portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements global

actions & protests | government

Democracy Never Ever Really Worked Anyway — But It Could

Time to end the election methods scams that have been perpetrated since around 1770, about the time of the French Revolution! Take a look at what they have done to democracy:
From Wikipedia, (the "non-profit" encyclopedia (a private asset) built by volunteers)
Voting system

Voting theory became an object of academic study around the time of the French Revolution.[14] Jean-Charles de Borda proposed the Borda count in 1770 as a method for electing members to the French Academy of Sciences. His system was opposed by the Marquis de Condorcet, who proposed instead the method of pairwise comparison that he had devised. Implementations of this method are known as Condorcet methods. He also wrote about the Condorcet paradox, which he called the intransitivity of majority preferences.[16]

While Condorcet and Borda are usually credited as the founders of voting theory, recent research has shown that the philosopher Ramon Llull discovered both the Borda count and a pairwise method that satisfied the Condorcet criterion in the 13th century. The manuscripts in which he described these methods had been lost to history until they were rediscovered in 2001.[17]

The 1% have just been dragging out one red-herring after another, and so laying the dogs on the wrong scent! The solution is dirt-simple, yet now they drag out the new fake "IRV" to throw us off the trail to people-power! And it never ends.

Who is left that is beholden to vote "sincerely" or "honestly" (really heroically and foolishly)? ONLY THE POOR PUBLIC!!!

Simple score voting has ALWAYS been the solution! You get to vote for as many candidates as you choose (within practical time or number-of- candidate constraints). You can give each, individual one of them between one and ten votes. Give one candidate 10 votes, another 9, and you cannot waste more than 10% of your vote. Plus you get to be strategic (not foolishly heroic). Pretty soon the greedy creeps will start coming in second! THEN WE WIN!

Rich people's foundations have been promoting absurd "election methods" for well over the 242 years since 1770, and the "IRV" family of methods is merely the latest one. This class of methods has been recently supported with funds from the Rockefeller Brothers, Ford Foundation, Carnegie-Mellon Fund, etc. (The links that prove that are now dead, but I have seen them.) The purpose of democracy was always said to be to protect the people from the tyrants, but that notion has been turned upside-down. Voting was never really a contest between two (or more) candidates, but between the weak and the mighty.

You need to explain more, "Blues" 02.Dec.2012 05:26

Mike Novack

Not just argue that it all still favors the powerful because that's not who constitute the rank and file of the IRV movement.

OK, I'll try. Folks, there are NO possible methods that always work well in the sense that there is no possible distribution of voter preference that will make a shambles of the method. At best all we can hope for is that our method doesn't have any DANGEROUS flaws (when goes bad, gives a VERY bad result). If you are for IRV you have to try to understand the circumstances under which this method gives horrendous results and what can be done to prevent that.

Please -- do look up Borda and Condorcet, especially Condorcet so that you understand what a "Condorcet candidate" is (a candidate that IF the votes in a multi candidate contest were counted as separate pairwise one to one contests a "Condorcet candidate" is one who would win against all the others). The reason you need to understand that is IF there is a Condorcet candidate and IF under IRV this candidate gets eliminated (too few first place votes) then IRV will give a bad result, possibly a VERY bad result.

I'll repeat, NO vote counting method can be perfect (see the work of Arrow, et al.) All we can hope for is that is will usually give good results and never more than moderately bad ones.

IRV which is modified to FIRST check for the existence of a Condorcet candidate is a pretty good method as most of the dangers of IRV are eliminated (IF there is a Condorcet candidate, declare that candidate the winner, otherwise use IRV to decide the winner --- if there is no Condorcet candidate IRV is unlikely to give a horrendous result).

For the benefit of those who want IRV but have never been shown the "warts" straight IRV can ..........
a) Bring back "lesser of evil" choice when your preferred candidate has a real chance of winning! (as opposed to now with "first past the post" when "lesser of evil" choices occur when your candidate has little or no chance)
b) Have the very weird/dangerous outcome where in a subsequent election the winning candidate is in the opposite direction from a uniform change in voter preference in the opposite direction since the previous election. Example, in election one, the center candidate wins. In election two the right wing candidate wins even though the votes for ALL parties to the left have increased and ALL to the right decreased (or of course, vice versa).

PLEASE -- instead of arguing that both of these aren't terribly likely, note that they are preventable by not allowing a Condorcet candidate to be eliminated.

Here is my problem. 03.Dec.2012 06:31


I read too many articles that say "if only it could be like this, then it will all be better". I saw an article that was titled "5 Ways to Beat the Plutocrats".

Ready for this wish list to Santa:
1)Require the rich to annually disclose the income they're reporting to the IRS and how much of that income they actually pay in taxes.
2)Leverage the power of the public purse against excessive corporate executive pay.
3)Give Americans a safe alternative to private banks.
4)Tax undistributed corporate profits.
5)Cap income at America's economic summit.


If we could institute this wish list then we wouldn't have to worry about Plutocrats.

The connection here is that these article propose something that the people in power will not accept and if we had the power to force it, then we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

All of these "paths" to Utopia seem to be blind to the real issue. We don't have the power to make these changes.

So it seems what we really need is not a change in the system, but to remove the system that doesn't allow us to make changes.

My next problem with articles like this this, is that they seem to be relying on some outside agency to fix the problems.

"Teacher, billy is picking on me, make him stop." It is time we realize that no one is going to help us, we need to just kick "billys" ass.

They are not going to change in any substancive way if it means they will lose something (money, power, etc.), and for it to get better for the majority of the people, they will have to lose quite a lot.

So it just isn't going to happen, unless we make it happen.