Friday, January 24, 2020

A Moral Call To Action

   



     There exists a very long list of statistics and historical examples that support the argument against the proposal of Sanctuary State status. There are also countless personal accounts of violence committed by illegals present in our country.

     What isn't being addressed is the moral call to action.

     On September 5th in 1980 Mother's Against Drunk Driving was founded by Candace Lightner after her 13 year old daughter was killed by a drunk driver. Throughout the 1980's drunk driving laws grew increasingly tougher reducing DUI fatalities by over 1/2 as of last year.
The group had its greatest success with the enacting of a 1984 federal law, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, that introduced a federal penalty (a 5%—later raised to 10%—loss of federal highway dollars), for states that did not raise the minimum legal age for the purchase and possession of alcohol to 21. After the United States Supreme Court upheld the law in the 1987 case of South Dakota v. Dole, every state and the District of Columbia made the necessary adjustments by 1988.

Each year, The Century Council, a national non-profit organization funded by a group of alcohol manufacturers, compiles a document of alcohol-related traffic fatalities. Between 1991 and 2013, the rate of alcohol-related traffic fatalities (ARTF) per 100,000 population has decreased 52% nationally, and 79% among youth under 21.[4]


 
     The reason why this is relevant is because at the time there was a moral call to action. People were dying! States were forced to comply with the national laws or lose funding. The horror stories of fatalities appeared all over the nightly news.

     The moral question is: Why are we not addressing the deaths of 4000 Americans a year at the hands of illegals the same way we addressed the drunk driving deaths decades ago?

      Every time there is a mass shooting the call to confiscate everyone's weapons is raised. On the national debate stage one 2020 Presidential Candidate claimed, "..Hell, ya! We're going to take your AR-15's!"

     Despite the fact that the United States is amongst one of the lowest (statistically) in gun related fatalities in the world the moral call to confiscate guns is reaching a fever's pitch. A pitch that may lead to removing one of our most basic Constitutional Rights. Given the level of violence committed by illegals currently, those numbers are likely to double should we remove lawfully owned firearms before we remove unlawfully entering individuals.

    But no outcry when an American dies at the hands of an illegal.


Nationwide, from 2011 to 2018, non-citizens, mostly illegal aliens, 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 seven times.

     If these numbers existed for drunk driving fatalities the 18th Amendment would have been reinstated by now. In fact if you add up the numbers supplied here they total 1,214,000. The more Sanctuary status is awarded to cities and states those numbers will accelerate.

1,214,000.. I want you remember that number.

     In October a Mr. Perez Valesquez from Guatemala was arrested for a DUI in Cayuga County NY. AN ICE Detainer was previously attached to Mr. Valesquez for repeated unlawful entry into the United States. However, a Judge let him go on a 'promise' of a reappearance to court.

     On Nov. 10 Mr. Valesquez was arrested (again) for Vehicular Homicide while driving drunk (again).

     In 2018-2020  North Carolina arrested and charged 331 illegals with sexual offenses to children. Over half of those cases were repeat offenders, previously deported offenders and/or on some sort of ICE Detainer Watchlist.

     At what point in time will law makers, judges, or the media understand that when people are willing to break a Federal Law and cross the border illegally multiple times what makes any one think they will "..promise to reappear.."? In fact, virtually all of the catch and release cases fail to "..reappear.."

     Especially if they have a record of breaking the law repeatedly.

     Last year was a record year for detainees crossing illegally into the US. Excluding women and children and the 1/10th of 1% who actually do want a better life there was still a large number of "unknowns". We don't have any background records or ID on these people.  Many of these unknowns were processed and then released into the country on this "promise". Then there are the ''got-a-ways". Those who CPB were unable to catch.

     Are our elected officials willing to say publicly that they are comfortable with that?



     If an illegal is arrested for a crime and is held over for ICE Detainment that criminal is taken off the streets. That person is processed, tried and either sent to an American prison or handed over to authorities of their home countries. For it is a fair bet that if they are committing crimes here in this country they are probably wanted for crimes they committed in their former countries.

     It is also a fair bet that's one of the reasons they left and came here in the first place. Because they are wanted criminals back home.

     And another question begs on this subject of being comfortable with the unknowns.

     The CDC has reported that many cases of diseases long since eradicated in the United States are now surfacing once again. They point directly to the mass influx of people pouring into our country unlawfully. Europe has reported this as well.




     This is another "unknown" factor I am talking about. Never mind the violence factor.

     There are literally ten's, if not hundred's of thousand's of men, women and children carrying infections and diseases let loose in our nation.

          Their children are attending school stressing a system still in the throws of COVID recovery. None of these children are vaccinated but you can be damned sure YOUR kid wouldn't be let in the door without every inoculation under the sun. These people who slipped through the system, who aggressively cross the border multiple times are not the least bit interested in making sure little Hector has his DPT shot.

       But, Judges let them all go on a promise to re-appear.

     The frustrating thing about all of this is that immigration groups paint us as racist. The government will bus people in, manipulate the message, attempt (and in many cases succeed) to shut down our voice. All we are trying to do is point out the dangers, point out the facts, statistics and put a face on the effects of illegals in our country and the dangers of Sanctuary State/ City designations. 

    But now these Sanctuary areas are beginning to feel the effects of their misguided Leftist open arms policy. The video coverage doesn't lie. Cities are swamped with roving gangs of migrants from London to Los Angeles. Lootings are increasing. Oslo Norway is still the rape capital for Islamic violence against women. Ranchers along the southern border are arrested for defending their homes instead of the migrants being detained for trespassing and entering illegally. Over 80,000 children are simply lost. No one knows where they are or what happened to them.
    The entire system is upside down.

    The US Government is squarely to blame. There is ZERO desire to close the border. The massive opposition during the Trump years was a shocking indicator of the hatred the Democrats harbored against this country. But more importantly: who is funding these mass migrations? If things are so destitute in these rat hole countries where are all these people coming up with the cash? Cartels are wealthy but they have very little incentive to fund illegals on a massive scale. They have plenty of mules.
    The only other possibility are the nations themselves from where many of these people are coming from. Paying people to leave rather than keep them in prison, on public assistance (if it exists) or even feed is better economics.



    And as the previous video proves the incentive to slough off the least desirable of a third world nation's people may be the altruistic thing for more developed nations to absorb, it does very little for the host nation. As we can see already from NYC the social system has collapsed. A net gain of the tens of millions of migrants will destroy the fabric of our American culture. Giving them residency status, voting rights, driver's licenses and a monthly stipend will cause a zipper affect that will run through our courts, schools, homes and our quality of life.

    Until there is a moral call to action to stop this hemorrhage we will bear witness to the slow bleed out of this Republic and preside over it's wake.


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

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 truethevote.org 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.

https://www.facebook.com/voterchoice2020/posts/159563875401168?notif_id=1576420542974705&notif_t=comment_mention

    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.

https://rangevoting.org/Burlington.html?fbclid=IwAR0FcUqzexbF26Xc_QV-xmdlnm86E7i4DJwZHUOaKHyW9AJxOx9Fil2HK8A

 
    "... 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 FairVote.org 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.

https://www.vpirg.org/


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.

https://www.opensecrets.org/states/summary.php?state=VT
                     
CategoryTotalRank
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 Fairvote.org 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...
   

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.
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud#choose-a-state



 
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.

https://www.spreaker.com/user/ktntradio/m-p-jon-matthews-interview-6-26-19



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 groups—the lobbying shop Stand Up Republic and its fundraising arm, Stand Up Republic Foundation—they’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 candidates—state Assemblywoman Young Kim and Rep. Mimi Walters—saw 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;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4y3tM3EuCE&list=PLU_Z4p-v1UQZSKw62f2lfyrEoRg1xxWNb&index=434



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..!
https://www.newsmax.com/scottrasmussen/daley-fair-vote-rcv-san-francisco/2018/06/01/id/863593/



And my detractors will claim I am wrong on this.

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


DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!
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...

Sooo..

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.


Fairvote.org /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."

https://www.fairvote.org/a-brief-history-of-ranked-choice-voting


    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.."
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/John-Stuart-Mill-Considerations-on-Representative-Government.pdf



     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..."

     Fairvote.org'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..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law



 
    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.".."

https://www.fairvote.org/polarization#polarization_key_facts

     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 Fiarvote.org

12 Cities in US Use 'Ranked-Choice Voting' | Newsmax.com



     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.."
https://www.fairvote.org/polarization_under_rcv_in_cambridge

     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
https://www.fairvote.org/growing-polarization-the-roots-of-an-increasing-lack-of-competition-in-federal-elections



     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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Robert_Ware

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.

https://www.jstor.org/topic/voting-paradox/?refreqid=search%3A668a05eb93b70bbaef74ae27dc7b150c


".... 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method


".... 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.


https://fee.org/articles/the-paradox-of-voting/

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 (1832–1898) rediscovered the phenomenon a hundred years after Condorcet.

Duncan Black (1908–1991), 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'.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.32543/naticivirevi.107.4.0062?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&&searchUri=%2Ftopic%2Fpreferential-voting%2F%3Frefreqid%3Dsearch%253A522595be2faa9f6b794b03ad0d901269&ab_segments=0%2Fdefault-2%2Fcontrol&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

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 Fairvote.org 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.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110227153416AAllpRS


    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'. Fairvote.org 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.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/04/13/ranked-choice_voting__super_saturday_in_alaska_hawaii.html

"...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..

https://equalcitizens.us/



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....