Thursday, January 2, 2020

Rank Choice Voting-Tactical Voting and Borda-Part IX


    The interesting thing about RCV is the number of names they attach to it. In various countries that use this system it can be called any number of things, Apportioned voting, Preferable voting,  Approval voting, Instant Runoff Voting.  It is all the same. It does not pass the smell test of "Arrow, Condorcet, or Diverger's " Laws. The simple mathematics of this system defies all reason. In Fact, in an earlier segment of this expose' even Lewis Carroll deduced the impossibility of a Rank Choice Voting system electing a real candidate who just runs an awesome campaign and 'WOW's the electorate. Carroll agreed with Arrow that, in effect, you ARE voting best to last. Any attempt to change the system, or mechanism is just screwing with the mechanism. It does not present a candidate with some awesome idea. It just rig's it to ensure the trailing candidate wins by harvesting secondary votes from lesser candidates who lost outright in the first place. In 1850 MIT Professor William Ware dabbled in this and took those thrown away votes to trick the RCV idea so that the loser's voters could still exchange their second and third choices to elect a winner. The European system of RCV (at that time) just tossed all those third, fourth, etc losers outright. Ware tweaked this and thus we have modern day RCV in America.
    As John Stuart Mill stated voting is a trust between candidate and voter. If voting is a 'right' then it becomes property. And, what is to stop a person from selling his/her property? Or, in this case, 'Ranking' your vote? You are essentially selling your vote. You choose the candidate you WANT to win then selling your vote to the lesser candidate you may (or may not) be happy with.
    In my presentation last August on RCV former founder of The Worcester Tea Party Ken Mandile said that I was wrong on RCV being a form of vote harvesting. That vote harvesting is the collection of fake ballots and RCV is not that. Well, he is partially correct and partially incorrect.
    My two great guests on my podcast Tom Weaver of and radio host John Matthews from California who runs an organization to track voting have both been on my podcast several times, have read my expose' and agree and concur that Rank Choice Voting IS a form of vote harvesting.
    The political group known as Voter Choice for Massachusetts has accomplished the task of collecting the required signatures to put RCV on the November 2020 ballot. It is unknown at this time who funded this campaign. Petitions can be easily distributed grassroots.
    Their great claim is that they garnered signatures from all 351 Massachusetts cities and towns. If that is true then they only had to get 320 signatures from each city and town. An easy feat. You can be sure of the PR on this one.
 Where the shenanigans start is if the people of Massachusetts reject RCV. Then the big money will pour in for an end run to the State Supreme Court to overturn the results of the vote.

    In March of 2010 Burlington VT voted by referendum to repeal RCV in it's Mayoral Elections. A year later then Mayor Kiss attempted to bring it back. It was rejected again by a 58-42 margin. Unfortunately the key problem that RCV refuses to address is low voter turnout. Out of the 33,218 registered voters in Burlington VT only 7641 bothered to show up. Just as the low voter turnout re-elected Fall River's indicted Mayor and electing Ocasio Cortez low voter turnout is a must happen for RCV to succeed.

    "... Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) advocates, especially FairVote's Terrill G. Bouricius (who lives in Burlington, formerly served there as alderman, also formerly served as a Vermont state legislator, calls himself a "political scientist," was instrumental in making IRV happen in Burlington starting in 2006, is denoted a "senior analyst" by FairVote, and in 2005 received a contract to design Burlington's IRV voter education program)... "

     Interesting. Former Democrat Alderman, awarded a contract to design a new voting system. Who wrote that check?   
     More importantly? Who funded the fight against the repeal of RCV in Burlington?

    The advocacy group supporting RCV in Burlington, Fifty Percent Matters, raked in over $20,400.00. Donations over $100 all came from outside Burlington which include $6500 from from Maryland. $1000 from Raymond Pecor (more on him later), $750 from Dem. St. Sen, Hinda Miller and $400 from League of Women Voters.
    But the Gold Medal goes to the Vermont Public Interest Research Group with under half the total raised. $10,000.00.

In 1975, the Vermont Public Interest Research and Education Fund (VPIREF) was established as VPIRG's 501(c)3 outreach and education arm. For over 40 years, VPIRG has brought the voice of average Vermont citizens to the public policy debates concerning the environment, health care, consumer protection and democracy.
    While the 2010 VPIRG Exec. Director Paul Burns was quick to decry the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United; "Corporations are not people". He had no problem raking in over 1.5 million dollars for 2010. 28% from Foundations and Grants (many corporate funded) and 2% listed as 'other'.
    In fact RCV groups nationwide are anything but 'grassroots'. As I pointed out in previous segments the donors are corporations. Publicly funded corporations in the form of grants. Vermont is 15th in Democrat donations. The state is overwhelmingly Left.
    In 2019-2020 over 86% of all money raised by PAC's, individuals, foundations, etc went to Democrat candidates or Democrat causes.
Total Itemized Contributions **$2,384,21147
Total to Candidates and Parties$2,408,996N/A
Total to Democrats$2,093,19441
Percent to Democrats86.9%1
Total to Republicans$275,02350
Percent to Republicans11.4%50
Individual donations ($200+)*$2,833,55847
Soft money donations$56,05242
PAC donations$84,51346

Tactical Nomination and Borda
    Rank Choice Voting becomes the Trojan Horse to Democrat hegemony because it promises to throw up a large number of candidates from that party. In a RCV style election you can have several candidates from the same party all getting ranked. The winner doesn't matter because in the end you elect either the winning candidate or a second place someone who shares your ideology. This is known as Tactical Nomination.
    The third tier candidate gets eliminated. In some cases even the rankings get tossed. In a race where one party's voters outnumber another the chances of having any representative opposition voice is nil. In fact lesser tier candidates can be purposely buried by vote rigging.
    The Borda count was developed independently several times, as early as 1435 by Nicholas of Cusa, but is named for the 18th-century French mathematician and naval engineer Jean-Charles de Borda, who devised the system in 1770.
     The Borda count determines the outcome of a debate or the winner of an election by giving each candidate, for each ballot, a number of points corresponding to the number of candidates ranked lower.
    This is insanity. The only places a RCV/Borda system is used in elections are Slovenia, Nauru, Kiribati and up until 1970 in Finland, but only for a select cadre of candidates.
     And this is exactly what Mill warned us about. As European Parliaments grew and gained more power over the Monarchies voting was reserved only to the privileged few. The RCV system adopted was devised by the aristocracy. This ensured that only preferred candidates gained the appropriate seats.
    It is a fact that every city using RCV as their system of voting is all Democrat. In an odd twist RCV fulfills one of it's promises. Eliminating the 'spoiler' candidate. No third party in their right mind would waste money running in these areas. Any Republican who runs faces (at best) some of the poorest numbers. Even 2nd or 3rd place rankings from sympathetic moderate Dems wouldn't be enough to clench a win.
    With Maine now firmly a RCV state and the ballot question in Massachusetts Vermont is poised to become the next state to fall. It is a known fact that the players pushing RCV are not just going to settle for cities or even states. As I have proven in past segments with the quotes from the site itself they want to rewrite the Presidential elections as well. They are landing key states on each coast as well as growing in battleground states. The New Hampshire Primaries are considering RCV as well as the Iowa Caucuses.
    There WILL come a time when Democrats regain control over the White House and/or Legislature. As RCV grows in numbers, locations, the push to register illegals and the elimination of the Electoral College.
    RCV, like the Trojan Horse it is will present itself as the solution to our election problems.

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

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

MCIR Raises Concerns over Sanctuary State Status; John Thompson

To Massachusetts citizens concerned about immigration

Do you oppose open borders? Would you like to fight back against bills now in the Massachusetts legislature that would 1) give drivers licenses to illegal aliens and 2) turn Massachusetts into a “sanctuary state” by making it illegal for local law enforcement to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in locating and deporting aliens who commit crimes? Would you like to support American workers by having the Massachusetts legislature enact laws that prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens? If so, this is your chance to act.
The Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform (MCIR) Immigration Reform (MCIR) will hold its next meeting on Saturday, December 14 from 10 AM to Noon at the main branch of the Wellesley Public Library, 530 Washington Street, Wellesley, MA 02482.
MCIR is dedicated to 1) strict enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws 2) securing the border 3) reductions in legal immigration and 4) reform of policies toward refugees and asylum. It works with like-minded national organizations such as Numbers USA, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). MCIR seeks to educate the public on immigration, and affect related policy at the federal, state, and local levels.

The group will discuss planned activities for 2020. MCIR’s goals are ambitious. Our opponents are well funded and dominate much of the media. MCIR has negligible financial resources, but our biggest advantage is that that the voters share our objectives.  MCIR can break through the wall of unfair media coverage and hostile domination of the legislative process only if we mobilize effectively.
Our aim to increase the level of mobilization at all levels. Your level of effort can be high (e.g. testifying at the legislature, serving on an action group, or visiting legislator’s office) or moderate (e.g. posting comments on articles, communicating via the social media or contacting legislators by phone or e-mail.)
The MCIR hopes to establish contacts with like-minded people who would like to participate in any way. If you share our goals and want to change things, MCIR will do our best to support you
For information about this meeting, contact John Thompson at (617) 939-9048


Reject the Sanctuary State Bill
Nationwide, from 2011 to 2018, unlawful immigrants committed 667,000 drug offenses, 42,000 robberies, 25,000 homicides, 91,000 sex crimes, 213,000 assaults, 95,000 weapons offenses, and 81,000 auto thefts, according to a report from the US General Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO also found that the average criminal alien had been arrested an average of seven times.
On December 2, the Massachusetts State Legislature’s Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security will hold hearings on a bill that would make Massachusetts a Sanctuary State. The “safe communities” bill (HB 3573/SB1401) would protect criminal aliens from the justice system.
Police in most Massachusetts communities regularly exchange information about persons in custody with the Federal authorities, including the FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This bill is aimed at thwarting that cooperation.
In Massachusetts, criminal gangs routinely rob citizens, traffic narcotics, and perpetrate extortion. In one raid in 2015, federal agents arrested 56 gang members in Boston, Chelsea, Everett, Lynn, Revere, and Somerville. The indictment alleged that several of those charged are responsible for the murders of five people, and attempted murder of at least 14.
These gangs frequently recruit prospective members—typically 14 to 15 years old—inside local high schools with significant populations of immigrants from Central America, according to law enforcement officials.
Many undocumented immigrant lawbreakers have avoided deportation by taking refuge in sanctuary jurisdictions, which in Massachusetts currently number 15 cities, including Cambridge and Boston. In the US as a whole, there are 39 sanctuary cities, 364 sanctuary counties, and four sanctuary states, including fellow New England States Vermont, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, as well as California.
Sanctuary advocates claim—without evidence—that cooperation between ICE and police would scare undocumented immigrants from reporting crimes.
“Sanctuary policies have no impact whatsoever on relations between law enforcement and non-criminal aliens,” said John Thompson, a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform (MCIR). “The only effect is to protect those who are in custody from deportation.”
“If this bill is enacted, those responsible for its enactment will share responsibility for all crimes committed by persons who should have been deported but were sheltered by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” Thompson said.
Like most Americans, MCIR believes that non-citizens who commit crimes should be promptly deported and that local law enforcement officials should cooperate with the Federal government in identifying and removing criminal aliens. Reflecting this belief, the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act reasonably mandated the deportation of immigrants convicted of crimes.
Although most undocumented immigrants are not professional criminals, it’s hard to enter and live illegally in the US, without committing crimes. Many pay criminal gangs thousands of dollars for travel to and entry into the US, and sometimes more for documents. Illegal immigrants frequently commit identity theft in order to be employable. Their presence weakens laws that protect unskilled workers, e.g., laws setting minimum wages and minimal acceptable working conditions.
“If the authorities acted in accord with their responsibilities, the nation would be spared a large proportion of the offenses—including 25, 000 homicides–committed by criminal aliens,” said Thompson.
MCIR urges legislators to reject this bill and further urges voters to make their opinions on this issue known to legislators.
For any questions regarding this press release, please contact:
John Thompson
Steve Kropper

MCIR: Say “No” to Bill to Give Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens in Massachusetts

Say “No” to Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens in Massachusetts\
Over the last ten years, Massachusetts has had the largest increase in the number of illegal aliens, and the lowest increase in the wages of unskilled workers of any state in the nation. That’s not a coincidence.
Now various legislators in our state propose to further enable illegal immigration by passing legislation (H.3012/S. 2061) that would grant drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens. Hearings on that bill are being held today, September 4 at 10:00 AM in Hearing Room B-1 of the State House. But the bill has nothing to do with safe driving. Its purpose is to make it easier for illegal aliens to live in our state.
Such legislation would also make it easier for unscrupulous employers to hire the so-called “undocumented,” instead of hiring Americans and legal immigrants. The advantage: they can pay them lower wages and otherwise exploit them.
A whopping 200,000 illegal aliens already reside in Massachusetts—up one third from a decade ago—taking jobs that would otherwise go to lawful residents, and driving down the wages of low-skilled residents who are still working, because an oversupply of any resource reduces its value.
Illegal immigration also leads to higher crime, reduced quality of health care for residents—especially low-income residents—and it crowds schools and lowers the quality of primary and secondary education. Illegal immigrants also use other social services, and drive up the cost of education, and drive up welfare costs—partly by putting Americans out of work. But they pay negligible taxes, and end up costing each taxpaying household an average of $1,500 annually.
Since 9/11 our country has been working to build a comprehensive and reliable system of identification to enable Federal and state law enforcement to work together to combat crime and terrorism. This bill would undermine that system. The 9/11 terrorists had 30 state driver’s licenses and identification cards enabling them to travel in the US undetected. Currently, illegal aliens are not vetted to determine whether they pose national security or criminal threats.
While most people residing in the US illegally are not criminals, illegal immigration generates revenue for the criminal thugs that operate networks of human and drug smugglers that supply cheap workers to unscrupulous employers. Many illegal immigrants pay for their passage by transporting drugs for these gangs. The gangs also sometimes supply fraudulent documents, enabling the so-called undocumented to work in the US. The victims: Americans whose identities have been stolen.
“This bill is bad for workers and taxpayers in the Commonwealth, and bad for national security,” said John Thompson, spokesman for MCIR. “Moreover, studies in California and New Mexico showed that giving drivers licenses for illegal immigrants did nothing to improve road safety.”
The Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform (MCIR) urges voters to stand with American workers and against the human traffickers and sweatshop operators while showing respect for the law and law enforcement. Together, let us defeat this bill.