Karimi | December 12, 2019

'First Past the Post distorts the link between seats and votes, sometimes resulting in the party with the highest number of votes coming second overall. This is known as a wrong-winner election.'

'This exaggeration of support is seen over and over in countries that use First Past the Post. At the 2019 UK General Election, the Conservatives won a majority of seats on just 43% of the vote. In 2005, Labour won a majority on an even smaller share of the vote – just 35% of the vote.'

'The Liberals went into the 2015 election supporting Proportional Representation. It is a disappointing misstep of history that Justin Trudeau did not keep his promise to abolish First Past the Post.'

'Two wrong-winner elections in a row helped pave the way for electoral reform in New Zealand. Could Canada be next? And will the UK also one day adopt Proportional Representation?' ~ Richard Wood | September 22, 2021

Proportional Representation

'Proportional representation voting (PR) is the main rival to plurality-majority voting. Among advanced western democracies it has become the predominant voting system.'

'These PR systems were devised to solve the many problems caused by plurality-majority voting systems. As a rule, PR voting systems provide more accurate representation of parties, better representation for political and racial minorities, fewer wasted votes, higher levels of voter turnout, better representation of women, greater likelihood of majority rule, and little opportunity for gerrymandering.'

'Proportional representation, sometimes called simply “PR,” is defined as an “electoral system in which parties gain seats in proportion to the number of votes cast for them.”

'Here are some of the key pros and cons of proportional representation to think about and discuss.' ~ by Louise Gaille | March 25, 2018

'Range voting, which we only recommend for single-winner elections, thus is not a form of proportional representation according to Albright's definition above. If there are 1000 Range Voting elections between two parties A and B with 66% and 34% of the voters, then Range Voting will elect 1000 party-A winners and zero party-B winners (assuming the voters hew strongly enough to their party lines) – which is very disproportional.'

'However, there is an alternate form of Range Voting which is designed for multiwinner elections and which is designed to exhibit proportionality. It is called Reweighted Range Voting (RRV) and is described in paper #78'

'Note to PR advocates in the USA: if you want PR, we very much doubt you are going to get it without first getting Range Voting as a preparatory step (which in turn will gradually diminish 2-party domination). If you think IRV is a good stepping stone to PR, then you are wrong because IRV leads to 2-party domination and the two parties can and will always block PR. Range voting offers a far better chance of breaking 2-party domination and is a stepping stone to Asset Voting and Reweighted Range Voting, two apparently-superior forms of PR.'

'Reweighted Range Voting (RRV) is based on STV (it uses the STV ideas of "Droop quota" and "ballot reweighting"), and chooses multiple winners in such a way as to obtain proportional representation.'

'You may be thinking, "STV is good enough, why should we consider another PR method?" One good reason to think about RRV has to do with single-winner methods.'

'RRV is a PR method that doesn't require IRV as a stepping stone. Rather, it uses Range Voting (also called "score voting") as the stepping stone; i.e. score voting is the corresponding single-winner method.' ~ By Jan Kok & Warren D.Smith.