Saturday, July 6, 2019

Rank Choice Voting-Part VIII-Voter Fraud and Democrat Hegemony

"....We’ve been bussing people in ... for 50 years, and we’re not going to stop now. We’re just going to find a different way to do it..."

Democrat Operative Scott Foval Dep. Political Dir. 'People for The American Way' Organization.

According to the Heritage Foundation's Voter Fraud Database there have been hundreds and hundreds of cases of voter fraud nationwide dating back decades. From fraudulent ballots cast, petition fraud, abstentee ballot fraud, vote harvesting-the list goes on and on with the majority of these cases leading to criminal convictions.

My interview with California Conservative Party Chair and The Election Integrity Project, host of 'That Radio Show' Jon Matthews spoke extensively with me for an hour about how California is voter fraud central. And as I spoke to Jon he mentioned that the Heritage Foundation database only records actual cases brought to light. It does not even begin to scratch the surface of how far this goes.

In Utah the 2016 Presidential Candidate Evan McMullin is now managing a PAC to push Democrat causes and Rank Choice Voting. This from a June 26th article on Capital Research Center, author Hayden Ludwig.

The NeverTrump activist and his running mate, Mindy Finn, run a pair of advocacy nonprofits created in the wake of the 2016 election which claim to "defend democratic norms and institutions,"

But in the two years since McMullin and Finn created these groupsthe lobbying shop Stand Up Republic and its fundraising arm, Stand Up Republic Foundationthey’ve only succeeded in taking money from the Left to push its policies.

Stand Up Republic wants automatic voter registration, the backbone of every Progressive effort to shade conservative states Democrat blue.

Earlier this month, Stand Up Republic released its "Electoral Reform Agenda," which reads suspiciously like the Democratic Party’s own notorious electoral wish list, H.R. 1 (also called the "For the People Act").

H.R. 1 goes a step further: automatic and same-day voter registration up to mere moments before Election Day, inviting a maelstrom of voter fraud problems for the estimated 50 million new voters who would be automatically enrolled under the bill, many drawn from databases of state and federal welfare recipients.

And here comes the smoking gun..
But the most egregious "reform" supported by Stand Up Republic is ranked-choice voting, a system of casting ballots heavily favored by the liberals who believe it will favor their candidates.

While H.R. 1 does not explicitly legislate a ranked-choice voting system, a clause in the bill tees it up by enabling the "ability of replacement systems to administer ranked choice elections."

Let us get back to California.

From the Wall Street Journal in 2018;
Voters in a 2017 special election for an open seat in the California state Assembly reported activists harassed them at their doors to fill out ballots for specific candidates and hand them over.

The result: two Orange County Republican congressional candidatesstate Assemblywoman Young Kim and Rep. Mimi Walterssaw their sizeable Election Day leads shrivel into multi-point defeats once thousands of mail-in paper ballots were returned and counted, many postmarked on Election Day.

If we want to avoid 'polarization' in our politics, then why not just keep voting...errr.. Ranking candidates from the same party over and over again?

San Leandro California. One of the 12 cities that embraces RCV.

".... San Leandro, like many cities in the Bay Area, is in crisis. About half of our community members are renters and skyrocketing rents are pushing them out of their homes, either displacing them out of the Bay Area or putting them on the streets.....Lack of ethics and integrity is, indeed, a generalized problem in San Leandro city government....The former City Manager, fearing that accusations of sexual harassment by the head of a local nonprofit would become public, sent out a rambling and utterly unprofessional letter to the press...Rather than fire him on the spot for unprofessional behavior, the Council put him on paid leave for months while he looked for a new job and and gave him a $350K parting gift..."

".... What San Leandro needs is progressive and ethical leadership.... Note that San Leandro has ranked choice voting (RCV) for its Mayor and City Council races...."
.. Oh, It gets better!

".... Incumbent Pauline Cutter ....Mayor of San Leandro... Early in her term, her daughter was hired by the City (with the approval of the City Manager) for a highly-paid position in the Parks and Recreation department despite nepotism being explicitly forbidden by the Charter of the City of San Leandro...."

However San Leandro does not give up it's Leftist/RCV leanings easily. They have another stellar candidate up for election.
"....Fortunately, San Leandro has another choice: Jeromey Shafer. The co-founder of San Leandro for Bernie and leader of Our Revoution San Leandro, Shafer is intelligent, hard working, thoughtful and unapologetically progressive..."
Make sure you click off the proper boxes. "Meet the new boss.. Same as the old boss.." The list goes on. Democrats under RCV.

City Council District 1: #1 Eva Arce, #2 Ken Pon

Incumbent Deborah Cox is another white-moderate who supports police militarization and mass surveillance and opposes rent-control. She drew controversy for not returning the financial contribution of a politician who used the "N" word in a public meeting.

Eva Arce, a newcomer to politics, is a strong progressive

Ken Pon is also a moderate, but to the left of Cox.
You mean there are actual people in California Left of the Leftists?

City Council District 3: Victor Aguilar

School Board member Victor Aguilar was a progressive back when people didn’t want to admit to being progressive.

Incumbent Lee Thomas takes money from landlords and opposes rent controls.

Margarita Lacabe goes out on a limb in this next statement.

Every once and awhile a Leftist author gets it right.

While I cannot read anyone’s mind, after 8 years in the Central Committee I can guess why most candidates were endorsed. In general, the Committee want to endorse candidates that are likely to win, so we endorse incumbents and clear front runners. We like candidates that bring us money, as a committee and as consultants, so we endorse those with ties to developers and big donors. We want to pretend we support labor, so we often endorse candidates that have labor support though that alone is seldom enough. We like our friends, so we endorse candidates that hang out in Democratic party circles And we like to play politics some of us are even in the business of making money from politics so we horse trade. You’ll note that there is no "I" in "we," not all of us play those games. But those of us who vote on endorsements based on the quality of the candidate or their values are a definite minority.

John Stuart Mill said; "...The majority of the people, through their representatives, will outvote and prevail over the minority and their representatives..."

In a video I produced in Nov. of 2017 Howard Fain of Voter Choice Mass (an RCV activist group) made this statement in front of The Worc. Tea Party about imcumbents under RCV.

It is at the 2:28 mark of my shoot;

RCV does not.

Will not- change incumbency. In fact? It ensures it.

It is specifically designed to ensure a one party rule. Fain goes on to side-step a former Libertarian VP Nominee about how elections discourages third party candidates at the 2:30 mark. In the second video I shot that night at the 1:45 mark Fain puts up a Powerpoint where Voter Choice Mass lists all the wonderful advantages of RCV.

Unfortunately, each of the statements made contradicts each of the statements made.

- Eliminate spoilers and vote splitting

- Encourage more people to run

- Enjoy more positive campaigns

- Give voters more choice and more voice

- Transform politics in Massachusetts

First of all, if you want to discourage 'spoilers' and 'vote splitting' then don't 'encourage more people to run'. And, if you don't encourage, or, allow more people to run you will not have 'more positive campaigns'. In addition, this certainly does not 'give voters more choice and more voice' by eliminating third party candidates labeling them as 'spoilers'.

The last one should make you pause and ask;

What does it mean exactly to 'transform politics in Massachusetts'?
Well, if the 12 cities that use Rank Choice Voting are any indicator it means to ensure a Democrat win every election season.

Teluride Colorado. Basault. (Soon) Pueblo

San Francisco (and I wrote about that in Parts I and II)

Easthampton Mass. 2019

Cambridge Mass since 1941

San Leandro Cal.

Minneapolis/ St. Paul MN.

The list goes on and is growing..!

And my detractors will claim I am wrong on this.

The cities are too many to explain in one short blog post.

As I have in writing this exhaustive expose'.

I have found the very same stories as I posted above about San Leandro. Each of these cities are staunch Democrat controlled. All of them use RCV. All of them are mired in fraud, waste, over taxation, nepotism and they keep electing the same cast of characters (all from the same party) over and over... And over again.

The Marquis de' Condorcet posited in his paradox that opening elections to a plethora of candidates will yield over a trillion various votes (given today's number of voters). None of them electing a winner by "majority". This defy's Duverger's Law of the best candidate wins. Under RCV you have any amount of decisions and (under Arrow's Impossibilty Theorum) you simply choose the best candidate and rank down to the least favorite to become the winner.

Now I posit to you the reader The Maider Axiom.

You just lost in 2nd place in an election. You may even have lost in 3rd place.

But thanks to RCV every one else who voted for everyone else ranked you as second or third place runner up.

Recounting all those votes (yes, you are voting multiple times) you suddenly become the winner!

You go before the Press to spout your win and the quintessential question is asked:

"... How do account for your win even though you lost in the first round of voting?.."

"... Uhhh.. cuz voters chose me second and third.."

Wow..... Seriously?.. Just... Wow...


When only 10,000 people show up to vote in a district of (say) 200,000 registered voters (Repub/Dem/Lib) and you get chosen 2nd or 3rd and then ranked up to win. How is this offering voters a better choice? How does this open campaigns to more candidates? How does this better represent the electorate?

Oh, but, Wait!

A van just arrived with 1000 ballots just discovered in a school closet four days after polls closed. All of them marked Democrat..

.... Including their rankings..

And now the 2nd or 3rd place loser (Voted..err Ranked) to win gets to represent us...

The Democrat Hegemony


Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Winning Elections With Rank Choice Voting-Part VII Origins-John Stuart Mill and Duverger's Law

"..freedom might be for the time destroyed by a single unfairly obtained popular vote.." John Stuart Mill

".. The first and leading error.. is to confound the numerical majority with the people.." John.C. Calhoun

     The origins of RCV date as far back as the 1850's in Europe but it is hard to pin point exactly where and when it was birthed and where the first form of an RCV election was held. This came at a time when the shackles of Monarchy were being dissolved and Parliaments gained significant power. The only problem was that the average citizen was still locked out of the process. Landlords, aristocrats, business owners, the bourgeois were the core contituency of the time. A head to head competition that includes the rank and file would destroy that control. This is what made the American system so unique. The 'people' could directly elect those representatives that closely related to the country's particular regions and population. /Krist Novoselic

In the early 1860's, the influential English thinker and member of Parliament John Stuart Mill found a way to accommodate majority rule while still give the minority a voice. He came across English barrister Thomas Hare’s pamphlet "On The Election Of Representatives, Parliamentary and Municipal."

    John Stuart Mill insisted on two core principles for better government. 1; The full participation of citizens concerning voting. 2; Competent and enlightened candidates. We have neither today and RCV will do little change that.

     Mill wrote in his book Considerations on Representative Government: "... Those who say that suffrage is not a trust but a right will scarcely accept the conclusions to which their doctrine leads. If it is a right, if it belongs to the voter on what grounds can we blame him for selling it (his vote), or using it to recommend himself to any one whom it is his interest to please.."

     At what point do we sanction a voting system where our votes are 'sold' or (in this case) 'ranked'?

     In Chapter 10 Mill explains in detail this very problem of aristocracy working hand in hand to solidify power. They devised a system where votes could essentially be horse traded to ensure that only the "proper people" gained their rightful seats.

''...the higher and richer classes were in complete possession of the government. Their power was the master grievance of the country. The habit of voting at the bidding of an employer or of a landlord was so firmly established that hardly any thing was capable of shaking it.."

     Many voting rights activist groups insist that voting IS a right. Thus the term 'voting rights'. But it is not. No where is it codified in the Constitution that voting is a 'right'. Even the 19th Amendment simply expands legal suffrage to women where it once did not exist. Mill argues that voting is a trust between the people and those who they choose to represent them.

     In plurality voting a stable system of government is obtained. Each side has a strong opposition. Coalitions are lauded over but are very weak institutions. Essentially nothing gets done because no one party has an upper hand in either chamber. There is always opposition to whatever idea is presented and it is very easy for a 35% minority to dissolve the coalition. Italy has had 65 'coalition' governments for the past 70 years because of this very problem. And the problem is exacerbated if voter turnout is dismal. Who actually is represented by that 35% which dissolves the coalition if only half the eligible voters voted?

     Proponents of RCV will cite Mill as a supporter but I disagree.

     Mill states; "....But does it follow that the minority should have no representatives at all? ... Is it necessary that the minority should not even be heard?... Unless they are, there is not equal government ... there is a part whose fair and equal share of influence in the representation is withheld from them, contrary to all just government, but, above all, contrary to the principle of democracy, which professes equality as its very root and foundation..."

     The only problem with a two party system is what we are seeing today. A take over of one by extremists as is the case with the Democrat Party. Our current election system assures a short tenure for a representative should that person turn rogue. But if America adopts any form of proportional, single transferable, apportioned or rank choice then it is highly conceivable for a one party hegemony. The 12 US cities that use RCV are all Democrat controlled and show no signs of changing. The Republican reps in those cities are tiny in number (if they exist at all) and have little chance of gaining any more seats. Couple that with blue states experiencing a net loss of population it is a fair bet that those people moving out ARE registered Republicans.

     Mill goes on to state; "...The majority of the people, through their representatives, will outvote and prevail over the minority and their representatives..."'s Krist Novoselic has Mill mistaken. Mill wasn't trying to find a way to give the minority fair representation he was warning us of popular voting systems.

Duverger's Law
     In the 1950's French Sociologist Maurice Duverger theorized that plurality voting in districts that hold seats between two opposing candidates essentially leads to one or the other winning by a simple model of who runs the best campaign.

Simple. Right? Not exactly.

     Duverger explains how this system discourages third parties. Not by a doctrine that denies them a seat at the table but because there simply aren't enough voters to support these third parties. They simply don't have the numbers. It does not mean that these parties do not sway an election and it certainly does not imply these third parties have no right to put up a candidate. American history is repleat with third parties and in rare cases winning seats. This is a healthy thing.

     A great example is Ross Perot in 1992. Although he won zero Electoral Votes he still garnered 19% of the popular vote.

     This was a historical election. Historic for a couple reasons. 1; Ross Perot and 2; One of the lowest voter turnouts in Presidential Elections. Clinton garnered only a couple dozen million popular votes.
"...The second unique problem is both statistical and tactical. Duverger suggested an election in which 100,000 moderate voters and 80,000 radical voters are voting for a single official. If two moderate parties ran candidates and one radical candidate were to run, the radical candidate would win unless one of the moderate candidates gathered fewer than 20,000 votes. Observing this, moderate voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate most likely to gain more votes, with the goal of defeating the radical candidate. Either the two parties must merge, or one moderate party must fail, as the voters gravitate to the two strong parties, a trend Duverger called polarization..."

    And polarization is the catchphrase of Rank Choice Voting Advocates.
"...A sharp increase in partisan rigidity in Americans’ voting patterns has led to less competitive state and national elections and more predictable outcomes based on which party is in the majority. Fewer legislators fear losing in general elections, and fewer still can win in the other party’s "turf.".."

     Supposedly polarization has led to party hegemony with incumbents having no fear of losing seats. Some even run unopposed election year after election year. RCV claims to open up this process and creates an ".. elevated tone and civility that RCV rewards and recognition that voters can like more than one candidate." David Daly, Senior Fellow at

12 Cities in US Use 'Ranked-Choice Voting' |

     Oh does it? Then, can someone explain Cambridge Massachusetts and why for decades the city has only elected Democrats?

"... Fairvote is exploring how RCV might reduce legislative polarization by allowing space for moderate, conservative, liberal and other voters to elect candidates in proportion to their overall numbers in the electorate. Evidence in Cambridge Mass which uses multi winner RCV indicates that candidates and city councilors are not highly polarized there.."

     You see it's all perfectly democratic as long as every one is on the winning side. I wonder how "proportional" the representation is in Cambridge for the handfull of Conservatives that live there? Fairvote contradicts itself on it's own website. It decries partisan hegemony and polarization then extolls the virtues of RCV in a city that has party hegemony!

"...If we truly want competitive choice, elections where the participation of all voters matters, we need to establish a national popular vote for president and some methods of proportional voting for legislative elections..." Paul Fidalgo 2007

     How does establishing a popular vote help the participation of voters? Every adult in Wyoming, Nebraska and Montana combined can vote Republican all they want and it won't make any difference because Democrat hegemony LA outnumbers them 10-1.

     Talk about polarization!

     And as Mill stated above the minority will always be represented by the minority never having any chance of a truly fair and proportional representation.


....And That Is The Diatribe....

Monday, May 20, 2019

Winning Elections with Rank Choice Voting-Part VI-Origins and The Condorcet Paradox

".....A Condorcet method (English: /kɒndɔːrˈseɪ/) is an election method that elects the candidate that would win a majority of the vote in all of the head-to-head elections against each of the other candidates...."

William Robert Ware. MIT Professor of Architetcure. He was the person who came up with the idea of a form of Rank Choice Voting in 1871. Many of you have no idea who this guy is. I surely didn't until I began this expose'. Bare was a brilliant professor who went on to form an architecural firm during the building boom after the Civil War as America recovered and entered the 20th Century.

But it is at the end here that is telling: 

    "....Ware also dabbled briefly in voting systems and used the idea of the single transferable vote to devise what is now called, in the U.S., instant-runoff voting[6]..."

     So, the entire structure of the American version of Rank Choice Voting is based upon some one who 'dabbled briefly' in voting systems?

    "....Instant-runoff voting was devised in 1871 by American architect William Robert Ware,[18] although it is, in effect, a special case of the single transferable vote method, which emerged independently in the 1850s. Unlike the single transferable vote in multi-seat elections, however, the only ballot transfers are from backers of candidates who have been eliminated...."

     Ware essentially designed a system that uses eliminated candidates for their rankings.

".... The voting paradox (also known as Condorcet's paradox or the paradox of voting) is a situation noted by the Marquis de Condorcet in the late 18th century, in which collective preferences can be cyclic (i.e., not transitive), even if the preferences of individual voters are not cyclic. This is paradoxical, because it means that majority wishes can be in conflict with each other. When this occurs, it is because the conflicting majorities are each made up of different groups of individuals. Thus an expectation that transitivity on the part of all individuals' preferences should result in transitivity of societal preferences is an example of a fallacy of composition..."

    This is why Poliquin challenged the results in Maine during 2018. Clearly he won by a head to head campaign against his opponent. But under RCV voters who voted multiple times for their first, second and third choices overpowered Poliquin's tallies. While RCV claims this represents a more true face of the will of voters Condorcet's Paradox disagrees. All RCV did was tally the votes from eliminated candidates' second and/or third rankings to manufacture a win. Coupled with Arrow's Theorem that you are choosing from best to worst Maine essentially elected the winner because people 'settled' for the second place loser.

".... The votes can be tallied in many ways to find a winner. Some - the Condorcet methods - will elect the Condorcet winner if there is one. They can also elect a winner when there is no Condorcet winner. But some arrive at different winners than others...."

    If the opponent was so awesome a candidate why didn't they just win outright? This win was not 'transitive'. It wasn't a head to head winner take all. Instead people elected the winner based on what they would 'settle for'. Or, as Condorcet's methodology goes on to explain;
".. votes can be tallied in many ways to find a winner.."

     RCV manufactures the winner from the second/third place loser through a multiple voting system.

     If we are to believe that RCV will create a better system then we need to see some definitive results. So far the only cities where it has been adopted have had only Democrat leadership. One party rule is never good for any city, state or country. Multi-party rule is not a good thing either. European elections are built around coalitions. While this sounds laudable the current political situation in France is not exacly a positive recommendation.

     If RCV is going to create better elections, better candidates then why are the winners chosen after a second or third round of voting? Third party candidates are currently degraded into 'spoilers' then degraded again under RCV by being used for their rankings. And this is all predicated upon the premise that third party candidates will choose (settle for) a second choice that closely resembles their political ideology. While Libertarians may vote Republican as their second choice no Republican is going to vote Democrat and vis-versa. However Greens, Labor, Socialists Parties WILL vote Democrat as their second choice ALL OF THE TIME. With only one Republican Party and multiple offshoots of Leftists parties Rank Choice Voting ensures Democrat wins.

Condorcet was the first one to clearly isolate a strange phenomenon that came to be known as the "paradox of voting": even if each voter is rational, the result of a vote can be irrational.

Mathematician Charles L. Dodgson (18321898) rediscovered the phenomenon a hundred years after Condorcet.

Duncan Black (19081991), a Scottish economist.... rediscovered the paradox in the mid-twentieth century.

Arrow mathematically demonstrated that the discovery of Condorcet, Dodgson, and Black was only a special case of a more general theorem: Whatever the decision mechanism used, a social choice cannot be both democratic and rational. If all individual preferences are to count equally (and given a few other axioms), a social choice must be either irrational or imposed by some on others.

Pierre Lemieux 12/3/13

    Speaking of imposing upon society here is a name mentioned in an earlier segment of this expose'.

Nancy Lavin.
     Where have we seen her name before? She was the person I mentioned in an earlier segment who escoriated British Columbia voters who rejected RCV in her article. Love her statement here in the article linked above: "... ranked choice voting changes the political game forcing voters and candidates to adopt to a new set of more fair and democratic rules.."

     My, how fair and democratic she is.
     Leftism, ideas so good they have to be enforced.

     How rational is it to believe that ranking by preference (Arrow's best to worse) is a better way of choosing a candidate? How is imposing upon society a new system of voting fair and democratic?

Condorcet's paradox is basically that, in a preferential ballot (a vote where voters rank candidates in order, rather than just selecting one) it is possible for there to be no candidate who is preferred by a majority of voters.

    As I have stated in the first and second segments concerning the Fall River Mayoral recall/re-election RCV claims that their system would have ensured Correia wouldn't win. Instead it would declare a winner who clearly did not represent (nor receive) the majoriy of votes. Plurality voting declares a winner outright. Third party candidates do not 'split' the vote. Some people just vote third party.
     A great way to sum up how Rank Choice Voting is a Condorcet paradox can be seen in an old Soviet era joke:

God comes to the Soviet people and says: 'I will give each of you a choice of three blessings in life, but you can only have two out of the three.

You can be an honest person, you can be a smart person, or you can be a member of the Communist Party.

If you are smart and honest, then you cannot be a communist. If you are a smart communist, then you cannot be honest.

And if you are an honest communist, then obviously, you must not be very smart.

....And That Is The Diatribe....

Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Winning Elections With Rank Choice Voting-Part V-The Trogan Horse


In all my debates, (this expose') and interviews on my show about RCV the entire approach from proponents of RCV is that this opens the election process to more candidates, more parties, fairness. It removes the 'spoiler' affect. It removes the 'lesser of two evils' affect. In article after article in favor of this form of voting the claims are made that this is better for our 'democracy'. and VoterChoice Mass publish examples of everyone jumping on board to this shell game. This movement has managed to convince Libertarians, even Tea Party Advocates that their candidates and votes will somehow change things for them.

It won't.

RCV will not solve the issue of low numbers of voters who show up for these third parties. But third parties are told that their voters now have a 'choice'. The voters can vote for you in the first rank but then vote again..err..Rank in the second/third choice some one you might be happy with. Essentially, your (third party) voters are asked to compromise their political position.

What makes our Republic strong IS the ability of any one from any party to run for any office. Meritocracy determines who rises to the top, not a muti tiered voting system where we elect a third party candidate simply because voters voted..(sorry).. Ranked 2 or 3 times to allow the second place loser to become the eventual first place winner. Imagine how that candidate must feel?...

" Oh yeah, I won by voters choosing me second or third.."

Imagine how the first place winner must feel? That candidate won the majority of votes from voters who bothered to show up in November. But he/she did not get the magical 51% according to RCV. No candidate in a multi candidate race wins 51% unless they run one hell of a campaign.

And so should it be!

The advent of RCV is much like the calls for a $15/hr minimum wage during economic downturns. When things are going against a segment of society that segment demands a change. Since 2010 over 1400 seats across the country have turned red. Trump won in 2016. Robert Reich and many 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates have called for a change to our election system. They are losing, so, demand a change. Change the system. Not, win on the merits of your ideas. Just adopt a new system where they win... Always.

I was challenged a few weeks back at a Tea Party event about RCV. I mentioned how RCV is a '..Democrat's dream come true..' It was mentioned why then California hasn't adopted RCV?

Well, it doesn't need to. California is already a Democrat hegemony, although San Fran does use RCV in it's Mayoral elections. But you can bet your bottom dollar that as soon as California becomes a 'swing' state RCV will rear it's ugly head to convince voters (with help from Smart Campaigns, Arnold and Soros) to adopt a more 'fair' and 'open' system of voting.

Alaska is a perfect example.

"...RCV holds the potential to re-create our politics. Suppose you like Cory Booker, are intrigued by Pete Buttigeig and Kamala Harris, would settle for Joe Biden, and oppose Sanders. Do you cast your ballot for Booker even if the real battle seems between Harris and Sanders? With RCV, you could back Booker first, Mayor Pete second, Harris third and Biden fourth. If your top choices fall short of earning delegates, your vote isn’t wasted..."

Wait a second.. "oppose Sanders"? I thought my premise was wrong that voting for a candidate is a vote against a candidate? And, of course your vote isn't wasted. Even though your candidate lost RCV will 'harvest' your second, third, fourth vote..err.. Ranking..

And notice the language here; "..settle for...". Kenneth Arrow's Theorem is displayed here in this article. You ARE voting from best to worst.

Oh, it gets better!

The fractured primary field helps explain other expected uses of RCV. Democrats require early voting in caucus states, and those early voters will likely cast RCV ballots in two of the first three contests: Nevada and Iowa. RCV ensures more people can participate by voting early without losing the power that caucus attendees have to move to their second choice if their first choice can’t win delegates.

Vote 'early' so your vote can be 'harvested'. The "..expected uses of RCV.."

Equal Citizens is leading a campaign to bring RCV to the New Hampshire primary.

Here's another PAC that RCV doesn't tell you about. Equal Citizens..

Yep.. That guy.. Lawrence Lessig. Where have we heard that name before?

Lessig is the guy who advocates for an Article V to amend the Constitution so he (and others) can re-write it. He is also a staunch opponent of Citizens United. Basically he believes corporations ARE NOT people and therefore have no voting rights. But he is all in favor of taxing them at the maximum amount. I covered this years ago in blogs and on my podcast... Anyways..

"... In a democracy, all votes should count equally. In our democracy, when voting for the president, they do not. Because of the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes, if you don’t vote for the candidate who wins your state, your vote counts for nothing. That violates the Constitution’s "one person, one vote" principle...."

Sorry Larry, it doesn't. Winner takes all means people voted for a winner! If you voted for the loser then you lost. Doesn't mean your vote '.. counts for nothing..' In fact many campaigns have been eventually won by candidates trying again.. And again. Nor does this violate the "one man, one vote" concept. Did you NOT vote? Are we to understand that if only your candidate wins then your vote counted? Also Larry, at no point, anywhere does the Constitution mention anything about a right to vote.

.... Oh, and Larry? America IS NOT a Democracy..

Harvard.. Go figure..

See, it is shit like this that assures me I am on the right path opposing Rank Choice Voting. This thing stinks! And everyone who backs it is a shill for it or a shill for their party and they have ZERO understanding of our electoral system or our system of government. They also depend on a dumb society to pass this Trogan Horse off to!

From the site above:

The ability to vote for a candidate who can represent you best is an essential part of a democracy. Yet, because of the two-party system in America, third party candidates are too often "spoilers," not choices. Voters who favor a third-party candidate face a dilemma: vote for the candidates they prefer, but help elect the candidate they like the least, or vote for the "lesser of two evils".

This is a wholly unnecessary problem for a 21st century democracy.
Equal Citizens is gearing up to launch a campaign to adopt ranked choice voting for the New Hampshire presidential primaries and for the presidential general election in battleground states.

There we go again with that 'spoiler' construct. At no point anywhere does RCV explain HOW third parties will see the day when they are represented in this 'open' and 'more fair' system of voting. All I have discovered in my research is that they are used for their second and third votes... err.. Rankings.. (I keep doing that!)

The only thing Lessig gets right here is in the first sentence:

"..The ability to vote for a candidate who can represent you best..."

Thank you Larry for inadvertanly supporting Arrow's Theorem.

We have a system that allows everyone to be a candidate for office. The Primaries weed out the candidates who just couldn't get the votes. There are no nefarious obstacles in the way. It all depends on your message and ability to get voters to the ballots stations. However, the idea that somehow spoilers or voting for the lesser of two evils is what is wrong with our elections is a ruse. These are constructs invented so you think this way.

Everywhere RCV is promoted and/or adopted is to change the system of voting where people can vote multiple times for multiple candidates convincing people they are given better choices. They are not. It uses parties. It uses voters. It manufactures a winner.

It ensures a Democrat hegemony. It is a Trogan Horse.

....And That Is The Diatribe....


Sunday, May 5, 2019

Winning Elections With Rank Choice Voting-Part IV-Vote Harvesting

" It's not voting multiple times. It's 'ranking' your votes. Leftists always change the names to protect the guilty.." Christopher Maider.

".. One man, one vote.." George Howell.

In the United States, the "one person, one vote" principle was invoked in a series of cases in the 1960s.[5][6][7][8][a] Applying the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court majority opinion in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) ruled that state legislatures needed to redistrict in order to have congressional districts with roughly equal represented populations. In addition, the court ruled that, unlike the United States Congress, both houses of state legislatures needed to have representation based on districts containing roughly equal populations, with redistricting as needed after censuses.[10]

That a State Senate was to represent rural counties, as a counterbalance to towns and cities.... Chief Justice Earl Warren said "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

In California, by contrast, Democrats exulted as they credited a quietly passed 2016 law legalizing ballot-harvesting with their recent sweep of House seats in the former Republican stronghold of Orange County, thereby helping them win control of the House.
     Ballot, or, vote harvesting is a sly move by pollsters. Basically pollsters collect any absentee ballots, ballots collected door to door by shut-ins, military and (of course) questionable ballots. Basically, any ballots collected from any one who cannot physically appear on election day. They are stored until election day. They are suppose to be kept safe, un-opened and delivered to the proper precinct on the proper day. Only that is NOT always the case.

     Election after election counties too close to call are repleat with ballots that have been suddenly found in a closet, car trunk, van. Absentee ballots are lost. Military ballots are lost or (somehow) filed too late. Every election year counties count ballots exceeding the actual number of actual registered voters. In virtually every case the ballots found are all (miraculously) Democrat. They don't even pretend to keep it all balanced. According to John Fund in his book 'Stealing Elections' Republicans account for less than 3% of all voter fraud. The vast majority of that 3% is in local elections. The other 97% is all Democrat and it runs all the way up to Presidential elections. The hijacking of Bernie Sanders in 2016 is a prime indicator of this cabal.

     Rank Choice Voting not only DOES NOT address low voter turnout in their algorythims. It DOES NOT even attempt to solve the issue of ballot harvesting or massive Democrat voter fraud. Rank Choice Voting is a Democrat's dream come true. Vote ...err.. Rank as many times as you want from best to worse until you manufacture the winning 51 plus 1%. Couple this with Motor Voter Laws, registering Illegals, same day registration, the dead and no ID required and you have a perfect formula that allows RCV to flourish.

Again from the link above:
In Orange County, an estimated 250,000 harvested ballots were reportedly dropped off on Election Day alone. County Republican Chairman Fred Whitaker claimed the 2016 law "directly caused the switch from being ahead on election night to losing two weeks later."

One interaction caught by a Santa Clarita family’s doorbell camera suggested how harvesting can work in practice. A harvester, identifying herself as Lulu, asks for Brandi, and says she is there to collect her ballot, explaining that there is "this new service, but only to, like, people who are supporting the Democratic Party."

North Carolina absentee ballots require a "witness," or second signature, to verify the voter’s identity. the Tar Heel State. WBTV, a Charlotte station, reviewed 796 official ballot envelopes of votes cast in Bladen County. The review identified 110 that were signed by two women who are listed as having been paid by a PAC connected to the North Carolina Democratic Party.

    I wonder how many volunteers were paid by Arnold or The Chamberlin Project to harvest, or witness votes and petitions in Maine? St. Paul and Minneapolis are Rank Choice Voting cities. Who harvested those votes for entire Democrat controlled disticts? Who funded the PAC's?

     In the Jones/Moore election massive voter fraud and vote harvesting took place. How does RCV solve this issue?

Then there is this disturbing video..

This from The Federalist website.

America’s electoral obsession isn’t Russian meddling anymore. It’s ballot-harvesting, a long-disputed practice implicated in fraud that’s come to the fore with the nationwide embrace of absentee voting in recent years and especially in last month’s midterms.

With ballot-harvesting, paper votes are collected by intermediaries who deliver them to polling officials, presumably increasing voter turnout but also creating opportunities for mischief.

     RCV solves NONE of these issues. It excaserbates them. With voting...err..(sorry) Ranking your votes you have multiple times to get your candidate to win. Then, when (SUDDENLY!) a box is found in a school janitor's closet three days later and all of the first or second ranks are for the original second place loser; that person becomes the winner!

     Now, let us introduce Single Transferable Voting. Another form of Vote Harvesting and Rank Choice Voting.

The single transferable vote uses small multiple-member districts, with voters ranking individual candidates in order of preference. During the count, as candidates are elected or eliminated, surplus or discarded votes that would otherwise be wasted are transferred to other candidates according to the preferences. STV enables voters to vote across party lines and to elect independent candidates.

     How is voting across party lines electing 'independent candidates'? What is a 'surplus vote'? Discarded votes? Who determines this? If a vote is surplus (not on the voter ID registration or a dead person) or is discarded why then does STV or PR or RCV take their rankings? If the vote is discarded, shouldn't all the rankings be discarded as well? The vote is surplus, discarded, not valid.

Oh, Contraire' Mon-ami'!

     Rank Choice Voting depends on these discarded and surplus votes. It will claim to deny a ballot because a voter filled it out wrong (no help to make it right at the polling station) but it will harvest the loser/discarded candidate's ranked votes. As I said in the earlier segment of this expose'; Yes, you are being used and yes, you ARE voting multiple times.

     Transferable Votes, Proportional Voting, Approval Voting. The names change to protect the guilty. These are all variations of a Euro style form of voting which our Founders emplored upon us to reject. Our system of plurality voting ensures a stable form of government. If parties change (as they are now) then the states and people themselves will decide which to recognize. Many states already recognize other third parties. Those third parties actually DO throw elections one way or the other. They are suppose to! Our system demands participation. Jefferson spoke about the people steering the ship of state correct. That ship can only be guided by Americans showing up at the local polling station regardless of party. The construct of RCV is that these third parties are spoilers. They screw up the system by swinging votes. The implication being that Greens, Libertarians, Vermin Supreme, etc should NOT run. But under RCV they should... So they can discard their paltry numbers but harvest their ranking votes... Thank you..

     I had a great conversation with a Libertarian friend of mine at meeting last week. He told me my position on RCV was completely correct and he could not understand why other Libertarian and Tea Party members were against me. He asserted that Primaries ARE a form of Rank Choice Voting. Basically voters get to choose who will win their state. Loser candidates have the ability to throw their votes to the third or second place loser to advance them into the next state. The actual winner just moves on anyways but this system allows for open competition. Primaries are a shoot out. My grandfather once said the electoral process in      America is the second greatest show on Earth next to Barnum and Bailey. It is this knock down drag out fight that ensures we have the best person from both parties going head to head into the final round. Out of 17 Republican Candidates Donald Trump emerged victorious and won the nomination. Out of three Democratic Candidates Hillary Clinton won the nomination. It was two years, multiple debates, events, primaries, interviews, advertisements, rinse and repeat.

     How can any one say we then chose the 'lesser of two evils'? Both parties poured heart and souls into their message. The astounding numbers of over 150 plus million Amercans voting for either party as well as third parties is a testament to the validity of our system of voting. Over 54 people ran for President under various banners in 2016. I interviewed three of them. I have interviewed two so far for 2020.

    In a May 4th Politico Magazine article by Ohio U. Law Professor Edward B. Foley describes how RCV could be implemented in various swing states WITHOUT implementing a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College.

    There is, however, an achievable short-term solution.... It does not require a constitutional amendment. It does not involve an interstate compact. Reformers should focus on a select group of battleground states and get them to adopt ranked-choice voting—or, if they prefer, a conventional runoff—in presidential elections....  five “toss-ups”: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. If ranked-choice voting were employed in these five states, but nowhere else, the Electoral College winner would be highly likely to be the same candidate who would have prevailed if a ranked-choice national popular vote were held. In fact, it’s possible that this could hold true if even a single pivotal state adopted ranked-choice voting.."

    So the only way around a complicated and unlikely Constitutional Amendment is to get states to alter their voting systems. Each state has this existing right in how they decide the time and place of voting. This is how RCV can 'back' their way nationally into adopting multiple voting. Already these swing states are being targeted by the RCV PAC's funded by Arnold and Soros. Ironically, Democrat controlled states like California, New Mexico and Massachusetts have not seriously taken up the RCV torch. They don't need to. They already run party hegemonies. RCV only works where states are in 'swing'. Maine was pivotal. Now that RCV is firmly implemented in Maine we can expect Democrat wins there to expand.
    In an attempt to discredit the criticism of RCV Columnist Andrew Prozorovsky writes in the March 27th edition of The Daily Illini;
    ".... Opponents’ criticisms have generally arisen from a misunderstanding of how RCV works. One major criticism is it alienates the unspoken democratic principle of “one person, one vote.” But many countries have a democratic majority system with runoffs, namely France and Nigeria, and they would likely debase this criticism in the same way: In the end, every person’s vote has the same weight.     Other opponents say RCV is too complicated.  However, once explained, the system is very easy to comprehend. Even if the voter still prefers the conventional method of voting, they can still list one candidate and leave the other two options blank, bearing the exact same weight as before. Few criticisms against this system actually hold water..."
    France and Nigeria? You can't be serious? I just wrote in the previous segment how Italy has had 65 forms of coalition governments in the past 70 years.  How many has France had? Nigeria? We have had only one! These are the examples RCV proponents use to justify their idea? RCV certainly is NOT complicated either. However my single vote does not hold the same weight as some one who votes two or three times. That's just simple math!
    As I have warned about RCV and a Democrat hegemony and as Prozorovsky chillingly concurs in his article; ".... Perhaps in 10 years, all of America will be voting this way and everyone will wonder why voting hadn’t always been as convenient as one, two, three..."
    Well, as Hyland said, "'s all perfectly democratic as long as everyone is on the winning side.."

....And That Is The Diatribe....