- Details
- Written by Super User
- Category: Uncategorised
- Hits: 1416
There are numerous deficiencies in the United States election process that impede the execution of fair elections. There are violations of voting rights, unreasonable ballot access requirements for third parties and independent candidates, utilization of voting methods that elect a non-majority vote candidate or promote the evolution of two major competing parties, and the influence of political action committees. Deficient processes will be identified and prioritized. Specific ones to correct will be designated as Fair Election Advocates Nonpartisan Campaigns.
- Details
- Category: Uncategorised
Retain the Electoral College But Fix It
For the past couple decades the Electoral College has been the object of considerable criticism mainly due to presidential candidates who did not receive the most national popular votes being elected. The Electoral College as specified in the U. S. Constitution is a process implemented by the various states and Congress. The Founding Fathers believed in majority rule while protecting individual freedoms. They preserved their beliefs in the Constitution. A minority vote president violates majority rule and should be prevented.
Since 1900 there have been more than 700 unsuccessful proposals submitted to Congress to modify or delete the Electoral College via amending the Constitution. Many of the proposal initiators failed to realize that the deficiencies of the Electoral College process are a result of actions of the various states.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)
The NPVIC is an attempt to guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. While its objective is valid, its proposed implementation is flawed. For a close election the results of every state would be recounted, audited, and possibly challenged in court. Residents of a state who voted with a super majority for a candidate who did not win the national popular vote, would have their votes ignored. There would be an incentive for “faithless electors”. The NPVIC only requires a plurality vote winner thus disregarding the Founding Fathers’ intent for rule by the majority.
Winner-Take-All Electoral College Vote Allocation
The District of Columbia and all states except Maine and Nebraska have legislated winner-take-all, plurality vote presidential elections. Contrastingly, the Electoral College requires a majority vote winner or the selection of president is determined by the House of Representatives. It is unreasonable to assume that the aggregate of state plurality vote wins will result in a national majority vote win. With winner-take-all, the preferences of those who did not vote for the top vote getter are discarded. However, the total number of discarded votes may exceed the total number of votes cast for the plurality winner.
Another deficiency of the winner-take-all implementation is that “swing/battleground” states receive more campaign attention from candidates. A candidate is unlikely to spend resources campaigning in a state he/she is likely to win or likely to lose. Consequently, the swing states determine the outcome of the election. This is an instance of the majority (national voters) being controlled by a minority (swing states voters) and violates the intent of the Constitution.
Ranked Choice Voting Presidential Election
If the District of Columbia and every state implemented ranked choice voting to determine the statewide winner, a majority vote of unexhausted ballots would be achieved. However, the winner-take-all effect would not be eliminated at the national level. Al Gore would still have lost to George W. Bush in the 2000 election. And Hillary Clinton would still have lost to Donald Trump in the 2016 election.
Congressional District Electoral College Vote Allocation
If the Electoral College method implemented by Maine and Nebraska were implemented by every state there would be an incentive to gerrymander in every state having more than one congressional district. Also, there would be an unacceptable possibility that a majority of Electoral College votes would not be achieved by any candidate.
Electoral College Vote Proportional Allocation
If the District of Columbia and every state allocated its Electoral College votes proportionally to the statewide popular vote, there would be an unacceptable possibility that no candidate would achieve a majority of Electoral College votes. This would have happened in the 1992, 2000 and 2016 elections.
RCV/Top-Two Electoral College Vote Proportional Allocation
A method superior to past and present proposed “fixes” for the Electoral College would incorporate three changes to the presidential electoral process. First, the District of Columbia and each state would implement ranked choice voting (RCV). Second, instant runoff rounds would be executed until only the top-two winners remain. Finally, electoral votes would be proportionally allocated to the top-two winners using the Jefferson method. Since presidential electors are retained and electoral votes are integers, no amendment to the U.S. Constitution is needed.
RCV allows a voter to select the most desired candidate for office without concerns that the vote will be wasted or act as a spoiler. The instant runoff capability of RCV utilizes a voter’s less preferred candidate choices to influence the election outcome of runoff rounds until a majority winner is determined or the ballot choices are exhausted. If the runoff rounds are continued until only the top-two candidates remain, the winner-take-all effect will be minimized. Consequently, the aggregate of state Electoral College votes at the national level will be proportional to the national popular vote.
The Jefferson method was devised by Thomas Jefferson in 1792 for Congressional apportionment following the first U.S. census. An equivalent method was published in 1882 by Victor D’Hondt. The implementation involves repeatedly dividing the statewide popular votes for each candidate with an increasing integer divisor and then ranking the results in descending order. The process is illustrated below for the top four 1992 President of the United States (POTUS) candidates’ votes cast in the Arizona election.
| Divisor | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Bill Clinton | EV 2 543,050 | EV 5 271,525 | EV 7 181,017 | 135,763 |
| G. H. W. Bush | EV 1 572,086 | EV 4 286,043 | EV 6 190,695 | 143,022 |
| Ross Perot | EV 3 353,741 | EV 8 176,871 | 117,914 | 88,435.3 |
| Andre Marrou | 6,781 | 3,390.5 | 2,260.33 | 1,695.25 |
In 1992 Arizona was authorized eight Electoral College votes. The above illustrates that with the Jefferson/D’Hondt method, the allocations would have been: Clinton, three EVs; Bush, three EVs; and Perot, two EVs. The results of using the top-two method without simulating ranked choice voting are illustrated below.
| Divisor | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Bill Clinton | EV 2 543,050 | EV 4 271,525 | EV 6 181,017 | EV 8 135,763 |
| G. H. W. Bush | EV 1 572,086 | EV 3 286,043 | EV 5 190,695 | EV 7 143,022 |
In 1992 with Top-Two Proportional Electoral Vote Allocation, Arizona’s eight electoral votes would have been evenly split between Clinton and Bush. Exit polls indicate that Perot pulled a comparable number of votes from Clinton and Bush. Therefore, with ranked choice voting the votes would have been equally split.
1960 Presidential Election
The presidential election between Democratic Party nominee John F. Kennedy and Republican Party nominee Richard Nixon was the closest race since 1916. It was selected as a test case for the Top-2 Proportional Allocation/Jefferson (T-2PA/J) method because it was a close race and there was no third candidate receiving at least 1% of the national popular vote. The table below compares the 1960 election results with those using the T-2PA/J method without RCV simulation. A total of 68,832,482 votes were cast for POTUS candidates. The total number of ECVs in 1960 was 537 with a majority being 269.
| Candidate | Votes | % | PEV | % | T2EV | % |
| J. F. Kennedy | 34,220,984 | 49.72 | 317* | 59.03 | 273 | 50.84 |
| Richard Nixon | 34,108,157 | 49.55 | 220* | 40.97 | 264 | 49.16 |
There is a poor correlation of the national popular vote percentage for each candidate with the plurality winner-take-all electoral vote percentage. There is a close correlation of the national popular vote percentage for each candidate with the T-2PA/J electoral vote percentage. It is important to note that even though the top-two candidate national popular vote difference was slight, the T-2PA/J method provided a majority electoral vote.
1992 Presidential Election
The 1992 Presidential Election was unusual with independent candidate Ross Perot receiving 18.91% of the total popular votes cast. Consequently, Republican nominee George H. W. Bush received only 37.45% of the total votes and no majority of the votes cast in any state. Democratic nominee Bill Clinton received only 43.01% of the total votes and a majority of the votes cast in Arkansas and the District of Columbia. And yet Mr. Clinton received 370 (68.77%) of the ECVs even though approximately 57% of the popular votes were cast for some other candidate. The election was selected as a test case for the T-2PA/J method because it was the only election in the past several decades with a strong third candidate.
The table below compares the 1992 election results with those using the T-2PA/J method without RCV simulation. A total of 104,423,923 votes were cast for POTUS candidates. The total number of ECVs in 1992 was 538 with a majority being 270.
| Candidate | Votes | % | PEV | % | T2EV | % |
| Bill Clinton | 44,909,889 | 43.01 | 350 | 65.06 | 290 | 53.90 |
| G. H. W. Bush | 39,104,550 | 37.45 | 188 | 34.94 | 248 | 46.10 |
Mr. Clinton won approximately 5.5% more of the national popular votes than Mr. Bush and not a majority. However, with the plurality winner-take-all electoral vote method, Mr. Clinton won approximately 30% more ECVs. But with the T-2PA/J method, Mr. Clinton won 7.8% more ECVs and won a majority.
2000 Presidential Election
The 2000 presidential election was a very close race between Republican Party nominee George W. Bush and Democratic Party nominee Al Gore. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader received 2.74% of the national popular contributing to neither Bush nor Gore receiving a majority popular vote. This election was selected as a T-2PA/J method test case because the popular vote winner, Gore, lost to the ECV majority vote winner, Bush.
The table below compares the 2000 election results with those using the T-2PA/J method without RCV simulation. A total of 105,405,100 votes were cast for POTUS candidates. The total number of ECVs in 2000 was 538 with a majority being 270.
| Candidate | Votes | % | PEV | % | T2EV | % |
| G. W. Bush | 50,456,002 | 47.86 | 271 | 50.37 | 268 | 49.81 |
| Al Gore | 50,999,897 | 48.38 | 267 | 49.63 | 270 | 50.19 |
If the T-2PA/J method had been used in the 2000 election, national popular vote winner Gore, would have won an ECV majority.
2016 Presidential Election
The 2016 Presidential Election was selected as a T-2PA/J method test case because even though Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, had almost 2.9 million more national popular votes than Republican nominee, Donald Trump, Mr. Trump won the election with a majority of the ECVs.
The table below compares the 2016 election results with those using the T-2PA/J method without simulating RCV. A total of 136,669,237 votes were cast for POTUS candidates. The total number of ECVs in 2016 was 538 with a majority being 270.
| Candidate | Votes | % | PEV | % | T2EV | % |
| Hillary Clinton | 65,853,516 | 48.18 | 232* | 43.12 | 271 | 50.37 |
| Donald Trump | 62,984,825 | 46.09 | 306* | 56.88 | 267 | 49.63 |
If the T-2PA/J method had been used in the 2016 election, national popular vote winner, Clinton, would have won an ECV majority.
2020 Presidential Election
The 2020 Presidential Election was selected as a T-2PA/J method test case because: it had the highest voting participation percentage since 1900; it is the most recent election; and it was plagued with recounts, audits, and court challenges incentivized by the utilized single choice plurality, winner-take-all, voting method.
The table below compares the 2020 election results with those using the T-2PA/J method without simulating RCV. A total of 158,383,403 votes were cast for POTUS candidates. The total number of ECVs in 2020 was 538 with a majority being 270.
| Candidate | Votes | % | PEV | % | T2EV | % |
| Joe Biden | 81,268,924 | 51.31 | 306 | 56.88 | 276 | 51.30 |
| Donald Trump | 74,216,154 | 46.86 | 232 | 43.12 | 262 | 48.70 |
Ranked Choice Voting Enhancement
If the states would utilize ranked choice voting (RCV) in their POTUS election process, then residents who voted for their preferred candidate, could avoid the “wasted vote” or “spoiler” effects that occur with single choice plurality voting. Also, if one of the top-two winners was one of the voter’s ranked choices, then the voter would feel like his/her vote made a difference. If the states continued the instant runoff voting elimination rounds until only the top-two winners remained, then there would be further improvement in the correlation of popular vote percentage to ECVs percentage.
A Desirable and Achievable POTUS Election Method
Coupling the Jefferson proportional allocation method with the Top-Two Proportional Allocation method advocated by the Election Reformers Network, results in a highly desirable replacement for the winner-take-all Electoral College Vote allocation currently implemented by the District of Columbia and all states except Maine and Nebraska. When enhanced with ranked choice voting, the T-2PA/J method should satisfy the desires of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact promoters while avoiding the cost and delays associated with challenging the election results of every state during a close election. It should be supported by major and third political parties and independents because it results in fair elections. It can be implemented by each state — at its own schedule — because it does not require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. State legislatures should consider, evaluate, and then pass legislation to implement the T-2PA/J method. State residents should encourage their legislators to do so before the 2024 Presidential Election. Too often residents of a state rely on Congress or the U. S. Supreme Court to correct injustices implemented by their state legislature instead of replacing their negligent legislators.
- Details
- Written by Super User
- Category: Uncategorised
- Hits: 1713
Replace Plurality General Election With RCV In South Carolina
The South Carolina Elections Commission conducts semi-open, partisan, plurality voting primary elections for the Democrat and Republican parties. The winner of each primary advances to the plurality voting general election. State recognized political third parties conduct self funded conventions to select their nominees to be placed on the general election ballot. Independent candidates qualify for ballot access by collecting and submitting petitions signed by registered voters. This process results in a diversity of candidates on the general election ballot. However, residents are hesitant to vote their conscience knowing that a vote for a third party or independent candidate reduces votes for their next favored major party candidate. This is why plurality voting perpetuates two major parties - regardless of political platform - and noncompetitive minor parties. Also, with plurality voting if there are two equally strong candidates and numerous less popular candidates the election winner will have received less votes than those cast for his/her competition. Ranked choice voting (RCV) eliminates both election deficiencies. A voter selects the idyllic candidate as first choice and the preferred major party candidate as second choice. If no candidate receives a majority vote on the initial count, instant runoffs are conducted using second and less preferred choices until a candidate receives support from the majority of voters.
A coalition of RCV advocates has planned a campaign to implement RCV in South Carolina. All who are interested in participating are invited to the Zoom kick off meeting on Jan 26. A registration link is available at Better Ballot SC Kick Off
The South Carolina Constitution grants all election authority to the General Assembly (legislature) and residents have no initiative authority. Therefore, the only way to implement RCV is by the residents convincing their elected representatives to pass appropriate legislation that must be signed by the Governor. The legislature is currently in session that continues through May 13.
Polling South Carolina Representatives
Now is the time for South Carolina residents to poll their representatives via telephone, email or postal mail asking them if they support RCV and if so would they sponsor a bill. Contact information for state representatives is easily found via S C Legislator Locator or if you know your legislative districts or the names of your legislators you can just click on the appropriate link in the "Polling Results" tables shown below. An example communication is:
Are you receptive to replacing the current plurality voting general election with a ranked choice voting general election? If receptive, are you willing to sponsor a bill to implement RCV?
Please send me an This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. when you contact your legislators and their names. Please send me another This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. when you receive a response and whether the response was pro or con. Also, please include whether or not the legislator is willing to sponsor a bill.
Polling Results SC Senators
| District | Cntct | Pro | Undcd | Con | Spnsr |
| 1 Alexander | |||||
| 2 Rice | |||||
| 3 Cash | |||||
| 4 Gambrell | |||||
| 5 Corbin | |||||
| 6 Loftis | |||||
| 7 Allen | |||||
| 8 Turner | |||||
| 9 Verdin | |||||
| 10 Garrett | |||||
| 11 Kimbrell | |||||
| 12 Talley | |||||
| 13 Martin | |||||
| 14 Peeler | |||||
| 15 Climer | |||||
| 16 M. Johnson | |||||
| 17 Fanning | |||||
| 18 Cromer | |||||
| 19 Scott | |||||
| 20 Harpootlian | |||||
| 21 Jackson | |||||
| 22 McLeod | |||||
| 23 Shealy | |||||
| 24 Young | |||||
| 25 Massey | |||||
| 26 Setzler | |||||
| 27 Gustafson | |||||
| 28 Hembree | |||||
| 29 Malloy | |||||
| 30 Williams | |||||
| 31 Leatherman | |||||
| 32 Sabb | |||||
| 33 Rankin | |||||
| 34 Goldfinch | |||||
| 35 McElveen | |||||
| 36 K. Johnson | |||||
| 37 Grooms | |||||
| 38 Bennett | |||||
| 39 Stephens | |||||
| 40 Hutto | |||||
| 41 Senn | |||||
| 42 Kimpson | |||||
| 43 Campsen | |||||
| 44 Adams | |||||
| 45 Matthews | |||||
| 46 Davis |
Polling Results SC Representatives
- Details
- Written by Super User
- Category: Uncategorised
- Hits: 1219
Retain the Georgia and Pennsylvania No-Excuse Absentee Ballot
Georgia and Pennsylvania are two of twenty five states that allow eligible voters to request an absentee ballot without providing an excuse for not voting in person. For the 2020 general election nine other states allow the fear of contracting COVID-19 as an excuse. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced during a Georgia House hearing on Dec. 23, 2020 his desire to eliminate no-excuse absentee ballot voting after fifteen years of implementation. Just months before the COVOD-19 pandemic, the Pennsylvania House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to expand absentee voting to all voters in the state. Millions opted to vote this way, but now Pa. Rep. Jim Gregory, a Blair County Republican who voted for this a year ago, wants to repeal it.
The 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder gutted key portions of the Voting Rights Act, which protected eligible voters from discriminatory voting laws. The court claimed those protections were no longer necessary. Since that ruling state legislatures without justification have enacted more restrictive voting requirements and access that infringe on the rights of the poor and minorities. Voting by mail reduces election costs, increases turnout (especially during a pandemic), and encourages people to vote down-ballot and make more informed decisions. One criticism of mail-in voting is the delay in determining the results which can be avoided by the legislatures authorizing pre-election day counting. Another criticism is the inefficient and subjective signature comparison for identification validation. The Help America Vote Act passed by Congress in 2002 allows a valid driver's number as adequate identification for an application for voter registration for an election for federal office. If the individual has no license the last 4 digits of the applicant's social security number is adequate. If the preceding criteria is adequate for voter registration it should be adequate for mail-in ballot voting identification.
If you live in Georgia please notify your legislators that you oppose eliminating no-excuse absentee ballot voting. You can easily access your Georgia state legislators via legis.ga.gov/members/senate for Senators and legis.ga.gov/members/house for House Representatives.
If you live in Pennsylvania please notify your legislators that you oppose eliminating no-excuse absentee ballot voting. You can easily access your Pennsylvania state legislators via legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/findyourlegislator for either Senators or House Representatives.
- Details
- Written by Super User
- Category: Uncategorised
- Hits: 2062
There are numerous injustices in the United States election process that impede the execution of fair elections. There are violations of voting rights, unreasonable ballot access requirements for third parties and independent candidates, utilization of voting methods that promote the occurrence of two major competing parties, and the influence of political action committees. Injustices will be identified and prioritized. Specific ones to correct will be designated as Fair Election Advocates nonpartisan Crusades.
Retain the Georgia and Pennsylvania No-Excuse Absentee Ballot
Georgia and Pennsylvania are two of twenty five states that allow eligible voters to request an absentee ballot without providing an excuse for not voting in person. For the 2020 general election nine other states allow the fear of contracting COVID-19 as an excuse. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced during a Georgia House hearing on Dec. 23, 2020 his desire to eliminate no-excuse absentee ballot voting after fifteen years of implementation. Just months before the COVOD-19 pandemic, the Pennsylvania House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to expand absentee voting to all voters in the state. Millions opted to vote this way, but now Pa. Rep. Jim Gregory, a Blair County Republican who voted for this a year ago, wants to repeal it.
The 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder gutted key portions of the Voting Rights Act, which protected eligible voters from discriminatory voting laws. The court claimed those protections were no longer necessary. Since that ruling state legislatures without justification have enacted more restrictive voting requirements and access that infringe on the rights of the poor and minorities. Voting by mail reduces election costs, increases turnout (especially during a pandemic), and encourages people to vote down-ballot and make more informed decisions. One criticism of mail-in voting is the delay in determining the results which can be avoided by the legislatures authorizing pre-election day counting. Another criticism is the inefficient and subjective signature comparison for identification validation. The Help America Vote Act passed by Congress in 2002 allows a valid driver's number as adequate identification for an application for voter registration for an election for federal office. If the individual has no license the last 4 digits of the applicant's social security number is adequate. If the preceding criteria is adequate for voter registration it should be adequate for mail-in ballot voting identification.
If you live in Georgia please notify your legislators that you oppose eliminating no-excuse absentee ballot voting. You can easily access your Georgia state legislators via legis.ga.gov/members/senate for Senators and legis.ga.gov/members/house for House Representatives.
If you live in Pennsylvania please notify your legislators that you oppose eliminating no-excuse absentee ballot voting. You can easily access your Pennsylvania state legislators via legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/findyourlegislator for either Senators or House Representatives.
Replace Plurality General Election With RCV In South Carolina
The South Carolina Elections Commission conducts semi-open, partisan, plurality voting primary elections for the Democrat and Republican parties. The winner of each primary advances to the plurality voting general election. State recognized political third parties conduct self funded conventions to select their nominees to be placed on the general election ballot. Independent candidates qualify for ballot access by collecting and submitting petitions signed by registered voters. This process results in a diversity of candidates on the general election ballot. However, residents are hesitant to vote their conscience knowing that a vote for a third party or independent candidate reduces votes for their next favored major party candidate. This is why plurality voting perpetuates two major parties - regardless of political platform - and noncompetitive minor parties. Also, with plurality voting if there are two equally strong candidates and numerous less popular candidates the election winner will have received less votes than those cast for his/her competition. Ranked choice voting (RCV) eliminates both election deficiencies. A voter selects the idyllic candidate as first choice and the preferred major party candidate as second choice. If no candidate receives a majority vote on the initial count, instant runoffs are conducted using second and less preferred choices until a candidate receives support from the majority of voters.
A coalition of RCV advocates has planned a campaign to implement RCV in South Carolina. All who are interested in participating are invited to the Zoom kick off meeting on Jan 26. A registration link is available at Better Ballot SC Kick Off
The South Carolina Constitution grants all election authority to the General Assembly (legislature) and residents have no initiative authority. Therefore, the only way to implement RCV is by the residents convincing their elected representatives to pass appropriate legislation that must be signed by the Governor. The legislature is currently in session that continues through May 13.
Polling South Carolina Representatives
Now is the time for South Carolina residents to poll their representatives via telephone, email or postal mail asking them if they support RCV and if so would they sponsor a bill. Contact information for state representatives is easily found via S C Legislator Locator or if you know your legislative districts or the names of your legislators you can just click on the appropriate link in the "Polling Results" tables shown below. An example communication is:
Are you receptive to replacing the current plurality voting general election with a ranked choice voting general election? If receptive, are you willing to sponsor a bill to implement RCV?
Please send me an This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. when you contact your legislators and their names. Please send me another This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. when you receive a response and whether the response was pro or con. Also, please include whether or not the legislator is willing to sponsor a bill.
Polling Results SC Senators
| District | Cntct | Pro | Undcd | Con | Spnsr |
| 1 Alexander | |||||
| 2 Rice | |||||
| 3 Cash | |||||
| 4 Gambrell | |||||
| 5 Corbin | |||||
| 6 Loftis | |||||
| 7 Allen | |||||
| 8 Turner | |||||
| 9 Verdin | |||||
| 10 Garrett | |||||
| 11 Kimbrell | |||||
| 12 Talley | |||||
| 13 Martin | |||||
| 14 Peeler | |||||
| 15 Climer | |||||
| 16 M. Johnson | |||||
| 17 Fanning | |||||
| 18 Cromer | |||||
| 19 Scott | |||||
| 20 Harpootlian | |||||
| 21 Jackson | |||||
| 22 McLeod | |||||
| 23 Shealy | |||||
| 24 Young | |||||
| 25 Massey | |||||
| 26 Setzler | |||||
| 27 Gustafson | |||||
| 28 Hembree | |||||
| 29 Malloy | |||||
| 30 Williams | |||||
| 31 Leatherman | |||||
| 32 Sabb | |||||
| 33 Rankin | |||||
| 34 Goldfinch | |||||
| 35 McElveen | |||||
| 36 K. Johnson | |||||
| 37 Grooms | |||||
| 38 Bennett | |||||
| 39 Stephens | |||||
| 40 Hutto | |||||
| 41 Senn | |||||
| 42 Kimpson | |||||
| 43 Campsen | |||||
| 44 Adams | |||||
| 45 Matthews | |||||
| 46 Davis |
Polling Results SC Representatives