3.Except as provided pursuant to subsection b. Of section 2 of P.L.1976, c.83 (C.19:4-11), each district in which two voting machines or five electronic system voting devices are to be used shall contain, as nearly as is practicable, 1,000 voters, and each district in which three voting machines or eight electronic system voting devices are to. Tensions boiled over in February at the California Democratic Party Convention, where Min won the state party’s endorsement by a single delegate’s vote. Under the state party’s rules, because Min won by such a small margin, his opponents could challenge his win on the convention floor by gathering 300 signatures and forcing a new vote. She gained 11,000 votes, with 68.5 percent reporting, and Sanders didn’t gain a single vote in that same time period. Sanders’ supporters said that they found this suspicious and highly unlikely.

1. 47: A Single Vote Primary
2. 47: A Single Vote For A
3. 47: A Single Vote Definition
4. 47: A Single Vote Presidential

The bishops caution against relying on one issue in voting for a candidate. They state: 'As Catholics, we are not single-issue voters. A candidate's position on a single issue is not sufficient to. By the end of 1919, more than 70 years after the first national woman’s rights convention at Seneca Falls, Congress finally passed a federal women’s suffrage amendment to the U.S.

• Types of elections
• Systems of vote counting
  • Legislative elections
    • Proportional representation
  • Executive elections
• Voting practices

The plurality system is the simplest means of determining the outcome of an election. To win, a candidate need only poll more votes than any other single opponent; he need not, as required by the majority formula, poll more votes than the combined opposition. The more candidates contesting a constituency seat, the greater the probability that the winning candidate will receive only a minority of the votes cast. Countries using the plurality formula for national legislative elections include Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Countries with plurality systems usually have had two main parties.

47: A Single Vote Primary

Under the majority system, the party or candidate winning more than 50 percent of the vote in a constituency is awarded the contested seat. A difficulty in systems with the absolute-majority criterion is that it may not be satisfied in contests in which there are more than two candidates. Several variants of the majority formula have been developed to address this problem. In Australia the alternative, or preferential, vote is used in lower-house elections. Voters rank the candidates on an alternative-preference ballot. If a majority is not achieved by first-preference votes, the weakest candidate is eliminated, and that candidate’s votes are redistributed to the other candidates according to the second preference on the ballot. This redistributive process is repeated until one candidate has collected a majority of the votes. In France a double-ballot system is employed for National Assembly elections. If no candidate secures a majority in the first round of elections, another round is required. In the second round, only those candidates securing the votes of at least one-eighth of the registered electorate in the first round may compete, and the candidate securing a plurality of the popular vote in the second round is declared the winner. Some candidates eligible for the second round withdraw their candidacy and endorse one of the leading candidates. In contrast to the two-party norm of the plurality system, France has what some analysts have called a “two-bloc” system, in which the main parties of the left and the main parties of the right compete against each other in the first round of an election to be the representative of their respective ideological group and then ally with one another to maximize their bloc’s representation in the second round. An infrequently used variant is the supplementary-vote system, which was instituted for London mayoral elections. Under this system, voters rank their top two preferences; in the event that no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, all ballots not indicating the top two vote getters as either a first or a second choice are discarded, and the combination of first and second preferences is used to determine the winner. Majority formulas usually are applied only within single-member electoral constituencies.

The majority and the plurality formulas do not always distribute legislative seats in proportion to the share of the popular vote won by the competing parties. Both formulas tend to reward the strongest party disproportionately and to handicap weaker parties, though these parties may escape the inequities of the system if their support is regionally concentrated. For example, in national elections in Britain in 2001, the Labour Party captured more than three-fifths of the seats in the House of Commons, even though it won barely two-fifths of the popular vote; in contrast, the Conservative Party won one-fourth of the seats with nearly one-third of the vote. Third-party representation varied considerably; whereas the Liberal Democrats, whose support was spread throughout the country, captured 8 percent of the seats with more than 18 percent of the vote, the Plaid Cymru, whose support is concentrated wholly in Wales, won 0.7 percent of the vote and 0.7 percent of the seats. The plurality formula usually, though not always, distorts the distribution of seats more than the majority system.

Proportional representation

Proportional representation requires that the distribution of seats broadly be proportional to the distribution of the popular vote among competing political parties. It seeks to overcome the disproportionalities that result from majority and plurality formulas and to create a representative body that reflects the distribution of opinion within the electorate. Because of the use of multimember constituencies in proportional representation, parties with neither a majority nor a plurality of the popular vote can still win legislative representation. Consequentially, the number of political parties represented in the legislature often is large; for example, in Israel there are usually more than 10 parties in the Knesset.

Although approximated in many systems, proportionality can never be perfectly realized. Not surprisingly, the outcomes of proportional systems usually are more proportional than those of plurality or majority systems. Nevertheless, a number of factors can generate disproportional outcomes even under proportional representation. The single most important factor determining the actual proportionality of a proportional system is the “district magnitude”—that is, the number of candidates that an individual constituency elects. The larger the number of seats per electoral district, the more proportional the outcome. A second important factor is the specific formula used to translate votes into seats. There are two basic types of formula: single transferable vote and party-list proportional representation.

Single transferable vote

Developed in the 19th century in Denmark and in Britain, the single transferable vote formula—or Hare system, after one of its English developers, Thomas Hare—employs a ballot that allows the voter to rank candidates in order of preference. When the ballots are counted, any candidate receiving the necessary quota of first preference votes—calculated as one plus the number of votes divided by the number of seats plus one—is awarded a seat. In the electoral calculations, votes received by a winning candidate in excess of the quota are transferred to other candidates according to the second preference marked on the ballot. Any candidate who then achieves the necessary quota is also awarded a seat. This process is repeated, with subsequent surpluses also being transferred, until all the remaining seats have been awarded. Five-member constituencies are considered optimal for the operation of the single transferable vote system.

Because it involves the aggregation of ranked preferences, the single transferable vote formula necessitates complex electoral computations. This complexity, as well as the fact that it limits the influence of political parties, probably accounts for its infrequent use; it has been used in Northern Ireland, Ireland, and Malta and in the selection of the Australian and South African senates. The characteristic of the Hare formula that distinguishes it from other proportional representation formulas is its emphasis on candidates, not parties. The party affiliation of the candidates has no bearing on the computations. The success of minor parties varies considerably; small centrist parties usually benefit from the vote transfers, but small extremist parties usually are penalized.

Party-list proportional representation

The basic difference between the single transferable vote formula and list systems—which predominate in elections in western Europe and Latin America—is that, in the latter, voters generally choose among party-compiled lists of candidates rather than among individual candidates. Although voters may have some limited choice among individual candidates, electoral computations are made on the basis of party affiliation, and seats are awarded on the basis of party rather than candidate totals. The seats that a party wins are allocated to its candidates in the order in which they appear on the party list. Several types of electoral formulas are used, but there are two main types: largest-average and greatest-remainder formulas.

The BFME1: HD Edition is a model pack featuring both reworked and all-new unit and hero models for The Battle for Middle-earth. Our goal is to overhaul BFME1’s unit and hero graphics while maintaining online. Anybody know of any websites selling Battle For Middle Earth 2 for the PC? Prefer a digital download. Download The Battle for Middle-earth (Clean) Download The Battle for Middle-earth II (Clean) Download The Rise of the Witch-king Expansion Pack (Clean) If the above links aren't working for some reason, The Smoking Man also uploaded these files on Mediafire (thank you!). Based on the film series of The Lord of the Rings, LOTR: The Battle for Middle Earth II: The Rise of the Witch-King is a real-time strategy video game developed by Electronic Arts.The Rise of the Witch-King is an expansion to The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth II.The expansion pack allows you to control the rise of evil in Middle Earth. 2017/04/23 - T3A:Online supports RotWK The Rise of the Witch-king is now officially supported and can be played on our server. With the new T3A:Online launcher all three games can be launched from the same interface! You need the new launcher to play RotWK online.

In the largest-average formula, the available seats are awarded one at a time to the party with the largest average number of votes as determined by dividing the number of votes won by the party by the number of seats the party has been awarded plus a certain integer, depending upon the method used. Each time a party wins a seat, the divisor for that party increases by the same integer, which thus reduces its chances of winning the next seat. Under all methods, the first seat is awarded to the party with the largest absolute number of votes, since, no seats having been allocated, the average vote total as determined by the formula will be largest for this party. Under the d’Hondt method, named after its Belgian inventor, Victor d’Hondt, the average is determined by dividing the number of votes by the number of seats plus one. Thus, after the first seat is awarded, the number of votes won by that party is divided by two (equal to the initial divisor plus one), and similarly for the party awarded the second seat, and so on. Under the so-called Sainte-Laguë method, developed by Andre Sainte-Laguë of France, only odd numbers are used. After a party has won its first seat, its vote total is divided by three; after it wins subsequent seats, the divisor is increased by two. The d’Hondt formula is used in Austria, Belgium, Finland, and the Netherlands, and the Sainte-Laguë method is used in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

The d’Hondt formula has a slight tendency to overreward large parties and to reduce the ability of small parties to gain legislative representation. In contrast, the Sainte-Laguë method reduces the reward to large parties, and it generally has benefited middle-size parties at the expense of both large and small parties. Proposals have been made to divide lists by fractions (e.g., 1.4, 2.5, etc.) rather than integers to provide the most proportional result possible.

The greatest-remainder method first establishes a quota that is necessary for a party to receive representation. Formulas vary, but they are generally some variation of dividing the total vote in the district by the number of seats. The total popular vote won by each party is divided by the quota, and a seat is awarded as many times as the party total contains the full quota. If all the seats are awarded in this manner, the election is complete. However, such an outcome is unlikely. Seats that are not won by full quotas subsequently are awarded to the parties with the largest remainder of votes after the quota has been subtracted from each party’s total vote for each seat it was awarded. Seats are distributed sequentially to the parties with the largest remainder until all the district’s allocated seats have been awarded.

Minor parties generally fare better under the greatest-remainder formula than under the largest-average formula. The greatest-remainder formula is used in Israel and Luxembourg and for some seats in the Danish Folketing. Prior to 1994 Italy used a special variant of the greatest-remainder formula, called the Imperiali formula, whereby the electoral quota was established by dividing the total popular vote by the number of seats plus two. This modification increased the legislative representation of small parties but led to a greater distortion of the proportional ideal.

The proportionality of outcomes also can be diluted by the imposition of an electoral threshold that requires a political party to exceed some minimum percentage of the vote to receive representation. Designed to limit the political success of small extremist parties, such thresholds can constitute significant obstacles to representation. The threshold varies by country, having been set at 4 percent in Sweden, 5 percent in Germany, and 10 percent in Turkey.

Hybrid systems

In some countries, the majoritarian and proportional systems are combined into what are called mixed-member proportional or additional-members systems. Although there are a number of variants, all mixed-member proportional systems elect some representatives by proportional representation and the remainder by a nonproportional formula. The classic example of the hybrid system is the German Bundestag, which combines the personal link between representatives and voters with proportionality. The German constitution provides for the election of half the country’s parliamentarians by proportional representation and half by simple plurality voting in single-member constituencies. Each voter casts two ballots. The first vote (Erstimme) is cast for an individual to represent a constituency (Wahlkreise); the candidate receiving the most votes wins the election. The second vote (Zweitstimme) is cast for a regional party list. The results of the second vote determine the overall political complexion of the Bundestag. All parties that receive at least 5 percent of the national vote—or win at least three constituencies—are allocated seats on the basis of the percentage of votes that they receive. The votes of parties not receiving representation are reapportioned to the larger parties on the basis of their share of the vote. During the 1990s, a number of countries adopted variants of the German system, including Italy, Japan, New Zealand, and several eastern European countries (e.g., Hungary, Russia, and Ukraine). A hybrid system also was adopted by the British government for devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales. One of the chief differences between mixed-member systems is the percentage of seats allocated by proportional and majoritarian methods. For example, in Italy and Japan, respectively, roughly three-fourths and three-fifths of all seats are apportioned through constituency elections.

A country’s choice of electoral system, like its conception of representation, generally reflects its particular cultural, social, historical, and political circumstances. Majority or plural methods of voting are most likely to be acceptable in relatively stable political cultures. In such cultures, fluctuations in electoral support from one election to the next reduce polarization and encourage political centrism. Bus waveform. Thus, the “winner take all” implications of the majority or plurality formulas are not experienced as unduly deprivational or restrictive. In contrast, proportional representation is more likely to be found in societies with traditional ethnic, linguistic, and religious cleavages or in societies that have experienced class and ideological conflicts.

Republicans claim a software glitch in Michigan incorrectly gave 6,000 votes to Biden before county election officials caught the error and corrected it, giving Trump a 2,000 vote lead in the county.

Sd ponferradina 2021 kitsempty spaces the blog. The glitch was noticed by local election officials in Antrim County on Wednesday after results showed that the former vice president won the county in the presidential race.

After recount, unofficials results now show that President Trump won the historically red county by just 2,000 votes, 9&10 News reports.

Questions were raised after the county first reported a local landslide for BidenI in an area that usually votes Republican. Officials acknowledged the results seemed 'skewed' and promised a second look. More than 16,000 votes were cast.

'It certainly makes a lot more sense with people who are familiar with Antrim County,' said Jeremy Scott, deputy county administrator.

It wasn't a full recount of every ballot. Scott said results that were spit out by vote machines were tallied again.

'The machine itself counted the ballots correctly,' he said.

Scott said officials were working with the company that provides election software and hardware to determine what happened.

Michigan GOP Chairwoman Laura Cox shared during a press conference that in addition to Antrim County, 47 other counties also use the software.

Video: Trump has no plans to immediately concede election as Biden leads in battlegrounds, source says (FOX News)

Cox advocated for the counties to 'closely examine' the results of the election to see if there were any other discrepancies.

The tactic by the GOP is aimed at discrediting the legitimacy of the election across the country and in the state, where Biden leads by more than 146,000 votes.

The former vice president currently has Trump beat in the state, securing 50.6 percent of the vote compared to the president's 47.9 percent.

Michigan's GOP party was unable to say what system is routinely used to count ballots, but spokesman Tony Zammit added that the system had not been used under the tenure of Cox - who took office in early 2019.

47: A Single Vote For A

'It's starting to appear what happened in Antrim County was human error,' Posthumus Lyons, who ran on the GOP gubernatorial ticket with Bill Schuette in 2018, explained to the Detroit News.

'If that would have not been caught by the public or what have you, that error would have been caught in the county canvass,' she said.

In Michigan, Judge Cynthia Stephens recently ruled against the Trump campaign's push to stop the count in order to gain additional access for its observers. 'I have no basis to find that there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits,' she said.

Biden's narrow victory in the swing states of Wisconsin and Michigan has given him more routes to the White House. Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina yet to be called.

47: A Single Vote Definition

While some states were able to get ahead by counting mail-in votes as they came in over the past two months, officials in three battleground states - Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania - were not allowed to begin counting mail-in votes until on or just before Election Day.

47: A Single Vote Presidential