portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article creative oregon & cascadia

imperialism & war

From the heartland...

"Hi, all you listeners. We're back now after pandering to commercial interests and money at brea. We've had on our show presidential candidate Hillary Clinton answering questions all of our listeners might have of her..."
"Hi, all you listeners. We're back now after pandering to commercial interests and money at brea. We've had on our show presidential candidate Hillary Clinton answering questions all of our listeners might have of her. I must remark before we start, Hillary, that I had an aunt whose name was 'Hillaria'. Seriously! Isn't that a hoot?

(Hillary laughs uneasily.)

"It's now time for our call-in segment for concerns you out there in Never-neverland might express and we may have missed. She's graciously agreed to answer all of those questions, as long as they don't consist of her relationship with Bill or her personal political history before and after the year 2000. We'll take the first caller now."

"Ed, you're on the line now...Ed? Are you there?"

"Oh! Me? Yes I'm here. But I'm sorry. My fingers on the phone are faster than my thoughts. I don't hear too well anymore. Sounded like you were talking to John McCain..."

(Audible end of connection.)

"Ok...We'll take the next caller please. Grace...Grace are you there?"

(momentary silence)

"Somehow we've seem to have lost Grace, too. I see another blinking light on my panel. Seems we have our first question. What's your name, sir, and how can Hillary assure herself of your vote?"

"Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith
And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game..."*


*Thanks to the Rolling Stones

You're Learning Kid 12.Jun.2015 22:19

blues

Don't give your vote, nor your precious bodily fluids, to these monsters!

Time for the great mutiny from those who have stolen our treasure to rule the world. Stolen our lives. To rule the world.

Simple score voting.

No more Clinton/Bush.

Stop it.

We have the old single-selection two-party. So no choice at all for you.

The "republic" is simply ruled by judges who may, for example, throw gays a bone for show now and then, but really only watch out for the rights of the people who matter -- the rich, of course.

Democracy means knowingness and good will of the PEOPLE. Not the republicist rapaciousness of the judges.

Teach the people! Trust The People! We are not the "mob"! The rich Great Gamers are the real mob. You have to know the truth and seek the truth and the truth will set you free.

There are two entirely different kinds of elections, and kinds of "contestants". An election of the president of a science fiction novel forum is not at all the same thing as an election of a United States President. The former is really a contest between two (or more) individual candidates (and their agendas), but the latter is actually a contest between the weak and the mighty the well-supported candidates of a very few elites versus the grass-roots candidates of the vast multitude of non-elite people.

Simple score voting can be completely described in one short simple sentence: Give no vote at all, or from one to ten votes to any number of candidates you wish (up to some reasonable limit, say 20 candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.

It can be completely machine-free! If machines make tallying X time easier, they make coordinated rigging X times easier. Which can we truly afford???

One could say that simple score eliminates 90% of the spoiler effect. To illustrate: if a voter gives 10 votes to Nader and 9 votes to Gore, it is simply obvious that, if Nader does not win, the voter has only sacrificed exactly 10% of their voting power. Not 100% as they would have had they been forced to use the usual single-selection ("faux plurality") voting method.

No fancy math is necessary to compare and contrast it to every other option for effectiveness and simplicity, including single-selection (aka "plurality," our present "system") Condorcet, Borda, IRV, Range (with its tricky "averages"), Approval (which is not adequately discriminative), etc.

The simple score method I advocate is the very simplest, since it only allows from 1 to 10 votes to be given, not from 0 to 9, or 0 to 10. That is simply another complication. It also has no vote-averaging that seriously complicates the "range" score method. I also seem t be the only one to point out that voters should always vote artfully (aka strategically), not artlessly or heroically (aka "honestly" or "sincerely").

(Simple score is not like approval voting at all -- it is vastly more discriminative.)

PLEASE NOTE: score voting has never been used when there were truly high stakes for the voters. The single-selection method has always been utilized to spoiler effect enforced two-party or two-candidate choices. And would three money-empowered choices be better? Did Greece and Spain with their parliamentary schemes fare well with their "systems"?

And the people MUST vote strategically -- NOT artlessly ("honestly", "sincerely")! Do the Senators and judges act with honesty and sincerity? Do they vote heroicaly? Take a wild guess!

And why do you suppose they don't have just ONE money-empowered candidate or party? Something to think about?

Exactly, blues 14.Jun.2015 13:39

shaker

I haven't looked in awhile, but to my understanding Germany still uses paper ballots.

What in hell is the hurry anyway? The winner doesn't take office until January. Bet, though, it's a big day for the news outlets and they sure as hell don't want to leave anyone without their BS conclusions.

No Clinton-Bush! Joined at the hip, those two families are while we have to really search for anything other than apparent differences of gender, intellect, and their physical appearance.

If people would look less at the candidates (and their motives for election which would give them to say just about anything to win, expedient and amoral people that most truly are today) look at their associates. Did people realize in 2000 that voting for Bush was also voting for Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their treasonous (hate using the word because I don't believe in national sovereignity, but it fits as they betrayed the better part of the human race) minions? All they saw was that idiot Gore who'd gone brain-dead after 8 years of being VP (or maybe he always was brain-dead; what king appoints a truly viable successor?) and Al managed to out-idiot George. The 'good guy' (Powell) in it all proved he was just the kind of lackey the military raises to the rank of general and betrayed even himself, no less the country that paid for and made his 'career'. Any ethical man would have quit rather than stand in front to the whole world at the UN and shamed himself. Even afterward, once he realized that he was the donkey that was missing the tail at the party, he stuck around long enough and kept his mouth shut to allow George to appear a better idiot than Kerry (who let the Reagan crowd get away with murder in South America and playing both sides in the Iran-Iraq war), a life-long CIA operative if I ever saw one. It was just ludicrous how the right supported a military deserter over one who might actually have been in Vietnam (despite John's reasons for being there).

America needs to adopt the policy of guilt by association BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT POLITICS IS ALL ABOUT! The hero-culture crap and cults of personality has to end, or we will.

I'm not about to call the voters stupid, just because I don't think that it's constructive at all. But they do have to stop thinking they are above politics while the asses they elected get there because they think they're above the voters. Use the same skills in politics that you would use on the street when judging which crook you wish to be exposed. Doesn't always work, but it sure beats having someone else select, support, and count the votes of the people who may have some impact in your lives through the tenure in office. I don't care if you're an anarchist or a 'libertarian' or in the wasteland between. If you use a tool unfamiliar to you and hurt yourself, is the tool to blame? Learn to read the whole fucking manual.