DOCSLIB.ORG

H.B.5404 – Support – IF, Broadened and Corrected

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
H.B.5404 – Support – IF, Broadened and Corrected H.B.5404 – Support – IF, Broadened and Corrected Government Administration and Elections Committee Luther Weeks Testimony – March 6, 2020 [email protected] 334 Hollister Way West, Glastonbury, CT 06033 Chairs and members of the Committee, my name is Luther Weeks, Executive Director of CTVotersCount, a Certified Moderator, and a Computer Scientist. I am a long-time active member and conference call moderator for the Election Verification Network - a National network of about 200 election officials, computer scientists, security scientists, and activists all focused on election integrity. I have participated in many active technical discussions of voting methods including Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), primarily focused on the challenges of counting, auditing, and recounting IRV elections and on the challenges and benefits of somewhat similarly intended voting methods. I am open to the benefits of IRV. Yet, I have several reservations about the use of IRV in Connecticut and other states. I support a comprehensive study of all IRV, RCV, and related options along with the challenges of implementing them in Connecticut. First, I would support this Task Force if some significant changes were made, especially to the charge for the Task Force, and if it was appropriately funded and staffed. The proposal incorrectly uses the term Ranked Choice Voting. This proposal is limited to one, incorrectly defined, type of RCV, known as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). This proposal limits the study in a way that would be impossible to satisfy. There are many forms of voting methods providing benefits comparable with IRV. Many experts favor related forms called Approval Voting, Score Voting, and STAR-voting, which they find overcome the problems with IRV that occasionally cause unexpected, results that seem to contradict what voters would expect in a voting system. Any task force should evaluate all forms of RCV/IRV and related methods, not just one. For more details and additional limitations of IRV, see the testimony submitted today by Celeste Landry of Boulder, Colorado. Looking at Section 1, items 1) and 2) clearly limit the study to IRV. While item 3) is inconsistent with IRV which requires that “the candidate receiving over fifty per cent of the votes cast1 is deemed to have been elected to such office”. One of the characteristics of IRV is that it eliminates ballots and votes as candidates are eliminated, so that often the winning candidate using IRV is selected by less than 50% of the votes cast in a race.2 I believe it is premature to claim that IRV was successful in Maine. Claims of success in statewide elections should await many more races, in several elections, also in more and larger states. In addition to such success, the task force should study the cases where jurisdictions have stopped using IRV after several elections, both in the modern era and in the first half of the 20th century. 1 Reviewing Title 9 of the Connecticut statutes shows no clear definition of votes cast, yet how the term is used in the statutes, seems to be consistent with the two common definitions in use in states across the nation. A standard definition is currently under review for standardization by the Election Assistance Commission to be included in the Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines Glossary, ether a) All ballots submitted by voters to an election machine, ballot box, mailed or otherwise submitted as an absentee ballot. Or; b) The same as a) omitting any absentee or provisional ballots rejected before counting. 2 Once again, for more details, see the testimony submitted today by Celeste Landry. Page 1 of 3 Testimony: Luther Weeks, CTVotersCount, 3/06/2020 For additional information on the problems with IRV, see these short videos, 3.5 min and 2.5 min: • A video on the Favorite Betrayal Problem and the Later No Harm Issue: https://tinyurl.com/fbRCV • And this video explaining Approval Voting: https://tinyurl.com/AprvVote I am not suggesting a particular choice of voting method(s), but that the choice is complicated and that IRV may not be the best choice. Secondly, I am concerned that this Task Force needs more time, a significant staff budget to handle all the items above, and also to reimburse experts to provide information, analysis, and suggestions to the committee, in order for there to be a thorough evaluation. Here are some of the many issues the Task Force should address before reaching a conclusion or making recommendations: • Which exact method of RCV/IRV or other method(s) should we choose? Not only the type, such as Approval Voting, Star Voting, or IRV, but the exact rules for voting (e.g. up to 3 preferences and the exact algorithm for elimination or choosing the winner.) • Which races would be included? Which state races, which municipal races, which Federal races, including Presidential? Including primaries or eliminating primaries? Vote for multiple or only single vote races? • For primaries, would the parties have control to choose the voting method or not? Would the state provide parties with that option? Or could parties choose an alternate voting method on their own and then, if that method was not supported by the State system, would they have to take over control of their primary and supervise the primaries as they currently do caucuses in Iowa and Nevada? • Would our current AccuVoteOS Scanners be sufficient or would we need all new scanners? My understanding is that approval voting, for instance, could be more easily accomplished with our current scanners and locally counted hand-counted ballots. • How will hand-counted ballots be processed through IRV runoff rounds? Centrally or in each municipality? • How will Federal military ballots be adjudicated - they do not include a method of specifying more than one candidate or party per race? • How would our current lever-look ballot change? Would we change to another ballot style, such as the, so called, non-partisan ballot? How would the design of ballots and rounds incorporate fusion voting? • How big would our ballots be? E.g. using our lever-look ballot and assuming ranking three candidates, and a moderate growth in candidates, our ballot would be about three times the size as it is now. • How much longer would it take voters to complete their ballots? How many more booths would be required? Would more voting machines be required because a) there would be more ballot sheets to count and b) new voting machines on the market today take longer to process ballots than the AccuVoteOS, especially in the case of IRV, because their speed is based on the number of marks they have to assess per ballot? • For security from hacking, currently we maintain an air-gap between our scanners and memory cards, accumulating results with our Election Night Reporting system. Would we have to give up on that air-gap to determine an IRV winner? • How would we perform the original counting, recanvassing, and post-election audits with any new method? What would have to change in law, regulations, and procedures? Page 2 of 3 Testimony: Luther Weeks, CTVotersCount, 3/06/2020 • How would our Election Calendar change? In some circumstances it can take several weeks to determine winners in IRV races, and several more weeks to recount races, while Connecticut law requires that counting and recanvassing must be completed and certified in 10 days. Would this also entail later dates for some candidates to take office? • Do we need a Constitutional Amendment to do IRV? The 10 days maximum to certification for state offices is specified in the Connecticut Constitution. Would there be any other Constitutional changes needed? • If we were to use IRV for Presidential Electors, could we always be able to complete counting and recounting to select electors and have them vote by the Safe Harbor Date in early December, to meet the requirements of the 12th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Electoral Count Act? • If we were to use IRV for Presidential elections and the National Popular Vote Compact were in effect, which round would count as votes for each candidate? Could we report our results so that other states could use them to determine the national popular votes for each candidate and award their electors? Finally, The Task Force should also provide several, noticed well in advance, opportunities for expert and public oral and written testimony. Thank you Page 3 of 3 Testimony: Luther Weeks, CTVotersCount, 3/06/2020 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Governance in Decentralized Networks
    Governance in decentralized networks Risto Karjalainen* May 21, 2020 Abstract. Effective, legitimate and transparent governance is paramount for the long-term viability of decentralized networks. If the aim is to design such a governance model, it is useful to be aware of the history of decision making paradigms and the relevant previous research. Towards such ends, this paper is a survey of different governance models, the thinking behind such models, and new tools and structures which are made possible by decentralized blockchain technology. Governance mechanisms in the wider civil society are reviewed, including structures and processes in private and non-profit governance, open-source development, and self-managed organisations. The alternative ways to aggregate preferences, resolve conflicts, and manage resources in the decentralized space are explored, including the possibility of encoding governance rules as automatically executed computer programs where humans or other entities interact via a protocol. Keywords: Blockchain technology, decentralization, decentralized autonomous organizations, distributed ledger technology, governance, peer-to-peer networks, smart contracts. 1. Introduction This paper is a survey of governance models in decentralized networks, and specifically in networks which make use of blockchain technology. There are good reasons why governance in decentralized networks is a topic of considerable interest at present. Some of these reasons are ideological. We live in an era where detailed information about private individuals is being collected and traded, in many cases without the knowledge or consent of the individuals involved. Decentralized technology is seen as a tool which can help protect people against invasions of privacy. Decentralization can also be viewed as a reaction against the overreach by state and industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy Lost: a Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries
    Democracy Lost: A Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries Election Justice USA | ElectionJusticeUSA.org | [email protected] Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL........................................................................................................2 A. ABOUT ELECTION JUSTICE USA...............................................................................................2 B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................2 C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..............................................................................................................7 II. SUMMARY OF DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR ELECTION FRAUD, VOTER SUPPRESSION, AND OTHER IRREGULARITIES.......................................................................................................7 A. VOTER SUPPRESSION..................................................................................................................7 B. REGISTRATION TAMPERING......................................................................................................8 C. ILLEGAL VOTER PURGING.........................................................................................................8 D. EVIDENCE OF FRAUDULENT OR ERRONEOUS VOTING MACHINE TALLIES.................9 E. MISCELLANEOUS........................................................................................................................10 F. ESTIMATE OF PLEDGED DELEGATES AFFECTED................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 US Presidential Election Herrade Igersheim, François Durand, Aaron Hamlin, Jean-François Laslier
    Comparing Voting Methods: 2016 US Presidential Election Herrade Igersheim, François Durand, Aaron Hamlin, Jean-François Laslier To cite this version: Herrade Igersheim, François Durand, Aaron Hamlin, Jean-François Laslier. Comparing Voting Meth- ods: 2016 US Presidential Election. 2018. halshs-01972097 HAL Id: halshs-01972097 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01972097 Preprint submitted on 7 Jan 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. WORKING PAPER N° 2018 – 55 Comparing Voting Methods: 2016 US Presidential Election Herrade Igersheim François Durand Aaron Hamlin Jean-François Laslier JEL Codes: D72, C93 Keywords : Approval voting, range voting, instant runoff, strategic voting, US Presidential election PARIS-JOURDAN SCIENCES ECONOMIQUES 48, BD JOURDAN – E.N.S. – 75014 PARIS TÉL. : 33(0) 1 80 52 16 00= www.pse.ens.fr CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE – ECOLE DES HAUTES ETUDES EN SCIENCES SOCIALES ÉCOLE DES PONTS PARISTECH – ECOLE NORMALE SUPÉRIEURE INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE AGRONOMIQUE – UNIVERSITE PARIS 1 Comparing Voting Methods: 2016 US Presidential Election Herrade Igersheim☦ François Durand* Aaron Hamlin✝ Jean-François Laslier§ November, 20, 2018 Abstract. Before the 2016 US presidential elections, more than 2,000 participants participated to a survey in which they were asked their opinions about the candidates, and were also asked to vote according to different alternative voting rules, in addition to plurality: approval voting, range voting, and instant runoff voting.
    [Show full text]
  • Landry, Celeste
    HB 5404: Study Ranked-Choice Voting in CT, Committee on Government Administration and Elections March 4, 2020 testimony by Celeste Landry, 745 University Ave, Boulder, CO 80302 Bio: I have been researching voting methods since 2012 and have given a variety of Voting Methods presentations including at the 2018 LWVUS convention, the 2019 Free and Equal Electoral Reform Symposium and the 2020 CO Dept of State Alternative Voting Method Stakeholder Group meeting. Four Proposed Amendments: Amendments #1 and #2 below address language in the current text, but Amendments #3 and #4 provide for better and broader resolutions to the bill’s limitations. Issue #1. The description of ranked-choice voting (RCV) in HB5404 is too limited. For instance, the 2018 Maine Congressional District 2 election would NOT fit the definition below: 6 are defeated and until one candidate receives over fifty per cent of the 7 votes cast, and (3) the candidate receiving over fifty per cent of the votes 8 cast is deemed to have been elected to such office. Such study shall Example: The Maine CD2 winner, Jared Golden, did NOT receive over 50% of the votes cast (144,813 out of 289,624). More people preferred Golden’s opponents to Golden. In the last round, Golden received over 50% of the votes if you only count the non-exhausted ballots. The definition of RCV in the bill effectively claims that more than two thousand cast votes were actually not cast! 2018 Maine CD2 election results: https://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/results/results18.html#Nov6 Resolution: The definition should read 6 are defeated and until one candidate receives over fifty per cent of the 7 votes cast on non-exhausted ballots, and (3) the candidate receiving over fifty per cent of the votes 8 cast on non-exhausted ballots is deemed to have been elected to such office.
    [Show full text]
  • Least-Resistance Consensus: Applying Via Negativa to Decision-Making ∗
    Least-Resistance Consensus: applying Via Negativa to decision-making ∗ Aleksander Kampa [email protected] July 2019 Abstract This paper introduces Least-Resistance Consensus (LRC), a cardinal voting system that focuses entirely on measuring resistance. It is based on the observation that our \negative gut feeling" is often a strong, reliable indicator and that our dislikes are stronger than our likes. Measuring resistance rather than acceptance is therefore likely to provide a more accurate gauge when a choice between multiple options has to be made. But LRC is not just a voting system. It encourages an iterative process of consensus- seeking in which possible options are proposed, discussed, amended and then either discarded or kept for a further round of voting. LRC also proposes to take the structure of group opinion into account, with a view not only to minimizing overall group resistance but also to avoiding, as much as possible, there being sizeable groups of strong dissenters. 1 Introduction In Western societies, the opinion that parliamentary democracy based on majority rule is the best possible form of government is widely held. We do know that minority opinions are not always represented and, as is the case in the UK with its first-past-the-post system, a party can gain an absolute majority with far fewer than half of the votes, but this seems to be considered a minor issue. Not just in government but at all levels of society, majority voting holds sway. Members of tribal societies in Africa and elsewhere, who are used to the lengthy and complex processes needed for reaching a wide consensus among community members, would probably call the idea of majority voting primitive.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhanced Tally Scheme for the DEMOS End-2-End Verifiable E
    Enhanced Tally Scheme for the DEMOS End-2-End Verifiable E-voting Thomas Souliotis Master of Science School of Informatics University of Edinburgh 2018 Abstract E-voting can solve many problems that traditional conventional voting systems can- not, in a secure mathematically proven way. The DEMOS e-voting system is one of the many examples of modern state of the art e-voting systems. The DEMOS e-voting system has many desirable properties and uses many novel techniques. However, DE- MOS has some problems that need to be solved, so as to extend its usability. In this dissertation, we explain how DEMOS works and what makes it so special. Moreover, we extend DEMOS usability by providing a new way of conducting enhanced voting schemes in the context of DEMOS. This is achieved by changing the way that the ballots are encoded and by providing a new zero knowledge proof approach. Further- more, our work is supported by the necessary security proofs, while a first practical implementation is also provided. We also provide a novel theoretical proof of concept, for far more complex voting systems like STV, which might be the first of its kind for homomorphic systems. Finally, we provide a new zero knowledge proof of a shuffle argument, which can be used for applications outside of this dissertation purposes. Keywords: E-voting, DEMOS, Standard Model, Shuffle Proofs, E2E Verifiability, Receipt-freeness, Borda count, Preferential Voting, STV, Homomorphic Encryption. iii Acknowledgements This project was supervised by professor Aggelos Kiayias. His background and exper- tise helped me a lot during our discussions for further understanding and developing complex protocols.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Democracy US V2.0
    Inclusive Democracy for the 99% William T. Wiley - Do We Have A Lot In Common Jesse Kumin Founder & Exec. Dir. Best Democracy Inclusive Democracy for the 99% Directory Would You Rather Be Included? Slide 4 King’s Process, Observation, We Have a Problem Slides 5 - 8 Slavery and US Elections Slides 9 - 15 Oligarchy and the Cartel Parties Slides 16 - 18 Predetermined Elections, Concentrated and Dispersed Power Slides 19 - 22 Families of Electoral Systems, Majoritarian and Proportional Slides 23 - 26 Voter Engagement, At Large, Distortions in Representation Slides 27 - 31 Debates and Other Obstructions to Democracy Slides 32 & 33 Remedies and Rationale Slides 34 - 40 How Proportional Representation Systems Work Slides 41 - 51 Should Voters and Candidates Support Pro Rep? Slides 52 & 53 Hybrid Proportional Representation (HPR) Slide 54 Before and After HPR Sample Systems Slides 55 - 81 Range/Score Voting Slide 82 Abolish or Maybe Rescue the Senate Slides 83 & 84 Democratize the Supreme Court Slide 85 Attention and Action Plans Slides 86 - 90 Credits Slide 91 Would you rather be included or excluded from decision making? Everyone who votes wants to be included, otherwise we wouldn’t vote. Proportional systems include everyone in outcomes. 2/3rds of the US “Voting Eligible Population” voted in the 2020 Presidential election, high for the US. A completely biased sample of engaged voters, from this 2/3rds, who saw and completed the Best Democracy Election Survey, preferred Proportional Representation, to be included in decision making, over “Winner Take All”, that excludes large blocks of voters. The outlier was a troll. In an informal survey at a Libertarian Lunch, 14 of 14 attendees voted for Proportional Representation, after this presentation.
    [Show full text]
  • STAR Voting FAQ
    STAR Voting FAQ: What is STAR Voting? ● STAR Voting is a more expressive voting method using a 5 star ballot. ● Give each candidate a score from 0 - 5. ● If you don’t have a preference you can give candidates the same scores. ● Those you leave blank get a zero. What’s wrong with our current system? ● “Choose One” Plurality Voting is only accurate when there are two candidates in the race. That’s why we have a two party system. ● When there are more than 2 candidates, vote splitting can cause a majority coalition to end up divided and conquered. (The Spoiler Effect is one kind of vote splitting.) ● Voters in our current system often have to be strategic and vote lesser-evil. Are you talking about the electoral college? ● The voting system itself and the electoral college are different, but vote splitting, which STAR eliminates, was a major factor every time the electoral college has failed to elect the winner of the popular vote. Is this the “Jungle Primary” California Top 2 system? ● No! That’s the system we already use for Oregon nonpartisan elections in places like Eugene, Multnomah County, Lane County, and more. What happens in the runoff if I gave both finalists the same scores? ● All your scores still make a difference and help your favorites advance. ● If you gave both finalists the same scores, that is a vote of no-preference between those two. You like or dislike them equally. ● The ability to give candidates a tie is critical for maintaining accurate elections when there are many candidates in a race.
    [Show full text]
  • Voting Systems: from Method to Algorithm
    Voting Systems: From Method to Algorithm A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Com puter Science Department California State University Channel Islands In (Partial) Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree M asters of Science in Com puter Science b y Christopher R . Devlin Advisor: Michael Soltys December 2019 © 2019 Christopher R. Devlin ALL RIGHTS RESERVED APPROVED FOR MS IN COMPUTER SCIENCE Advisor: Dr. Michael Soltys Date Name: Dr. Bahareh Abbasi Date Name: Dr. Vida Vakilian Date APPROVED FOR THE UNIVERITY Name Date Acknowledgements I’d like to thank my wife, Eden Byrne for her patience and support while I completed this Masters Degree. I’d also like to thank Dr. Michael Soltys for his guidance and mentorship. Additionally I’d like to thank the faculty and my fellow students at CSUCI who have given nothing but assistance and encouragement during my time here. Voting Systems: From Method to Algorithm Christopher R. Devlin December 18, 2019 Abstract Voting and choice aggregation are used widely not just in poli­ tics but in business decision making processes and other areas such as competitive bidding procurement. Stakeholders and others who rely on these systems require them to be fast, efficient, and, most impor­ tantly, fair. The focus of this thesis is to illustrate the complexities inherent in voting systems. The algorithms intrinsic in several voting systems are made explicit as a way to simplify choices among these systems. The systematic evaluation of the algorithms associated with choice aggregation will provide a groundwork for future research and the implementation of these tools across public and private spheres.
    [Show full text]
  • Which Voting System Do Voters Prefer? Survey Report
    WHICH VOTING SYSTEM DO VOTERS PREFER? SURVEY REPORT FEBRUARY 2017 ROBIN QUIRKE AND TOM BOWERMAN ABSTRACT Public opinion polls reflected Trump and Clinton to be extraordinarily unpopular among Americans, and with the current plurality voting system, voters had virtually no hope of a third party candidate winning the 2016 presidential election. Do the current electoral structural processes impede preferred candidates from winning and does the two-party power structure simply protect the status quo? Some voting experts claim that alternative voting systems more honestly reflect the will of the people, but policy reform requires constituent support. This report describes five sequential studies which together explore the question: would Americans be open to an alternative voting system for presidential elections? Although a majority of the study participants supported the idea of revamping the current voting system, there was a lack of strong support for the specific alternative voting systems tested in these five studies. EXPLORING VOTING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 1. Introduction For most Americans, voting is the only means through which they exercise civic power. For a genuine and principled democracy, that may be sufficient, but authorities from several disciplines, including the fields of political science and mathematics, commonly express concern that the prevalent voting system used in most U.S. elections does not facilitate a fair level of representation. For example, The United States’ electoral practices received a moderately low score by the international Electoral Integrity Project compared to other democratic countries (in 2012, the U.S. received a score of 70, Norway received the highest score of 87 and Romania received the lowest score of 58), which is partially due to concerns on the fairness of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Voting Methods
    Evaluating Voting Methods 1. Comparison Tables People can and do debate what are the most important criteria for evaluating voting methods. Several tables are available with various analyses of how well each voting method works for each criterion. We included three in the 2017 LWVBC Voting Methods Report. *See page 18 for our table. *See page 19 for a FairVote table. *See page 20 for a Center for Range Voting table. If we were to update our table today, we would include “auditable under a risk-limiting audit (RLA)” since Colorado now conducts RLAs for coordinated elections. The LWVCO Voting Methods Position does refer to “post-election analysis” and “transparency.” Remember that these tables address single winner voting methods. They do not include criteria such as “promote proportional representation” which is relevant for multi-member bodies, although the LWVCO Voting Methods Position also mentions proportional representation. The list of various alternative voting methods is a moving target. New ones are being created from scratch or tweaked from old voting methods every year. For example, in 2018 Lane County, Oregon, voters had a ballot measure on STAR voting, a brand-new voting method. The tables referenced above address only the best-known methods. 2. Weighting Criteria The most important factors to consider when proposing adoption of a particular voting method may be: 1) What criteria are most important to the electorate? 2) What criteria enable and facilitate election administrators to conduct elections? See below for some examples of these two considerations in real life. When considering criteria for evaluating voting methods, different people or communities may assign different weights to the criteria depending on their personal philosophy so that even if two people fill in a table’s fields identically, one person might determine that Voting Method V is better and another might determine that Voting Method M is better.
    [Show full text]
  • Better Voting Methods
    Better Voting Methods Jan Kok Outline • Plurality Voting, and its many problems • Better Methods: Score Voting, Approval Voting • How do we get a better method implemented? Plurality Voting: Our “Usual” Method • Vote for one candidate for each office. • Whoever gets the most votes wins. Treasurer Choose one : Demi Cratt O Rhea Publican O Ima Green O Lee Bertarian O Plurality Voting: Problems Libertarian • OK when there are just two candidates, but breaks down with more than two. Democrat Republican • Voting for third party candidate is likely to be contrary to voter’s interest. • Voters are forced to choose the “lesser of two evils” Florida, 2000 Nader Others 1.63% 0.68% Gore Bush 48.84% 48.85% Plurality Voting: Problems • The two-party duopoly is perpetuated. • Third parties are ignored. Their ideas are not discussed. • The true level of support for third parties and their ideas is hard to measure. Plurality Voting: Problems • Similar candidates “split the vote” and hurt their common interest. • Thus, the hostility of the Democratic party toward Nader, for example. • In order to have a chance of winning, politicians are forced to work within one of the two major parties – even if their values don’t match well their chosen party. Plurality Voting: Problems • Straight plurality can elect a “fanatical” candidate. • Runoff elections alleviate the problem, but are expensive, and may not choose the best mainstream candidate. • Jospin – socialist, Prime Minister • Chiraq – corruption scandals while mayor of Paris • Le Pen – anti-Semitic, xenophobe Plurality Voting: Problems French Presidential French Presidential Election 2002 Election 2002 Runoff Chirac Le Pen 19.9% 16.9% Jospin Gluckstein 16.2% Chirac Le Pen 0.5% 82% 18% Boutin Lepage 1.2% 1.9% Bayrou Taubira 6.8% 2.3% Megret Laguiller Hue 2.3% 5.7% 3.4% “Vote for a Crook, Chevenement Madelin Saint-Josse Mamere 5.3% 3.9% 4.2% 5.2% not a Fascist!” Besancenot 4.2% Score Voting a.k.a.
    [Show full text]