portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements global

election fraud | government

Just More Scared Sheep. Because They Have NO POWER!

They are scared because the know they are powerless against the two-face two-party officials. And you know what? They are right. (Because they, after all, are powerless.)
Get simple score voting and get rid of these scum!

It is what "political scientists" have been hiding for centuries.

The entire "election methods" (and "IRV") cult is the ultimate scam. Bought and paid for by the Rockefellers and Rothschilds.

You can give one to ten votes to anybody (even write-ins) (up to some sane limit, up to maybe 20 candidates) (counting the lesser vote if a ballot mistakenly gives two scores, so no disqualified ("spoiled") ballots). Just add up the votes. If you give ten votes to Nader and nine to Gore, you only sacrificed 10% of your vote if Nader doesn't win. The arithmetic is perfectly simple!

But no. Keep electing Depublicans and Replicrats. See where that gets you.

Enjoy Clinton-II and WW-III.

homepage: homepage: http://https://politicalscienceisanancientfraud.wordpress.com/

Another NSA Anti-Democracy Scam 20.Feb.2015 16:56


Just try:

Don't need no NSA back-door encryption.

Sorry Honey! 20.Feb.2015 18:28


See dear, I have 10 votes in simple score voting, and I give you a 5 but Veronica got a 3, so that means I can nail you 5 times and Veronica 3! I keep 1 for Amanda, and 1 for Amanda's sister.

I wonder how that would go over blues?

I think you should try your system out and let us know which dog house you are sleeping in. Veronica's maybe?

This Real Democracy Thing Is A Real Problem For You, Huh? 20.Feb.2015 20:39


Bothers you huh?

Don't Distort The Facts 20.Feb.2015 21:43


You could give one to ten votes to, say, up to 20 candidates. So you could grant a total of 200 votes to, say, 20 candidates. You don't have to "ration" them.

Then they simply get added up.

Hate democracy huh?

Prefer rule by the back-pocket paid-off courts More to your liking?

Don't trust the people? Prefer the paid-off judges?

well yes. 21.Feb.2015 06:12


yes, if "TRUE" democracy involves letting the criminally insane vote, career criminals, and namby-pamby twats who can't really make a fucking decisions to save their own lives. They should be out of the decision loop.

Here is how the real world works blues.

We have a primary system. you get to choose the person you like the best. You don't get to Ginsu that person into 7/5ths or some other douche bag idea. You put your one vote behind the best person you believe represents your views.

Then the top winners (and this is the part you either don't get or don't like) compete against each other and the winner of that contest gets the prize. In the end, their can only be one. One man, one vote.

there is actually more support for allowing someone to get as many votes as dollars tax dollars the pay because those people should have a weighted because they should be able to decide how their money is spent, and not those whose money it isn't. Its interesting concept, but I don't' agree with it.

Now, blues, you may try and turn this around into a "you hate democracy because you don't agree with me bullshit" mis-direction but nobody will buy it.

If you can't choose the prettiest horse in the glue factory, then that's your problem.

The problem is with you. this is why you were never put in charge of anything. leaders must be able to decide. not whine and moo, and bleat about how unfair the system is.

What A Steaming Pile Of Misrepresentation 21.Feb.2015 09:36


No shame, huh? All doubletalk and distraction.

For example; in the 2016 election we may have to choose between the "great" Jeb Bush and the slimy Hillary Clinton.

Just in case you don't know about Hillary Clinton:

"Hillary works for Goldman Sachs and likes war, otherwise I like Hillary," a former Bill Clinton aide told me sardonically. First, he was referring to her cushy relationships with top Wall Street barons and her $200,000 speeches with the criminal enterprise known as Goldman Sachs, which played a part in crashing the U.S. economy in 2008 and burdening taxpayers with costly bailouts. Second, he was calling attention to her war hawkish foreign policy. -- Ralph Nader

 link to www.globalresearch.ca

These may be the only choices presented to us by the 100% rigged Republican/ Democrat "primary system." They're both fascists, of course.

Now the "Independent" Bernie Sanders may also run; damaged goods, yes, but probably not fascist. But if you give your one vote to Bernie you 100% forfeit your ability to vote for the (supposed) lesser of the other two-party evils. This is the well-known spoiler effect.

So with simplified score voting, you could give nine votes to the "lesser fascist," no vote at all the "worse fascist" and ten to Sanders. That way, if Sanders doesn't win, you will only have sacrificed exactly 10% of your voting power, rather than the 100% you would lose with the present single-selection method.

This is almost the only way third parties could win.

"One man, one vote" has only ever been an expression regarding the unreasonable apportionment of voting districts. And also, an expression used to advocate universal suffrage. It concerns EQUAL voting rights, not improved voting methods that provide equal voting rights. Score voting provides equal voting rights. So this has nothing at all to do with baseless complaints about that.

There do exist other voting methods that are studied by "election methods experts. But they all turn out to be hopelessly complicated in the performance of vote counts. Or in the case of the approval voting method, "low input responsiveness" causes the method to be almost useless.

"yes, if "TRUE" democracy involves letting the criminally insane vote, career criminals..." This is a blatant distraction Somebody must think we are stupid.

"The problem is with you. this is why you were never put in charge of anything." Actually I was the president of a corporation at one time, responsible for the well-being of multiple interests.

So all this criticism only amounts to a steaming landfill.

math 21.Feb.2015 10:19


so blues said ""Hillary works for Goldman Sachs and likes war, otherwise I like Hillary"

Two strikes against one strike for.

so blues for 1/3 for Hillary.

Blues likes Sanders non facist side, so Bernie gets one strike against and Nine strikes for.

so blues votes for 9/10 for Sanders.

So one man one vote becomes 1.23 votes. (1/3 + 9/10)

glad you were the CEO of the toilet radio divers Corporation..

In this universe we get one man, one vote. its fair, easy and seamless. It may not be pretty, it may not give the results you want, but again, if you can't make a decision, even a wrong one, then voting isn't for you.

i - spin 21.Feb.2015 10:36


hey 'i' you left out "all the electoral college crap" when you were describing your version compared to blues

electoral college crap 21.Feb.2015 11:33


yes, the electoral college doesn't get to 1/3 of or 7/5ths or 9/10 either.

In fact, I would prefer it done the way it was back at the beginning of the country in that the electorals pick the president. they know them better than we do, and it makes them more accountable to us, which is why the deflected this responsibility way back. But much like simple score voting, it aint gonna happen.

winner by default 21.Feb.2015 11:51


then, that said based on that conclusion

i like blues suggestion better if i was comparing the two systems and wanting 'real' democracy

cheater 21.Feb.2015 12:00


that's great! put it to a vote and when you can get 2/3s of the states plus a super majority of both houses to agree, you've got yourself a winner!

So How exactly Did We Get Democracy? By Begging The Great Kings? Don't Think So 21.Feb.2015 15:01


We got it by FORCE! Nothing less. We don't want no damned "republic" ruled by payed-off judges is fake black robes.

We totally want real democracy.

They call us democratists the "mob"! THEY are the judicial mafia.

In Connecticut I knew the petty criminals who had to hire their slimy lawyers to pay the judges to let them go. And my billionaire friends, who got my poor petty criminal friends excused, would gleefully inform me when their relatives were promoted to the slimy judgeships and corporate boards to receive 100,000,000 bonuses! Then those relatives became suddenly super-rich. In the USSA crime pays like nothing else! And then who did these scum lawyers and judges really protect (not just for show)?

So they give gave and lesbians the (temporary) "right" to get married? Oh big show. While they give the ultra-rich the power to rule us all. What a great deal! Republic my ass.

THE PEOPLE are the only true guardians of the rights of the minorities. Since they are all minorities.

Simple score voting is the true will of the people. (Not some asinine slogan of "one man one vote"). Equal vote for all citizens, with no spoiler two-party lock-in. Vote for as many as you want. Vote strategically. Smash the two-party oligarchy.

We have achieved minimal democracy. Now the battle begins for total democracy! No more politicians in black robes!

It involves ONLY simple addition. Simply add up the votes. No multiplication, division, fractions, elimination of losers. Just add up the votes. AND WIN!!!

We totally want real democracy? 21.Feb.2015 16:20


ah, no we don't.

In a 100% democracy there were still be corruption, apathy, etc.

However since more than 50% of the population are woman, we would all be marred to George Clooney..