" 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.
Wikipedia:
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."
https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/14/ballot-harvesting-became-new-way-steal-election/
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.
...in 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.
https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/14/ballot-harvesting-became-new-way-steal-election/
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
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..
Primaries
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.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/04/electoral-college-reform-2020-226792?fbclid=IwAR2nvmGhgkZJZc9Ie6JLzEe150cEbjspylw-rieVE9XIcXmrKFbWuHvj9Ic
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..."
https://dailyillini.com/opinions/columns-opinions/2019/03/27/ranked-choice-voting-its-as-easy-as-one-two-three/?fbclid=IwAR22ywGj5SfxH6HSJ1w2TpbqY9_igL-pV8j-Mig1aQqgfsfGvMfiw_VNm7Y
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, " ..it's all perfectly democratic as long as everyone is on the winning side.."
....And That Is The Diatribe....
No comments:
Post a Comment