[EM] Approval Voting and Long-term effects of voting systems

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Daniel LaLiberte <
daniel.laliberte at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Daniel--
>>
>> I would expect that repeated applications of Approval Voting will result
>>> in having more candidates run who will appeal to many more voters.  We're
>>> not used to thinking in terms of the broad appeal, such as what Bernie has
>>> gotten, and he had a huge struggle just getting noticed, at first.
>>>
>>
>> Not for any reason other than a media blackout. Emails between the DNC
>> and the Hillary campaign established a common goal to, by whatever dirty
>> tricks necessary, make sure that Bernie doesn't win the nomination.
>>
>
> I mentioned Bernie as an example of someone with broad appeal who would
> likely win with Approval Voting
>

I say he would have lost with Approval voting,or with _any_ voting-system,
because count fraud works just as well with any voting-system. It isn't the
voting system; it's the vote-counting.

"The real voting power belongs to him who counts the votes."

Well, I admit that a more complicatedly-counted method, especially a
precinct-non-summable one like IRV would provide easier opportunity for
count-fraud.

Is that why the count says that the IRV initiative "won" in Maine? I'm not
saying that IRV isn't any good, but its easier count-fraud makes it more
advantageous for our rulers.



> , and the huge struggle and near success is evidence of how strong that
> broad appeal is.  But also, responding to your reasons why he had this
> struggle, you are correct that the media blackout is a major reason, along
> with the various dirty tricks.
>


> But going deeper, we should ask why did those things arise?
>

I just meant that count-fraud & consistently disinformational media are the
root-basis of the _mechanism_ of it. If you're looking for a cause deeper
than that, then how about...

Greed? Astounding gullibility? That's a combination that can't lose.


Remember when I quoted P.T. Barnum pointing out that there's a sucker born
every minute. Isn't that why those things arise?

If I can be allowed to pursue that subject:

Have you noticed how the public are so perfectly matched to and suited to
their rulers, owners, herders?.   Just like how a glove fits a hand. Why is
that?

It's uncannily like Huxley's "Brave New World", except that of course
there's nothing new about it. And, where, in the novel it was done with
drugs, in actuality it happened via evolution. There must have been a long
period during our species' history when complete, gullible obedience to
authority was adaptive.

Now, maybe the scenario toward a better world, that I've discussed could
happen. Or maybe it's entirely impossible, science fantasy fiction, due to
what I discussed in the paragraph before this one.



> And I would claim they are side effects of 1)  the concentration of the
> power of money, i.e. the banks, 2) the concentration of power of the media,
> owned directly or indirectly by big money, and 3) the dominance of two
> major parties
>

No, the dominance of the 2 "major" parties is a result. It certainly isn't
a cause. As I said, the root-basis of the mechanism of it is phony media &
elections. If you want to try to change anything, you have to start with
those. That's why I suggested local NPR FM stations, as the most reachable,
isolatable component of it, if you want something effective that can be
done right now.

It's late, so I'll resume these replies at the next opportunity..

Michael Ossipoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161128/cfd41d2a/attachment.htm>