portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements global

actions & protests | election fraud

What Are We Facing Now? WE ARE FACING WW-III!

What are we facing now? WE ARE FACING WW-III!

I don't now recall if i've posted these pieces here yet, but they do involve a matter of life and death for ALL OF US! So here they are:
Jill Stein Slams Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy As "Scarier Than Trump's"
 link to www.zerohedge.com

BREAKING: JILL STEIN ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP [Sort Of][1 min., 15 sec.]
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBqvhafoUBY

The third and final presidential debate between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump was held Oct. 19 at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and moderated by Fox News' Chris Wallace.

At one point Hillary said: "....and I'm going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria"

Listen at: 1 hour, 20 minutes in:
 link to www.realclearpolitics.com

A No Fly Zone means we shoot down Russian planes. And THAT MEANS WW-III.

= = = = Furthermore = = = =

With single-bid ("plurality") voting you only have two candidates to choose from.

I have described the strategic hedge simple score election method all over the Internet, and it has been known of for many years. It is simple in the sense that does not require easily hackable voting machines, and can easily work with hand counted paper ballots at non-centralized poling stations. It is not hampered by any requirement to cater to so-called "sincere," "honest" (actually artless and foolish) voters. It easily thwarts both the spoiler effect and the blind hurdle dilemma (the "Burr Dilemma"), which prevents voters from exercising the strategies that they need to use to defeat the big bosses. It just works.

Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore them as though they did not exist), or strategically cast from five to ten votes for any number of candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit of, say, twelve candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.

Both IRV-style and approval voting methods suffer from the blind hurdle dilemma, which can be overcome with the hedge voting strategy. An example of usage of the hedge strategy, presuming the (most famous) case of a "leftist" voter, would be casting ten votes for Ralph Nader, and only eight or nine "hedge votes" for Al Gore. This way, the voter would only sacrifice 20 or 10 percent of their electoral influence if Nader did not win.

Don't be fooled by fake "alternatives" like "IRV" and "approval voting". Ranked choice voting is supported by the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Open Society Foundations (of Soros), and on and on.

Ranked choice voting is just as bad,or worse than out present single-bid ("plurality") method with regard to enforcing the two party syndrome, and this has been demonstrated repeatedly in history.

Score voting is fundamentally distinct from ranked choice voting, and does not promote the two party syndrome. That's probably why it doesn't get hundreds of millions of promotion dollars as the "Green" Party's ranked choice system does.

PLEASE look at the truth for yourself:

 http://www.fairvote.org/financials

 http://www.fairvote.org/rcv

Very hard to believe, huh?

And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers".

We are stuck with this miserable system because of a surprisingly large array of people who I call the "election methods cognoscenti". Over many years, these cognoscenti have assembled an enormous collection of distracting, unworkable election methods. This "intellectual subject" has, for instance, consumed perhaps hundreds of pages in works such as the Wikipedia. These cognoscenti have created a gigantic Glass Bead Game which serves no real purpose other than to facilitate intellectual speculation. In nearly every instance where their election methods have been employed, disaster has ensued, although in a few cases, their systems have languished on, providing no better results than the choose-one voting system. Millions, perhaps tens of millions of dollars, have been spent promoting the "IRV" method, which has been tried and abandoned in several venues where it caused massive chaos.

We cannot afford any more of this intellectual masturbation, which has lead to this absurd 2016 "election". All we should be doing is protesting for safe, easy-to-understand strategic hedge simple score voting.

And I will be voting for Donald Trump, even though I know that my "ballot" is going to be fed into an infernal machine.

Two Party Corrupt System is FAILING 26.Oct.2016 11:33

Ben Waiting

I am going to vote for "who I believe in"
I "always vote" for who I think is the best person to do the job
I would never vote for a person I couldn't support
This is a democracy we live in .... Vote for the best person that you can respect to get the job done
DON'T EVER WASTE YOUR VOTE -

Not Strategic? YOU LOSE! 26.Oct.2016 11:44

blues

Your heroes will go absolutely nowhere without strategic hedge simple score voting.

You will simply lose.

Losers who don't demand in the streets will always lose.

That's what being a "loser" means.

Albright 26.Oct.2016 14:48

rAT

Just when I think Hillary is finally coming along in her outlook, Bingo! There's Madeline Albright on CNN. The female Henry Kissinger- excitedly endorsing her candidacy. Albright is a stone cold killer period. I can't blame anyone for voting a third party ballot but it's tough to realize that will only bring Trump even closer to the magic number of electoral votes. What a messed up scene.

Again, no fan of Hillary 26.Oct.2016 15:30

Mike Novack

I am going to assume that this is an honest misunderstanding of what she said. Taken the way you understood her, yeah, that would be scary. But ........

"At one point Hillary said: "....and I'm going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria"

"PUSH FOR" --- that is VERY different from saying she would unilaterally declare a "no fly zone" Obviously that means getting the Russians to agree to it.


"A No Fly Zone means we shoot down Russian planes. And THAT MEANS WW-III." Well not necessarily or even likely. You are now perhaps thinking that if the Russians agreed to a no fly zone (publicly) but in fact fly some missions, and in doing that their planes got shot down, it would STILL be war? Past experience indicates that would be very unlikely. When we (or they) are denying the planes, saying "those aren't our planes" then we don't change that position.

If Hillary Is (S)elected... 26.Oct.2016 22:04

blues

Russia will use tactical nukes (they have ten times more of them than the U.S.) to take out the NATO missile system in Romania. Russia will also use tactical nukes to take out Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

That will restore the balance.