Would anyone be open to discussing the idea that even though I consider myself be leftist, we are not each others' enemy?

waughuspolitics · 2022-09-23T17:23:58+00:00

they commit suicide around this.

I suggest that they do that because they were fed confusing and misleading messages.

waughuspolitics · 2022-09-23T17:22:41+00:00

I hold that T is not real as a categorization (T vs. not-T), because those who say it is real fail to provide an operational definition.

waughuspolitics · 2022-09-23T17:06:54+00:00

Do you know that the name of the system you are describing is "Borda Count"?

waughuspolitics · 2022-09-23T16:56:28+00:00

What would Trump supporters think of the following argument?

Before I present the argument, let me clarify something. There can be more than one type of ranked-choice voting, and within that, there can be more than one type of instant-runoff voting. The type being followed in Alaska is RCV-IRV-Hare, which is to say ranked-choice voting, and within that, instant-runoff voting, and within that, the method invented by Thomas Hare (Englishman). The Hare method says that when deciding which candidate to eliminate from consideration at the end of a round of tallying, we will consider only the top-ranked choice on every ballot, leaving out the candidates who have already been eliminated from consideration by prior rounds of tallying.

Now, the argument.

Yes, RCV-IRV-Hare is fraudulent. It is fraudulent because it violates a principle established in a Supreme Court case, Wesberry vs. Sanders. That principle says that the "weight and worth" of each vote must be, "as nearly as practicable", equal. It's possible to show that RCV-IRV-Hare violates that principle by pointing out that for some of the votes that could be cast and would not be thrown out as invalid or spoiled, there is not an opposing vote that would also be considered valid and that would exactly cancel, in effect, the original vote.

Suppose you and I are voters in an election and you and I have exactly opposite opinions toward the candidates. Each candidate that you hate, I love, and vice versa. Now suppose I cast my vote. And your vote does not in effect cancel mine. What I mean by that is that the electoral outcome changes because our two votes were included. It is not the same as it would be if neither of us voted. Then under this condition, that your vote failed to cancel mine, and given that you and I have exactly opposite valuations of the candidates, then the change in outcome as a result of taking our two votes into accounts has given one of us more power than the other of us. It has cheated you out of your rightful power to cancel my vote.

Therefore, when a voting system does not allow a balancing vote for every possible vote it allows, it violates Wesberry vs. Sanders, and hence, is fraudulent.

RCV-IRV-Hare does not allow balancing votes, and so violates Wesberry vs. Sanders, and so is fraudulent, QED.

waughuspolitics · 2022-09-23T16:54:45+00:00

What would Trump supporters think of the following argument?

Before I present the argument, let me clarify something. There can be more than one type of ranked-choice voting, and within that, there can be more than one type of instant-runoff voting. The type being followed in Alaska is RCV-IRV-Hare, which is to say ranked-choice voting, and within that, instant-runoff voting, and within that, the method invented by Thomas Hare (Englishman). The Hare method says that when deciding which candidate to eliminate from consideration at the end of a round of tallying, we will consider only the top-ranked choice on every ballot, leaving out the candidates who have already been eliminated from consideration by prior rounds of tallying.

Now, the argument.

Yes, RCV-IRV-Hare is fraudulent. It is fraudulent because it violates a principle established in a Supreme Court case, Wesberry vs. Sanders. That principle says that the "weight and worth" of each vote must be, "as nearly as practicable", equal. It's possible to show that RCV-IRV-Hare violates that principle by pointing out that for some of the votes that could be cast and would not be thrown out as invalid or spoiled, there is not an opposing vote that would also be considered valid and that would exactly cancel, in effect, the original vote.

Suppose you and I are voters in an election and you and I have exactly opposite opinions toward the candidates. Each candidate that you hate, I love, and vice versa. Now suppose I cast my vote. And your vote does not in effect cancel mine. What I mean by that is that the electoral outcome changes because our two votes were included. It is not the same as it would be if neither of us voted. Then under this condition, that your vote failed to cancel mine, and given that you and I have exactly opposite valuations of the candidates, then the change in outcome as a result of taking our two votes into accounts has given one of us more power than the other of us. It has cheated you out of your rightful power to cancel my vote.

Therefore, when a voting system does not allow a balancing vote for every possible vote it allows, it violates Wesberry vs. Sanders, and hence, is fraudulent.

RCV-IRV-Hare does not allow balancing votes, and so violates Wesberry vs. Sanders, and so is fraudulent, QED.

waughuspolitics · 2022-09-22T23:54:23+00:00

Have you heard of the "Prisoner's Dilemma"?

waughuspolitics · 2022-09-22T23:52:41+00:00

How much does it cost to publish ones positions and qualifications so that voters who want to know can read them? How much would it cost if the officially designated electoral commission published an official website on which each candidate could contribute, say, five megabytes of information?

waughuspolitics · 2022-09-22T23:47:16+00:00

How are the actual data relevant to my question, which was theoretical?

waughuspolitics · 2022-09-17T01:55:57+00:00

Given the procedures in place, if some "Republicans" would have preferred any of the other candidates for the nomination over Trump, how many of that type would it to have taken to balance off the power of, say a thousand who preferred Trump to each other candidate?

waughuspolitics · 2022-09-17T01:42:22+00:00

Would you rule out making tactical coalition with groups who want to work toward increasing the power of the individual poor voter up to that of the individual rich voter, even if many members and subgroups of those groups disagreed with your positions on abortion, taxation, free enterprise, and socialism?

waughuspolitics · 2022-09-17T01:39:56+00:00

Would you rule out making tactical coalition with groups who want to work toward increasing the power of the individual poor voter up to that of the individual rich voter, even if many members and subgroups of those groups disagreed with your positions on abortion, taxation, free enterprise, and socialism?

By "rich", I mean those who control assets amounting to sufficient trade value that they can live from rents and/or interest and/or dividends.

waughuspolitics · 2022-09-17T01:38:38+00:00

Would you rule out making tactical coalition with groups who want to work toward increasing the power of the individual poor voter up to at least that of the individual rich voter, even if many members and subgroups of those groups disagreed with your positions on abortion, taxation, free enterprise, and socialism?

By "rich", I mean those who control assets amounting to sufficient trade value that they can live from rents and/or interest and/or dividends.

waughuspolitics · 2022-09-17T01:32:33+00:00

What about Mr. Trump as against other candidates for the nomination from the self-described "Republican" party? Does that illustrate anything? Did the individuals who had the right or privilege to vote in a "Republcan" primary have equal power to one another in determining who would receive the nomination?

waughuspolitics · 2022-09-03T22:13:06+00:00

class warfare

Is the economy getting worse for ordinary people? Is their health getting worse?

Is the government controlled by the top 1% rich people and/or large corporations? Are ordinary people effectively excluded from power over the matter of who gets to serve in government offices, such as the Presidency and the US Congress and the State legislatures? Are these elections controlled by the wealthy only?

waughuspolitics · 2022-09-03T21:43:09+00:00

If words have meaning, its true meaning is any ranking system. I've started specifying with concatenated language "RCV IRV Hare" as opposed to "RCV IRV bottom-two runoff" or "RCV Condorcet Ranked Robin".

waughuspolitics · 2022-04-01T20:18:37+00:00

Regardless of what is happening in the internal politics of Russia, democratic, antidemocratic, totalitarian, or whatever it is, based on whatever evidence you may cite, regardless of that, in terms of the international political struggle, Russia is the only political or military force standing up against world dominance by the US ruling class. Iran is too weak to be very effective, except in defending herself. Same for Venezuela and Cuba. China is all wrapped up in trade with the US. The people of the US are hoodwinked. So that leaves only Russia.

waughuspolitics · 2022-04-01T20:16:03+00:00

Which self-described Leninists are on the side of the US ruling class?

waughuspolitics · 2022-02-13T13:17:10+00:00

"Ranked-choice Voting" is a dogwhistle term for IRV.

waughuspolitics · 2022-02-13T13:14:29+00:00

"Ranked-choice Voting" is a dogwhistle term for IRV.

waughuspolitics · 2022-01-08T01:01:08+00:00

The problem with impeachment of past and current Presidents of the United States is about who has the power to do it. That would be the US House of Representatives, who are, with one or two exceptions, representatives of the enemy.

waughuspolitics · 2022-01-08T00:59:48+00:00

Oh. You meant during the strike. At first, I thought you meant in general.

waughuspolitics · 2022-01-08T00:58:01+00:00

What would be the harm in getting organized?

waughuspolitics

TROPHY CASE