portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

actions & protests | election fraud

Old Times -- Good Times -- Teenage Love

Their signal is too strong. Our message is not getting through.

Mary Wells - My Guy
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1M5eEJeT38
Get strategic score voting. We do not need this two-party insanity.

I keep pointing out that strategic score ("simple score") voting Can Be Completely Described in one short simple sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all (ignore them as if the did not exist), or strategically bid from five (5) to ten (10) votes to any number of candidates you wish (up to some reasonable limit, say 20 candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.

Of course, with no machines. NOTHING ELSE EVEN BEGINS TO WORK!

That way, you could (say, in a general election, presuming you are are leftist) write in Cynthia McKinney and bid her 10 votes, and bid Bernard Sanders 8 or 9 votes as a hedge (depending on your choice of strategy). This would completely disrupt the alleged two-party system. The oppressive duopolists can always use strategy, so strategy must be available to the common voters if they are to win.

Writing in Cynthia McKinney might be a great strategy, if you had strategic score.

You need to explain 10.Feb.2016 05:30

Mike Novack

"This would completely disrupt the alleged two-party system"

WHY do you think that? Explain your reasoning. For your examples (of how this would work) do not use JUST your current issue (an unrepresented interest to the left) but include unrepresented interests to the right and in the middle (as MIGHT end up being the case in the upcoming presidential election). Assume various sets of people would use their "simple score" votes in certain ways and examine the election outcome and repeat for different distribution of preferences. Did all of these tend to break the hold of the major parties? Or was the result that the PLURALITY winner (and that is all that you would have) was winning by a smaller margin in terms of total votes counted << in other words, you managed to increase the vote counts of the losing candidates without ever, or only rarely, changing who won >>

When Arrow et al proved no perfect system possible they did NOT mean given some particular division of interests in the population << for example, your perspective of two major parties, right and middle, unrepresented interest to the left >>

And when you describe other options as NEEDING machines, well that is more a matter of our desires and expectations of instant gratification (how fast the results are achieved). Please, I am NOT a fan of plain IRV. But that method does not REQUIRE machines << done by hand, the maximum number of SIMPLE COUNTS cannot be greater than the number of candidates minus one >> Nor am I necessarily a fan of "proportional representation", but that doesn't require machines any more than "simple score" does.

There's Nothing To Explain, Actually 10.Feb.2016 11:10

blues

Well, Mark, "Election methods theory" is mostly a scam in which colleges devise nearly worthless courses (that students pay big money for). Most all of their computer models, faulty experiments, game theory, "criteria", and other rigamarole is merely mental masturbation. And "Arrow's Impossibility Theorem" does not apply to score voting methods. (Disclosure: I love higher order symbolic logic, and dislike game theory.)

Therefor, most discussions about these systems are now profoundly incoherent. About ten years ago the Ford Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, et al. financed movements to heavily promote IRV, which resulted in disaster for several local governments. Some of their confusing final IRV tallies actually led to plurality results, and IRV can even create situations where two candidates can have "more than 50%" of the "votes" simultaneously.

The term "plurality" is often misused; what we use now is really a "single-selection" voting method. Many members of the astroturf IRV movements touted deceptive information and arguments. So I don't believe actual IRV voting was ever utilized without machine counting. The methods used by the cited communities were probably oversimplified, or the tabulations were sham rituals.

Systems that require anything more elaborate than simple addition are going to require machine tabulation; this is outright common sense.

It is obvious that strategic score voting is completely neutral with regard to political orientation (leftist, moderate, rightist, etc.) The point of it is to disrupt the spoiler effect, and thus the two-party syndrome. This is accomplished by, for example, allowing each voter to bid 10 votes for candidates that the truly desire, and say, 9 votes for lesser evil candidates. Thus they will have sacrificed merely 10% of their franchise (voting power) if some lesser evil one wins.

Virtually all academic voting theorists presuppose that elections are contests between candidates, when they are predominantly contests between powerful elite interests (who always use strategy) and the common citizens, who become the real losers. Yet these theorists construct systems that thwart the use of strategy by the common voters, who are encouraged to vote "honestly", or "sincerely"; in other words, artlessly and thus hopelessly.

I actually think this discussion moot 11.Feb.2016 09:09

shaker

The point at which actual proposals for enactment into law, or to enact a budget, etc. in legislatures will still apply the same yes or no principles as 'majority rules'. Things naturally devolve to that simple dichotomy. How you elect those who vote in those situations makes a difference only at the representational level.

On it's face, simple score may seem absurd, but that is the nature of reaching some consensus upon manageable questions in a group of equals. It might be characterized as a distillation process, and that, in effect, is the character taken on by the voting for general representation. What it may force is much more positional compromise among candidates, or resort to gangster-style politics. If gangster-type politics prevails, that is the fault of the represented. I grew up with Chicago politics during and just after the 1st Daley. (Gotta admit the man had balls...but he had tradition behind him, too) It was 'the city that worked', everyone knew how and why it worked, so...One year the Repugs even tried to run an openly Jewish, business-oriented candidate. I think he got 6 votes.

Personally, I think a simple score voting method 'may' distill the power of large parties, especially at the local level. I'd really welcome that. Some of these 'fluff' candidates might have some real challenge. Mike certainly has a point in saying "in other words, you managed to increase the vote counts of the losing candidates without ever, or only rarely, changing who won", I'm simply admitting that such may actually be the case, not that it must be. What I would compare simple score voting to is an open primary without party sanction. Hell, the parties use taxpayer money for their voting process in closed affairs now. A one-and-done simple score vote will not do, though, to make the practice effective. It has to be a distillation process, and eventually get to a small number of candidates for a final vote, which leads one pretty much back to the beginning.

Of necessity, simple score will need machines, and to be acceptable to me, then, on any level other than what I have now for the voting process, will require an overhaul of both the machines and their management. Personally, on a national level, I don't see why hand-counts only aren't done. But I think that public desire for participating at that level isn't great enough to support that. People are so turned-off by the voting process that realizing 50-60% is only possible by allowing people to vote from their armchair for what appears to be the most important offices, something we only afforded those with circumstance that doesn't allow their normal, physical presence. As it is, too, one finds quite reliable participation from some classes of individuals that don't represent a majority of a given population. A distillation process only invites voter fatigue.

But to get back to the point, if simple score could be a distillation process, and find some way to manage and inspire participation, I think Mike's arguement at best, just points to what is already here in one form or another. While the math doesn't lie, its assumptions in human affairs don't not have to hold. (Is that going to be the downfall of modern man? He's too busy reasoning to stop and smell the shit?) Simple score might make the front end of the process that isn't very publicly transparent more clear to the voter. Eventually it will have to default to a manageable number of candidates for a final vote. One-and-done cannot be acceptable for simple score. In any case, the parties as an apparatus will still exist, and candidates using their services, special interests, and money will still exist.

Same as it ever was...With a twist.

If This Discussion Is Moot Then The Idea Of Democracy Is Moot 12.Feb.2016 00:21

blues

/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jean-Jacques Rousseau -- Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men -- 1755
 http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq\\\_04.htm


Civilised man, on the other hand, is always moving, sweating, toiling and racking his brains to find still more laborious occupations: he goes on in drudgery to his last moment, and even seeks death to put himself in a position to live, or renounces life to acquire immortality. He pays his court to men in power, whom he hates, and to the wealthy, whom he despises; he stops at nothing to have the honour of serving them; he is not ashamed to value himself on his own meanness and their protection; and, proud of his slavery, he speaks with disdain of those, who have not the honour of sharing it.
\\\\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well that's a blast from the past. With all due respect, is there no limitation on the number of those who prefer to maintain their own enslavement\\\?

This is about a simple strategic score voting method. It is called simple for a reason. I said:

"....strategic score ("simple score") voting Can Be Completely Described in one short simple sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all (ignore them as if the did not exist), or strategically bid from five (5) to ten (10) votes to any number of candidates you wish (up to some reasonable limit, say 20 candidates), and then simply add all the votes up."

Then shaker said:

"Of necessity, simple score will need machines, and to be acceptable to me, then, on any level other than what I have now for the voting process, will require an overhaul of both the machines and their management."

No.

Let's do a strategic score election. Several of the votes listed below would have to be write-ins, even where that is not noted, since only one candidate will receive each of the Democratic and the Republican nominations.

Here are the bids (votes cast) by blues and by "Joe Blow":

---------- blues' bids: ----------

(Ignore, nothing) Patrick Buchanan (Write-in)

(Ignore, nothing) John "Jeb" Bush, Governor

(Ignore, nothing) Hillary Clinton, Senator

(Ignore, nothing) Rafael "Ted" Cruz, Senator

(Ignore, nothing) John Kasich, Governor

(10) Cynthia McKinney ,Congresswoman (Write-in)

( 7) Bernard "Bernie" Sanders

( 9) Jill Stein

( 5) Donald Trump

(10) Jesse Ventura, Governor (Write-in)

( 9) Elizabeth Warren, Senator (Write in)

( 7) Jim Webb, U.S. Senator (Write in)

---------- "Joe Blow's" bids: ----------

( 6) Patrick Buchanan (Write-in)

( 7) John "Jeb" Bush, Governor

( 9) Hillary Clinton, Senator

(10) Rafael "Ted" Cruz, Senator

(10) John Kasich, Governor

(Ignore, nothing) Cynthia McKinney ,Congresswoman (Write-in)

(Ignore, nothing) Bernard "Bernie" Sanders

(Ignore, nothing) Jill Stein

( 8) Donald Trump

( 6) Jesse Ventura, Governor (Write-in)

(Ignore, nothing) Elizabeth Warren, Senator (Write in)

(Ignore, nothing) Jim Webb, U.S. Senator (Write in)

---------- Now just add up these votes: ----------

( 6) Patrick Buchanan (Write-in)

( 7) John "Jeb" Bush, Governor

( 9) Hillary Clinton, Senator

(10) Rafael "Ted" Cruz, Senator

(10) John Kasich, Governor

(10) Cynthia McKinney ,Congresswoman (Write-in)

( 7) Bernard "Bernie" Sanders

( 9) Jill Stein

(13) Donald Trump

(16) Jesse Ventura, Governor (Write-in)

( 9) Elizabeth Warren, Senator (Write in)

( 7) Jim Webb, U.S. Senator (Write in)

------- This tally is reported by the voting station -------

With 16 votes, Jesse Ventura wins if just blues and Joe Blow vote at this voting station (employing strategy if we are not artless). These results are hand counted, then announced, and then forwarded to a larger tallying station.

This only requires simple addition, so no machines are needed.

shaker said:

"Mike certainly has a point in saying "in other words, you managed to increase the vote counts of the losing candidates without ever, or only rarely, changing who won", I'm simply admitting that such may actually be the case, not that it must be. What I would compare simple score voting to is an open primary without party sanction."

Not quite: Once the voters learn the basic strategy it will certainly change who wins. No political parties are required, although there presumably would be political associations.

In this abbreviated example Jesse Ventura won. The powerful elite interests lost and the common people won. That would be highly improbable with any other machine-free election method.

Why On Earth Is This Discussion "Moot"\\\?\\\?\\\? 12.Feb.2016 11:18

blues

It will take only a moderate amount of effort to see how this could, to an astonishing degree, free us. This is about a simple strategic score voting method; and it is called simple for a reason. I said:

"....strategic score ("simple score") voting \\\_can be completely described\\\_ in one short simple sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all (ignore them as if the did not exist), or strategically bid from five (5) to ten (10) votes to any number of candidates you wish (up to some reasonable limit, say 20 candidates), and then simply add all the votes up."

Then shaker said:

"Of necessity, simple score will need machines, and to be acceptable to me, then, on any level other than what I have now for the voting process, will require an overhaul of both the machines and their management."

I say that that is not what should happen.

Let's do a strategic score election. Several of the votes listed below would have to be write-ins even where that is not noted, since only one candidate will receive their party's nomination.

My votes were strategically based upon candidate's political orientation, past performance, and pragmatic considerations. I gave Patrick Buchanan 5 bids only because of his great aversion to foreign wars, since nothing else will matter if someone starts a third world war.

Here are the bids (votes cast) by blues and by "Joe Blow":

---------- blues' bids: ----------

( 5) Buchanan, Patrick (Write-in)
(Ignore, nothing) Bush, John "Jeb", Governor
(Ignore, nothing) Clinton, Hillary, Senator
(Ignore, nothing) Cruz, Rafael "Ted", Senator
(Ignore, nothing) Kasich, John, Governor
(10) Kucinich, Dennis, Congressman (Write-in)
(10) McKinney, Cynthia, Congresswoman (Write-in)
( 9) Sanders, Bernard "Bernie" (Senator)
( 9) Stein, Jill
(Ignore, nothing) Trump, Donald
(10) Ventura, Jesse, Governor (Write-in)
( 9) Warren, Elizabeth, Senator (Write in)
( 7) Webb, Jim , U.S. Senator (Write in)

---------- Joe Blow's bids: ----------

( 7) Buchanan, Patrick (Write-in)
(Ignore, nothing) Bush, John "Jeb", Governor
( 9) Clinton, Hillary, Senator
(10) Cruz, Rafael "Ted", Senator
(10) Kasich, John, Governor
(Ignore, nothing) Kucinich, Dennis, Congressman (Write-in)
(Ignore, nothing) McKinney, Cynthia, Congresswoman (Write-in)
(Ignore, nothing) Sanders, Bernard "Bernie" (Senator)
(Ignore, nothing) Stein, Jill
( 8) Trump, Donald
( 5) Ventura, Jesse, Governor (Write-in)
(Ignore, nothing) Warren, Elizabeth, Senator (Write in)
(Ignore, nothing) Webb, Jim , U.S. Senator (Write in)

---------- Now just add up these votes: ----------

([5+7] = 12) Buchanan, Patrick (Write-in)
([0+0] = no votes) Bush, John "Jeb", Governor
([0+9] = 9) Clinton, Hillary, Senator
([0+10] = 10) Cruz, Rafael "Ted", Senator
([0+10] = 10) Kasich, John, Governor
([10+0] = 10) Kucinich, Dennis, Congressman (Write-in)
([10+0] = 10) McKinney, Cynthia, Congresswoman (Write-in)
([9+0] = 9) Sanders, Bernard "Bernie" (Senator)
([9+0] = 9) Stein, Jill
([0+8] = 8) Trump, Donald
([10+5] = 15) Ventura, Jesse, Governor (Write-in)
([9+0] = 9) Warren, Elizabeth, Senator (Write in)
([7+0] = 7) Webb, Jim , U.S. Senator (Write in)

------- This tally is reported by the voting station -------

With 16 votes, Jesse Ventura wins if just blues and Joe Blow vote at this voting station (employing strategy if we are not artless). These results are hand counted, then announced, and then forwarded to a larger tallying station.

This only requires simple addition, so no machines are needed.

shaker said:

"Mike certainly has a point in saying "in other words, you managed to increase the vote counts of the losing candidates without ever, or only rarely, changing who won", I'm simply admitting that such may actually be the case, not that it must be. What I would compare simple score voting to is an open primary without party sanction."

Not quite: Once the voters learn the basic practical strategies it will certainly change who wins. Most citizens do greatly desire social security, freedom, and avoidance of foreign war. No political parties are required, although there presumably would be political associations. Note that in a real election, unlike in this abbreviated example, there would not be a tendency to have tied vote scores.

In this abbreviated example Jesse Ventura won. In fact, the powerful elite interests lost and the common people won! That would be highly improbable with any other machine-free election method. If our present single-selection ("plurality") method had been used, then "Ted" Cruz or Hillary Clinton might well have been elected as president. This method can be used to elect congresspeople, or in other kinds of elections in which powerful elite interests intrude to thwart will of the common people.