Ranked-choice voting lawsuit going to court - Polidicks

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/11/25/ranked-choice-voting-lawsuit-going-to-court/ The battle over Maine’s new voter-approved voting system is heading to court. U.S. District Judge Lance Walker is set to hear arguments Dec. 5 in a lawsuit filed by Republican U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin and three Republican activists.

sure they're for an equitable democracy until they get hit by those rules, just like everybody was for term limits to congress until someone was term limited.

Get fucked Republicans.

If they throw the election out it'll be interesting to watch as everyone goes out and fucks this man over yet again in a FPTP vote. He lost and probably would have lost regardless.

This is one of the dumbest lawsuits I've seen. And I've seen a lot of dumb lawsuits. I was curious what his actual constitutional argument was. So I dug up the lawsuit. There's the typical "First Amendment" nonsense, which I think is just reflex at this point, some Voting Rights Act rubbish that falls apart at the slightest poke, some Fourteenth Amendment arguments that even if true would just reduce Maine's basis of representation not overturn the results, and then this fucking gem: The RCV Act also violates Art. I, § 2 of the United States Constitution, which sets a plurality vote as the qualification for election to the U.S. House of Representatives. That seemed a bit off to me - my early-morning Wikipedia binge on Maine's RCV mentioned that it isn't used in state gubernatorial elections due to an explicit "elected by plurality" clause in Maine's constitution, so it would be very odd for them to not notice the same issue with federal elections. So I dug up the Constitution, here's Article 1 Section 2 in full. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three. When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies. The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. There is no mention of plurality voting in there. In fact, Article 1 Section 4 states: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. So the Constitution explicitly permits states to change their voting system. There's later bits putting some restrictions on that - Article 4 Section 4 guarantees a "republican" form of government, so there do have to be elections of some sort, and the Fourteenth Amendment punishes states for depriving men over 21 (who didn't commit treason) of their vote by adjusting the population figure used for apportioning representatives. But nothing I could see specified plurality voting. Get fucked Bruce.

I know right, But reasoning why states have "elected by plurality" are very likely added much later (around late 19th century) by either both parties to keep their state wins and sadly and horribly shows.

I usually chalk it up more to "simple plurality was the only voting system known at the time". That's certainly the case in Maine (Constitution written in 1820), best I can tell the "elected by plurality" clause is to avoid indirect voting, or maybe just to make it sound more legaly. I definitely agree that opposition to better election methods in the modern day is driven purely by partisan warfare. We desperately need something better than FPTP, I'm not super picky about what (although I do have suggestions).

People who push against improving the electoral system such as in this case deserve to be shot or otherwise intimidatee into silence imo.

I believe lawsuits like this are protected free speech.

There's free speech and there's disrupting the electorate's ability to get a fair result.

Our unique free speech laws ensure things like performance art, driving, political campaign contributions, lawsuits, and even not saying anything are protected unless they promote imminent lawless action or the government's interest far outweighs everything else (like child pornography). And the current government has a vested interest in keeping the electorate suppressed.

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/11/28/poliquin-now-asking-for-a-new-election/ And he now acting like pathetic baby by this point.

Not a big surprise, RCV would eliminate a big edge the GOP has had with the spoiler effect. So they're desperately trying to kill it before it is adopted by more states.

but from the gerrymandering i thought they didn't care about the law or what courts say

see, this is basically the textbook definition of lawful evil. As long as the laws work in their favor, they're alright with using them to their advantage, when they don't, they scream about how everything is rigged and everything's an injustice.