It' Okay To Bring Up All The Anti-Minority Issues
Just for example. "whites" seldom hate "blacks": They just think they're somehow "bad". Not dangerous, just "bad". Really. They just believe the "free" establishment extortionist mafia media informatic handouts.
And yeah education sucks you can't learn shit in four years. That too.
Get a real reason to do the bother to get informed! Get:
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.
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 for choice of candidates), 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?
Political Science Is An Ancient Fraud
Who Uses Score Voting?
The Center for Election Science — Score Voting — Who uses Score Voting?
(+) The Harvey Milk Democratic Club, the largest Democratic club in San Francisco, uses Score Voting for their endorsements.
(+) The Pirate Party of North Rhine-Westphalia, the most populous of Germany's 16 states (population: 18 million), uses Score Voting (on a -3 to +3 scale) to elect their Board of Directors. On May 13, 2012, the NRW Pirates won 7.8% of the vote in the state elections, winning 20 of the 237 seats in state parliament. (Their party list had itself been selected via multi-winner Approval Voting.) They subsequently held their first Score Voting Board of Directors election on May 29, 2012. The results of that election are here.
(+) The Pirate Party of Lower Saxony subsequently adopted Score Voting (on a 0-5 scale) to order their party list. The first use was on August 25, 2012.
--- "Overall the counting proved that we had chosen the right system. We were only slightly slower than we had expected and most people were happy with the result. They felt that with the scoring they could express their will in a very effective way." - André, Pirate Party Member, Germany
(+) ESPN.com uses Score Voting to rank every NBA player from number 500 to number 1.
(+) Mozilla, the organization that makes the popular Firefox web browser, uses Score Voting to select Mentors for their Mozilla Reps program.
(+) The Fedora Project, a partnership of free software community members from around the globe, uses Score Voting to select their board members.
(+) The Central Co-op, an independent, member-owned natural foods cooperative in Seattle, WA, uses Score Voting for their Inside Trustee Elections.
--- "It's easy to understand." - Webster Walker, Community Outreach Administrator, Central Co-op, Seattle, WA
(+) The San Francisco FrontRunners, a running club, uses Score Voting to select which charity to donate their proceeds to.
(+) NAVA, the North American Vexillological Association, used Score Voting to identify the best and worst flags on the continent.
(+) The TV shows American Idol, The Voice, and Dancing with the Stars use Score Voting to select their winners.
(+) The Miss America Pageant uses Score Voting to select their finalists.
(+) The cooking shows Iron Chef, Top Chef, and Cupcake Wars all use Score Voting to select their winners.
(+) Many Olympic sports, such as gymnastics and figure skating, use Score Voting to select their winners.
Voting in Sanity
Where is Score Voting being used?
(+) By our schools, to select the valedictorian
(+) In the Olympics, for judging athletic performances
(+) At the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), to evaluate moviegoers' preferences
(+) On websites that feature reviews, such as Amazon.com, Yelp, and the Apple App Store
(+) ... and it undoubtedly forms a major part of every search-engine algorithm!
Note that score voting has virtually never been used in major political elections where there were significantly high stakes for voters.
In any reasonable electoral process, simple score voting provides all voters with equal electoral power. Some people disingenuously refer to the "one man, one vote" misrepresentation. What the phase actually refers to is described below:
Wikipedia (limited reliability) -- Reynolds v. Sims [Voting; "One man, one vote"] -- 15 June 2015
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population. The case was brought on behalf of voters in Alabama, but the decision affected both northern and southern states that had similarly failed to reapportion their legislatures in keeping with changes in state population.
The eight justices who struck down state senate inequality based their decision on the principle of "one person, one vote". In his majority decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren said "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."
Justice Tom C. Clark wrote a concurring opinion.
Justice Potter Stewart also issued a concurring opinion, in which he argued that while many of the schemes of representation before the court in the case were egregiously undemocratic and clearly violative of equal protection, it was not for the Court to provide any guideline beyond general reasonableness for apportionment of districts.
In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan II criticized the Court for ignoring the original intent of the Equal Protection Clause, which he argued did not extend to voting rights. Harlan claimed the Court was imposing its own idea of "good government" on the states, stifling creativity and violating federalism. Harlan further claimed that if Reynolds was correct, then the US Constitution's own provision for two senators from each state would be Constitutionally suspect since the fifty states don't have "substantially equal populations". "One person, one vote" was extended to Congressional (but not Senate) districts in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964).
So fuck the rich man's system! Get simple score voting, Make it worthwhile to be informed!
NO MORE Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton/ John Ellis "Jeb" Bush!!!
Vote for PEOPLE -- not corrupt parties!
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion