portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

actions & protests | election fraud

Today's "Democracy" Is Merely A Mask For Tyranny. Why Bother To Vote?

Get out and PROTEST the old single-selection two-party system!

We have the old single-selection two-party system. So there is no real choice at all.
Simple score voting is the only answer, and it 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.

Also we must abolish election machines (such as voting computers). If they make casting and tallying 10 times faster, they make organized cheating 10 times easier as well. Which can we truly afford?

One could say that (strategic) 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 differentiative for choice of candidates), etc. These absurdly complex "alternatives" are merely make-work for scholars and lobbyists who usually do not really care at all about the general welfare of public.

The simple score method 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"). The party-based versions of proportionate representation have failed completely in places such as Germany.

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

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

homepage: homepage: http://https://simplescorevoting.wordpress.com/simple-score-voting-the-real-solution/

Simple Score Means: 24.Nov.2015 01:45


(+) No machines are to be needed to cast or tally the votes.

(+) The nature of the voting method should be so simple to understand that there is no space for doubts or uncertainties.

(+) It must be possible and reasonable for hand counted paper ballots to be tallied at the voting stations, immediately announced, and then forwarded to larger tallying (or tabulation) centers. All tallying must require no operations other than simple addition (be additive).

Simple score is called "simple" because it makes fulfillment of all of the above "criteria" just as simple as possible. There is no averaging. There is no zero "0" ballot choice. And so on.

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.

The terminology of the election methods theorists is a disaster area. For example, score voting is claimed to be more "expressive" than approval voting. For some readers it will be helpful to explain that "approval voting can be completely described in one short simple sentence: Give no vote at all, or just one vote to any number of candidates you wish." Election methods theorists are fond of saying that approval voting is a special case of score voting. In an abstract mathematical setting, that makes sense, but in the real world, they are vastly different. These theorists also often say that if all voters vote artfully (strategically), score voting effectively becomes approval voting, since they will give the lowest possible score (or no score at all) to candidates they do not "approve" of -- but it is easy to show that this is absurd. Now we can consider an example of their problem with terminology.

Election methods theorists often claim that score voting is more "expressive" than approval voting, since there are more available choices. (Voters can input more information to the system.) It's difficult to believe they manage to think this way! Consider -- suppose I give you a choice -- I will gift you a lottery ticket on which I have already written in the number -- or alternatively, gift you a lottery ticket on which you can choose the number yourself. Which is the better deal? The second option clearly offers you "infinitely" greater "expressiveness" -- but absolutely no greater value. Imagine you are in an ancient Roman Colosseum facing two boxes, one containing an attractive lady, and another containing a man-eating tiger -- you obviously only have two choices. But you could get a better deal. You could have a choice of ten boxes, one with an attractive lady, and another nine boxes containing man-eating tigers. Clearly, with ten choices you now have a situation offering much greater "expressiveness".

The terminology disaster just goes on and on with these election methods theorists. I simply say that score voting is very much more differentiative for choice of candidates -- not more "expressive". The election methods theorists are doing the world a grave disservice by failing to point out that their totally impractical systems are strictly mathematical constructs which should never be offered as real solutions to the disaster of the election spoiler effect that inevitably engenders a two-party system.

erronious conclusion for most 25.Nov.2015 12:15


"Why bother to vote?"

I don't mind what you propose as an election method. Honestly, I've kinda liked parlimentary systems myself, in which a prime minister can be subject to a 'no confidence' vote of him and his party at any time. That also has its obvious drawbacks, too. Look at Japan and the people's objections to their new 'security law', or change in defense posture, or restarting nuke plants. They put basically the same fuckers back at the last vote. But is the problem with the legislative philosophy? Or voting rules?

Well, no...

It's about people having very little balls, taking the medicine, and getting rid of the fuckers in one manner or another.

Fact is, no matter what system you and I and most dumb 'Mericans live with, voting in some manner is going to be at the heart of it. One can argue systems all one wants. If one is going to re-elect apparent sociopaths over and over because the voter doesn't understand the candidate maybe pro-environement doesn't mean they're not willing countenace the 'shock and awe' being visited upon us and others half-way around the world socially, what in truth can be said? He/she/it will gladly spread DU across the landscape, and approve the funds afterward for some favored corporation to clean up the shit (making money at both ends; sound familiar from our current economic 'shock and awe?) yet because he/she/it appears at tree plantings and supports solar (a no-brainer to support with financial reservations, in my mind) he/she/it deserves your vote? Voters just make poor decisions. How is a voting method going to change that?

This system could work with integrity. Even those fucking machines which I do and always refuse to use. I like your proposal. But another fact is that if one doesn't take part in the process, change can only happen luckily, or, figurately or in actuality, at the point of a gun.

I'm as aware as anyone that my vote has only the weight of one vote of many, which is the real problem, isn't it? Can't our egos stand it that we're so ignored? The system is intentionally 'that way'. Isn't that what democratic input is all about, that one has no advantage at that point than another?

Despite how rigged the system may be and actions of those like the Supreme Court's Citizens' United can be, honest representatives could fix that. Even Scalia, that linear-thing bastard who somehow seems to think that the law is sacrosanct and not justice, said Congress needs to write good laws.
We keep entertaining (and remain entertain by) celebrity candidates and sychophants. What did we expect?

As I remarked to Brent who wrote that 70% of Kentucky voters didn't participate, that 70% deserves what it gets. Problem is, that 70% drag down the innocent, not the guilty. One has to get their hands dirty if the work is to be done.

A Soldier Democracy You Are Not 25.Nov.2015 15:54


"I'm as aware as anyone that my vote has only the weight of one vote of many, which is the real problem, isn't it?"

No. Not if you act like a real soldier. Willing to sacrifice.

The answer is quite simple. Get rid of the single-selection two-party.

Real simple.

Just get the only voting method that defeats the spoiler effect two-party system.

Simple score; strategic; with no machines.

Just protest and demand it.

Stop listening to compromised intellectuals.

Just do it.

the gist of my statement 26.Nov.2015 10:30


I agree with you blues.

But the gist of my statement is that people need to get over the fact that one vote is one vote. We need to get over the egotistical idea that because what we see doesn't reflect what we believe hardly means that one's personal vote means nothing. It means that your ideas are simply out-voted.

Granted, at this point I think it's so rotten, compromised, and an unfortunaely powerful so entrenched that drastic measures have been necessary. The two-party mafia as we who are alive today doesn't resemble what may have been intended (and there's very serious questions to those intentions). People almost seem to believe that somehow there's some constitutional mandate for such a thing. But all-in-all, 99% of individuals gather about power points for their individual value, worth, and survival.

I'm a devout believer and try to practice in non-cooperation and non-participation, but this is a case where that strategy is useless in a wide sense. Whatever the reason for one's apathy, the fact is that at this point if there is no alternative to voting, non-participation is abandonment.

With few exceptions, one can't 'non-participate' in society as a whole, even the most radical revolutionary. That has never been an option. Stopping in the middle of a stampede surely hazards being trampled to death. Do so many truly have such a poor vision of even their personal circle of friends? Made sense to 70% of Kentucky voters, and I wonder how it feels seeing little more than the heels of the 30% stomping their face.

Again, when one inputs nothing (and I would accept getting out in the streets (on more than just voting days) voicing opinion as just as effective), is it reasonable to expect something in return?

It's NOT About Non-Cooperation And Non-Participation 27.Nov.2015 04:51


shaker above replied to my simple score voting message with:

But the gist of my statement is that people need to get over the fact that one vote is one vote. We need to get over the egotistical idea that because what we see doesn't reflect what we believe hardly means that one's personal vote means nothing. It means that your ideas are simply out-voted.

Question: How on earth can one's personal vote mean anything at all if the existing (single-selection) voting system ensures that their ideas cannot even begin to be represented? What candidates are realistically available in the 2016 presidential election, and whose ideas do they truly support? (State and federal legislative elections are equally important, albeit not as high-profile.)

Who is available for the 2016 presidential race? Republicans offer Trump the entertainer, or Ben Carson, who (lately) would like to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid (except for the elderly) and replace them, as well as Obamacare, with a system of birth-to-death savings accounts -- and so on. Oh great!

Democrats offer Hillary Clinton the heartless warmongering fascist. Or perhaps Bernie Sanders, who advocates domestic benefits, but also fascist foreign wars of aggression, which would send so much funding to the military/ industrial/ intelligence complex that nothing would remain to fund his great domestic programs.

Then there's Jill Stein of the U.S. Green Party, who will of course never get elected due to the spoiler effect/ single-selection/ two-party trap. The U.S. Green Party, like the Mexico Green Party, will be just as corrupt as the others within five years if it gains power, just like the one in Mexico:

GlobalPost -- Mexico elections: a darker shade of green -- 5/26/12
 link to www.globalpost.com

MEXICO CITY, Mexico Nepotism, bribery, the death penalty, and even environmental destruction. Mexico's Partido Verde Ecologista, or Ecological Green Party, stands for anything but green values.

That is according to the party's many fierce critics, who include just about every serious environmentalist in Mexico.

"It is a family party, which buys votes and political positions, and distorts the environmental agenda," Patricia Arendar, director of Greenpeace Mexico, told GlobalPost.

She added that the party's policy proposals are inconsistent, short on detail, and fail to address urgent environmental issues facing Mexico. Those include deforestation, overfishing, toxic dumping and climate change.

Simple score voting is the only method that does not reinforce and mandate voting machine infested, spoiler effect/ single-selection/ two-party trap. It cripples the false democracy trap to the point of complete disruption.

Consider going to your voting station, voting for some of the good-for-nothing candidates, or just submitting a blank ballot. You will then be counted as a participant.

Then go out and stand with the candidate supporters -- holding up a sign demanding real democracy with simple score voting and perhaps handing out leaflets.

Because voting in a machine-infested single-selection system is just the same as not voting at all -- except that it demonstrates acquiescence to the pretend-democracy we endure now.

Sorry, blues 28.Nov.2015 10:14


I am sincerely sorry, blues. I feel that I might be exasperating. I was reluctant to post the first reply because it was basically off-topic. But the point that I'm making is that if such a system were to be adopted, one has to get people to VOTE for that possibility. Hmmm...

Another point I'm trying to make is that aspect of the reality in so many situations is left untouched in this (mine) portion of the spectrum. On the whole (not here) we've abandoned the subject and ceded it to the managed left.

Just think (and I'm speaking of real-time, today, now)...You've a better method of managing the vote (I think you do) which would seemingly help solve some obvious flaws. Only 30% actually vote. I suspect that number is not a percentage of the voting age population, but only those registered to vote, and certainly not those denied the vote for one reason or another.

[Just to interject something, I would like to see them nullify any vote that is below some number over 50% participation. Unfortuantely, few would be elected, especially in off-presidental years; we'd end up allowing someone (governor, whomever) to appoint someone. If not for those mechanisms like appointment to cover, say, death of a sitting rep, there'd be no representation at all for that segment of the population. Not a desirable thing to a definite majority. (Ludicrously, bringing to a vote the subject of having representation or enduring times in which none exist might actually bring a very great majority out to vote.) But overall, we then would allow the PTB to appoint who they want anyway, or, hell, we might be voting contiunuously!!! Not a good idea.]

Well, your idea is not of that order. Yours refines the current practice in an obviously meaningful way. But only 30% vote...Kind of makes you sad, doesn't it? Keep working, blues. I might be exasperating, but the voting situation we have now is plain depressing.

But Only 30% Vote... Kind Of Makes You Sad -- No! 01.Dec.2015 02:55


Thanks shaker for providing a much appreciated dialog!

90% would vote if we had simple score voting. And they would even strive to be adequately informed. The citizens are not so stupid as to not know that the single-selection (single-vote) spoiler effect, two-party trap is a giant FRAUD.

The existence of the simple score escape has been thoroughly understood at least at the very least since the French Revolution -- in fact for perhaps 3,000 years at least.

This disinformation/ uninformation via false education and the moneyed class media is the ultimate conspiracy.

The majority of the common people do not wish to be oppressed, and sent to bloody wars by the perpetual psychopathic oligarchy.

They will vote for their freedom if given the chance. It has been the job description of the academic class to persuade them that they have no such chance.

Why are we not ruled by kings anymore? Why can we vote at all? It is only because of our numerous revolts. Time for more revolts to stop Armageddon! Time is running out.

Get simple score voting or die soon.

Vote If You Feel You Must 01.Dec.2015 16:18


Let the computer decide if it's psycho Hillary or psycho Donald.

Makes no difference anyway, since you have no simple score.

Vote your mortgaged heart out.

Here's some entertainment to go with "deal" you are not going to get:

Ask your doctor about voting!!!