portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

actions & protests | election fraud

Trump: "Wouldn't it be nice if actually we could get along with Russia? -- With China"

Hillary want's WW-III.

Tell all the fascist George Soros Dem Party NGO stooges to go to hell.
You would not actually vote for the neocon owned and operated Hillary Rodham CLINTON?

The war-bringer?

The poor starver.

The SecState who destroyed Muammar Gadaffi's free medical care, free education, free thought "regime"?

You would vote for her and her Soros-funded Clopen Society Brownshirts?

Center for American Progress?

MoveOn.org?

Ready for Hillary?

ALL OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE SOROS/CIA.

The Massive "Democracy" Conspiracy Since The French Revolution 05.May.2016 22:11

blues

Strategic simple 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 (20 ballot entries), where each voter counts up their ballot entries by numbering them), and then simply add all the votes up.

Any reasonably intelligent person can see how strategic simple score voting would completely disrupt and remove the two-party spoiler effect.

For example:

Social justice voters could give 10 votes to Dennis Kucinich, 10 to Cynthia McKinney, 10 to Jesse Ventura, and 5 to 9 to Bernie Sanders.

Conservative voters could give 10 votes to Jimmy Duncan and 9 to Donald Trump.

In each case their power of franchise would only be diminished by 10% or 20% or 50% if their first choice failed. Hardly at all.

The vote-for-one two-party system would grind to a halt.

STOP listening to the election methods punditariat camps!

They are all jerks.

Simply demand power. Nothing more nor less.

The Center for Election Science (Center of Stupidity) 05.May.2016 23:21

blues

{Quote} Clay Shentrup:
Having spent a decade in voting theory research, I've largely lost my patience for those who invent novel voting systems with arbitrary rules (e.g. a 5-10 point scale) without demonstrating deep knowledge of prior art in the field, such as Bayesian Regret and psychological research around scales. I think your proposal has more flaws than I care to list off. But my advice to you would be to discuss your proposal to other election methods experts and enthusiasts to get a modicum of peer review. E.g. our discussion list.
 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/electionscience {Unquote}

I worked on this problem from the perspective of higher order logic for 12 years. I have invented some of the very words used in the relevant discussions. Yet I am patient.

This person has no brain. He doesn't even understand the first thing about real politics. Sad!

And also, I WILL NOT join a "Google Group"! What kind of consumer sucker voter does he think I am???

I am not some crony consensus political "scientist". I do symbolic logic, not political astrology.

Strategic simple score voting. Cure the insanity!

This deceased equine has but one rider 06.May.2016 06:50

.i.

Blues, you beat this dead horse constantly, and yet you are the only person on the planet who seems to believe simple score voting would be great. Nobody else does.
Blues, you are ok, it's the other 7 billion people that are screwed up.

Score Voting Has Many, Many Advocates 06.May.2016 15:38

blues

Here are just two websites that promote it vigorously:

 https://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/

 http://scorevoting.net/

Let me provide a little background information about a few of the various "camps" of what I call "the election methods punditariat". It's an interesting scenario! But the post is not finished yet :(

Why? 06.May.2016 22:52

Red 'X' Society

This Simple Score voting sounds like inflation.

Like giving people 15 dollars an hour ...and then doubling all their living expenses.

Why not 1 vote, with the regulation that voter influence by employer or corporate entity is a form of treason.

You know, the vote does not count anymore? right? Not for the common man.

And with electronic vote counting? Who's to say that voter streams can't be channeled to the predetermined winner?

It would show no noticeable change in voter participation, behavior or influence, yet guarantee the election to who could control the outcome.

Until the information corruption (Media) is addressed, does it really matter?

If the Vote of every judge is owned from the Supreme Court all the way down to Traffic Court? What kind of freedom, hope or justice can you be waiting

for?

Bernie is the electable one 07.May.2016 23:59

A Future We Can Believe In

According to many polls, Bernie Sanders wins by a larger margin over Trump. He doesn't have the baggage of voting for the Iraq War, watching WalMart hide $76 billion of profits in the Cayman Islands tax haven and being a special interest lady funded by Wall Street and the fossil fool industry.

to read Nathan Robinson's article from Current Affairs.org, click on
 https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/05/democrats-should-be-very-worried-about-hillarys-anti-trump-strategy

Hildebeast was on the walmart board of directors 08.May.2016 03:13

.i.

here she is sitting next to Sam Walton in a board photo.

 http://assets.bwbx.io/images/iBL66EogevDM/v3/-1x-1.jpg


Red 'X' 08.May.2016 03:15

.i.

Simple Score voting is for namby pamby types who can't make up their minds.

Blues is the only one promoting it, despite the obscure websites he refereed to.

Grow a pair and choose.

A Few Of The Various "Camps" Of What I Call "The Election Methods Punditariat" 08.May.2016 10:37

blues

{Quote} According to many polls, Bernie Sanders wins by a larger margin over Trump. {Unquote}

Bernie has a very positive track record, domestically. His foreign policy record is not so great. So how would we pay for domestic improvement if we continue to spend most of our money on foreign domination?

Frankly, so far, two of the commenters on this article appear to be of the opinion that spoiler effect producing two-party system is just fine. So we must always be content to settle for a Bush or a Gore, and never realistically expect, say, a Nader. This amounts to conceding that voting is futile and democracy is worthless.

And really, if voting had not been neutered all along by the spoiler effect, it's likely that the common people would have resisted the added corruption of the voting machines and the imperial media.

The (many) camps of the election methods punditariat are fascinating, but they are tightly focused on technical gimmicks, and they are not comprised of actual political bloggers. They tend to be impractical and to labor in a subject that makes them appear to be naive and even scientifically sloppy. For one thing nearly all of them assume that voting machines are necessary, even though it is well-known that they facilitate easy-to-do mass vote rigging which would not be possible with hand counted paper ballots. They also tend to promote the concept of having a "zero" (or zeroth) vote on ballots. this does nothing but make the ballots more complex, more insulting to innocent individuals, and more subject to manipulation by officials who print these ballots. If one prefers to give no votes, it is much simpler to omit giving any than to cast a "0" vote.

One of the camps is represented by The Center for Election Science
 https://electology.org/

This organization promotes "approval voting", and its main online spokesperson is Clay Shentrup. Although this article has been sharply critical of this organization, there is nothing to indicate it is insincere, they are just naive. They also promote the "0" vote option nonsense. With approval voting you can only give a "0" vote or a "1" vote. Presupposing you have a social justice orientation, what if there is a choice of Bush, or (lesser evil) Gore, and (unlikely to win) Nader? Should you give "1" vote to Nader and "1" to Gore (and "0", or "simple omission" to Bush)? Or "1" to Nader and none to Bush and Gore? Or "1" to Gore and none to Nader and Gore? It's an impossible decision, which I might call the "blind hurdle effect" (approval simply lacks preference differentiation).

Note that the blind hurdle effect is strongly mitigated with strategic score voting since you could give "10" to Nader, and "9" or "8" to Gore.

{Quote} ....So if you were maximally strategic, you would want to vote for every candidate you like more than 5.01, as follows:

Dodd, Gravel, Obama, Richardson
With score voting, you would give these candidates a maximum score, and all the others a minimum score. {Unquote} --
 https://electology.org/score-voting-threshold-strategy

So The Center for Election Science (electology.org) has bought into the absurd crony consensus that score voting "reverts" to approval voting (just maximum/ minimum) for maximally strategic voters. In reality, maximally strategic voters would only use the larger scores, say from "5" to "10" in order to cope with the blind hurdle effect.

Another camp is The Center for Range Voting, mostly represented by Warren D. Smith.
 http://rangevoting.org/

This (sincere, but impractical) camp advocates a version of score voting with scores from "0" to "9", plus a "blank" ("no opinion") vote. This gimmick requires that the candidate with the highest average number of votes must win. That would be no problem, except that it's sufficiently more complicated than simply adding up the votes that it powerfully invites computer tabulation, which is disastrous.

Then there is FairVote (which includes the Fairvote Action Fund, Inc. of Takoma Park, MD), mainly represented by Rob Richie.  http://www.fairvote.org/

FairVote promotes the now-infamous "IRV"/ Ranked Choice Voting method. Instead of being able to assign any "score" to multiple candidates, it requires voter to "rank" voters "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc." Then a "tabulation" involving a central coordination facility is performed. This will require many computers, or perhaps a chaotic "caucus-like" ceremony. Also, it becomes just as exposed to the spoiler effect and two-party syndrome as the vote-for-one method. If you have, say, two equally desirable candidates, some highly undesired candidate could win if the one you gave second rank to would have won if you had only given him or her the first rank.

FairVote is supported by: Hewlett Foundation, Ford Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Rockefellers Brothers Fund, Open Society Foundations, etc. They have Total Support and Revenue (2014): $1,192,725. Somebody must care about election systems.

Typically, election methods punditariat camps ignore the vast distinctions between highly and minimally consequential elections. Their analyses focus on minimally consequential "hobby club" elections. So they fail to account for the effects of power grasping oligarchs on highly consequential elections. The oppressive duopolists can always use strategy, so strategy must be available to the common voters if they are to win. The really significant contest has not been between individual candidates, but always between the oppressive duopolists and the common voters, who have always lost. The oppressive duopolists (the "1%") operate their "two" parties under the false pretense that they run against each other, when they actually run against the voters -- That is, their candidates do not truly run against each other -- They actually run against the voters. Candidates for the presidency of chess clubs, on the other hand, typically do compete, since chess clubs typically are not controlled by the oppressive duopolists.

Therefor, the common voters must learn to vote strategically -- not righteously. Voting is the business of the common people; thus voting must be a strategic business activity, not a righteous ritual.

The numbers don't matter blues 08.May.2016 12:27

The Red 'X' Society!

It's like giving a Keno Runner all of your favorite numbers in a Nevada Casino, and then expecting some one to call them out for you so you can win.

With the current Diebold Electronic accounting system for voting, data streams of cast votes could be shifted to another candidate without detection, as all voting machines could be completely accurate, and all voter behavior would show no signs of manipulation. The polls would open and close. All would seem normal. It doesn't matter because a mere shift in percentages of positive votes would read just like the percentages on a slot machine in Vegas.

Imperceptible.

Correction: 09.May.2016 09:51

blues

Correction; In my above comment:
{Quote} A Few Of The Various "Camps" Of What I Call "The Election Methods Punditariat {Unquote}

In the paragraph that begins:
{Quote} This organization promotes "approval voting",... {Unquote}

The part that reads:
{Quote} With approval voting you can only give a "0" vote or a "1" vote. Presupposing you have a social justice orientation, what if there is a choice of Bush, or (lesser evil) Gore, and (unlikely to win) Nader? Should you give "1" vote to Nader and "1" to Gore (and "0", or "simple omission" to Bush)? Or "1" to Nader and none to Bush and Gore? Or "1" to Gore and none to Nader and --GORE--? It's an impossible decision, which I might call the "blind hurdle effect" (approval simply lacks preference differentiation). {Unquote}

Should read:
{Quote} With approval voting you can only give a "0" vote or a "1" vote. Presupposing you have a social justice orientation, what if there is a choice of Bush, or (lesser evil) Gore, and (unlikely to win) Nader? Should you give "1" vote to Nader and "1" to Gore (and "0", or "simple omission" to Bush)? Or "1" to Nader and none to Bush and Gore? Or "1" to Gore and none to Nader and ++BUSH++? It's an impossible decision, which I might call the "blind hurdle effect" (approval simply lacks preference differentiation). {Unquote}

As for that other person's later comment, where it is said:
{Quote} With the current Diebold Electronic accounting system for voting, data streams of cast votes could be shifted to another candidate without detection,... {Unquote}

Well... How fascinating that some people appear to make the concept of voting seem utterly futile. Are we to surrender completely to our imperial overlords? Really?

I have repeated denounced voting machines. If we previously had had spoiler effect-free voting we probably would not have fallen prey to the voting machines and the imperial media.