portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements global

actions & protests | media criticism

EMERGENCY!!! The 18% NeoCorporates Demand Rank Choice Voting -- The 81% Need Simple Score

They are scamming progressives into promoting ranked choice voting with hundreds of millions of pay-offs for slick neodemocracy. Astroturf! When what we all really need to stop destruction, hunger, and war is simple score voting. It is so simple.
What is truly needed is really very simple! No mathematical b*llsh*t is needed at all! We must reject their fake election method 'theories! NO FAKE 'CONDORCET! NO FAKE 'CRITERIA!

They are now scamming progressives into jumping on to this fascist bandwagon!

Stop the academic White Tower fascists! STOP THEM!

EXPLAIN << to the RCV folks AND the rest of us >> 07.Jul.2019 08:05

Mike Novack

Blues
Instead of simply suggesting your preferred method EXPLAIN to the folks what is wrong with simple ranked choice voting. Explain the circumstances where it will give horrible results, not the results people would expect or be willing to accept.

BUT -- I do not think you want to disparage the Condorcet condition, because it is the failure of ranked choice voting to satisfy that condition that leads to the worst of its results.

NOT "math nonsense" but a simple statement --- if against EVERY other opponent, a candidate is preferred by a majority, that candidate should be the winner. A voting system that satisfies that satisfies the Condorcet condition. With a voting system that doesn't satisfy it, a majority prefers some other candidate to the eventual winner --- the system elected somebody but a MAJORITY preferred somebody else.

Simple Ranked Choice Voting does not satisfy the condition << but ranked choice ballots do! No separate election needed, just a different ballot counting process >>

But Simple Score also does not satisfy it, and under conditions where preferences are equally strongly held, simple score degenerates into the plurality/first past the post we have now. NOTE --- when used for elections with multiple winners << say electing five to the board >> simple score is a good method. Elections with one winner and elections with multiple winners are completely different.

Why don't you just forget about voting? ... 07.Jul.2019 12:39

Tracy Mapes

The Elections are rigged often 10-20 years in advanced, with a Media and Judicial Body stacked in their favor.

The Data Streams were switched in the last election, just as I described how to do it right here on Portland Indy Media years before the election.

The only reason Hillary lost the last election to Donald Trump was because they thought that she had been physically possessed by a fourth dimensional creature, and they weren't willing to have to deal with some bullshit like that when they have no idea how or why it controls human beings.

So, forget voting until you're willing to clean house of all the criminal bastards that run the show.

This is the incident that changed the election.
 https://youtu.be/nVLJ45-ArcA

The Rich Foundations Do Not Want Any Democracy Whatsoever 07.Jul.2019 17:08

blues

I don't have time to go into this right now, but expect to have a good amount of evidence available here tomorrow.. Right at this moment, very large numbers of the folks we might call 'progressive' are being incredibly cynically exploited. I guess you could only call it a conspiracy. And it has literally reached the point where we should call it an emergency.

The places where 'ranked choice voting' ('RCV'/'IRV') has been established have been turning into Orwellian police states, with levels of corruption and oppression that are staggering. For example, the level of oppression in Australia is 'off the charts'.

This 'ranked choice voting' disaster is, right now, very, very actively being supported by gigantic capitalist foundations; they are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into massive, top-down-indoctrinated, astroturf organizations, which have infiltrated all sorts of genuine movements, mostly 'progressive' ones, to promote this total destruction of any democracy we may still have.

They are exploiting an entire election methods pseudo-science, which in reality is a very massive, yet generally unperceived, system of profound intellectual delusion. It is in fact a giant intellectual tar pit, a massive Glass Bead Game, loaded with deceptive mumbo jumbo.

Forget about trivial sophistical mind-traps involving such irrelevant notions as the 'Condorset criterion'; these ideas are merely deceptive garden-paths that will lead only to confusion and mental helplessness.

These centimillion dollar democracy subversion campaigns are in full operation right now! And the rich foundations that are supporting them do not want any democracy whatsoever.

Hope to see you tomorrow!

don't get into an argument w/ blues, 07.Jul.2019 17:24

'cause

yer gonna lose!

Hey blues, I do have a question 07.Jul.2019 17:29

_

so let's say this method/system is implemented,

how is that going to help the Republican or Democrat candidate for president (every four years)? i.e., you're just going to end up with a Republican or Democrat anyway.


until (as Tracy Mapes and others suggest) the entire current 'political' <shrug> system is completely burned to the ground and rebuilt from zero, nothing is going to change; least of all in how votes are tallied

Some Notes On How RCV Has Made Australia A Paradise 09.Jul.2019 05:07

blues

With a few changes in our voting system, we can enjoy the benefits of Australian freedom and democracy right here in the US.

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ //
Center for Range Voting -- Australian politics circa 2006 -- By Warren Smith & Jan Kok
 https://rangevoting.org/AustralianPol.html

We shall here argue that IRV [now called 'RCV'] leads to 2-party domination, and Australia is evidence of that. However, the situation is somewhat more complicated than that; Australia uses several voting systems for different purposes - IRV is only one of them - and because of the other multiparty-genic nature of some of the other systems (especially 10-winner reweighted-STV PR for Senators) Australia is not entirely 2-party dominated. [Present writer's note: Australia has a de facto two-party system between Labor and a coalition of the Liberal Party, the National Party and the County Liberal Party.]

[....]

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV, also called preferential voting; single winner) is used to elect the Australian federal House of representatives [system enacted 1918]
Multiwinner Proportional Representation based on Hare/Droop reweighted single transferable vote (STV) is used ot elect Australian federal Senate.

[....]

According to the Australian analysts at  http://www.australianpolitics.com/voting/systems/preferential.shtml

(1) It is more complicated to administer and count.
(2) It can produce a higher level of informal voting.
(3) It promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents.
(4) Voters are forced to express a preference for candidates they may not wish to support in any way. (The use of optional preferential voting, as used in New South Wales State elections, is a solution to this problem.)
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ //
Truthout [website] -- Australia Threatens to Jail Citizens Who Embarrass Repressive Governments -- July 30, 2014
 https://truthout.org/articles/australia-threatens-to-jail-citizens-who-embarrass-repressive-governments/

If you're in Australia, you could go to prison for tweeting this piece. On July 30,WikiLeaks released an unprecedented gag order by the Australian Supreme Court in Melbourne, Victoria, forbidding anyone (including the Australian press) from talking about a multimillion-dollar corruption case involving leaders and senior officials from Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia.

[....]

The gag is a superinjunction, meaning the terms of the gag are secret, and it is a criminal offense to reveal them. That means, theoretically, anyone sharing the order or linking to it - including news organizations and social media users - could face jail time.
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ //
World Socialist Website -- Australian government uses Bali atrocity to demand new repressive powers -- 19 October 2002

"In effectively responding to terrorism there is sometimes a need for all of us to accept that what might have been the extent of our traditional freedoms need to be modified in these circumstances," he told the Senate on Monday. The next day, the government re-introduced into the Senate its previously blocked ASIO (Terrorism) Bill, which will allow the political police of ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) to detain people for interrogation without charge, simply because they might have information relevant to alleged terrorist activity.

[....]

Under the guise of combatting terrorists, the laws contain sweeping definitions of terrorism and treason, both now punishable by life imprisonment, which could outlaw many forms of political protest and industrial action. The legislation reverses the burden of proof for some "terrorist" offences, effectively requiring defendants to prove their innocence, and imposes extensive powers to proscribe political parties, via UN listing, and jail their sympathisers up to 25 years for alleged support for terrorism. Other provisions give law enforcement agencies broader powers to tap phones.
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ //
Democracy: A Journal of Ideas -- Ranked-Choice Voting Is Not the Solution -- November 3, 2016
 https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/ranked-choice-voting-is-not-the-solution/

And it is hard to ignore the resemblance between the Australian and U.S. governments, as far as partisan divisions go. Despite RCV, just two governments have led in Australia for almost the entire history of the current Federal Parliament: Labor and Liberal-National. (Technically the Liberal and National parties are separate, but they have been allied since the 1920s, and, at least at the national level, a vote for one is effectively a vote for the other.) Every time there is a federal election in Australia, one of the two major parties wins, RCV be damned.
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ //
EPDF.PUB. [website] -- Thinking about Democracy: Power Sharing and Majority Rule in Theory and Practice
 https://epdf.pub/thinking-about-democracy-power-sharing-and-majority-rule-in-theory-and-practice.html

"the alternative vote (AV), now more frequently called the instant-runoff vote (IRV)"

[....]

"Douglas W. Rae (1967: 108) does make this comparison in his well known systematic analysis of electoral systems, and he concludes that 'the Australian system behaves in all its particulars, including its degree of disproportionality, as if it were a singlemember district plurality [FPTP] formula.'"
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ //
AREssays [website] -- Effect of Australia's Two Party System on Liberal Democracy
 https://assignmentresearchwriter.com/effect-of-australias-two-party-system-on-liberal-democracy/

In the past the two-party system has proved to be extraordinarily robust. The Australian major parties are required to be more pluralistic (Winner takes all) than any other democracy as a consequence of being such a stable bipolar system. Minor parties find it very difficult to gain a foothold in the lower house due to the combination of preferential voting and single-member electorates. The preferential system means minor parties vacuum up discontented voters to deliver back to one of the major parties.
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ //
Australian Electoral System [website] -- Advantages and Disadvantages of the Voting Systems
 http://australianelectoralsystem.weebly.com/advantages--disadvantages.html

'Due to the process of elimination that occurs in preferential voting ['RCV'/'IRV'], we are left with a 2-party system, which, in Australia, are traditionally Liberal and Labor. Due to this, stability is ensured within the House of Representatives, as we can be certain that it will be one of those two popular parties. These parties are not very different when it comes down to it, as both are rather central parties (although Liberal is a little more right-wing), which means that the system is not changed too much within the three year term that a party forms the government. This ensures much more stability than other systems, such as in proportional voting where the quota is much lower, meaning smaller parties may form government.
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

Just imagine how wonderful it will be to have this here!