Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

introduction

Expand Messages
  • denver_baker_babe
    hey all :~) I just discovered this list and am so pleased that there are others in the Denver area who are interested in IRV. I am a budding psephologist
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 25, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      hey all :~) I just discovered this list and am so pleased that there
      are others in the Denver area who are interested in IRV. I am a
      budding psephologist [thanks to William F. Buckley for introducing me
      to the word describing my preoccupation with the science of
      elections.] I live & work in the Highlands area (NW Denver) and am
      currently trying to put together a fact sheet/essay on why it is not
      necessarily a "waste" or "spoiler" to vote for a non-
      Democrat/Republican. If anyone else out there has suggestions on
      existing resources that would be useful, or is interested in working
      with me, please give me a shout. My email is <ellethomas@...>,
      and my phone is 303.458.0960.

      namaste,
      ~~elle~~
    • Dpolhill@aol.com
      In a message dated 7/25/2003 4:33:05 PM Mountain Daylight Time, ... Hi Elle, This group has a few interested and semi-informed individuals. What has been
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 26, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 7/25/2003 4:33:05 PM Mountain Daylight Time, ellethomas@... writes:

        I just discovered this list and am so pleased that there
        are others in the Denver area who are interested in IRV.


        Hi Elle,
        This group has a few interested and semi-informed individuals.  What has been missing thusfar is leadership.  Our leader needs to stand up and say, "OK, we are going to do this."  When that happens, the IRV movement in Colorado will be born.
        Thanks for your interest.
        Dennis Polhill
        Golden, Colorado
      • WATAYLOR10@aol.com
        ... Democrats and Republicans retain their traditional rhetoric and vote along party lines on issues which do not concern the Campaign Donors. However, on
        Message 3 of 7 , Jul 30, 2003
        • 0 Attachment

          In a message dated 7/25/03 4:33:08 PM, ellethomas@... writes:


          I live & work in the Highlands area (NW Denver) and am
          currently trying to put together a fact sheet/essay on why it is not
          necessarily a "waste" or "spoiler" to vote for a non-
          Democrat/Republican.  If anyone else out there has suggestions on
          existing resources that would be useful, or is interested in working
          with me, please give me a shout. 


               Democrats and Republicans retain their traditional rhetoric and vote along party lines on issues which do not concern the Campaign Donors.  However, on issues dear to the hearts of major Campaign Contribution donors, the two party system breaks down and votes are cast, by members of both parties, along the “Donation Policy” line.  Thus it is obvious that the donations when made are accompanied by coercion, to which the recipients comply.  This practice converts any “free speech donation” to “bribery.”  The practice is rampant!!   Votes bought by such donations, like those supporting the One World Government, are undoubtedly treasonous as well.  When the Court made the “free speech” decision it said that if the People come to believe the practice is corrupt, it will need to be revisited.  As a voter you can vote for change (vote incumbents and members of political parties out) telling the Court; it is time for the revisitation.  The current situation leaves the American People understanding that they have been disenfranchised, with nowhere to turn.  This results in many of them not voting, and others believing that, they are squandering their votes even though they continue to vote.

          The above comes from studying I have done over the past 12 years since I retired.  I may be a little wrong — but I am a lot right.

          Wayne
        • Dpolhill@aol.com
          In a message dated 7/30/2003 8:50:47 PM Mountain Daylight Time, ... Hi Wayne, I did not know you were part of this group. I assume by your presence, that the
          Message 4 of 7 , Jul 31, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 7/30/2003 8:50:47 PM Mountain Daylight Time, WATAYLOR10@... writes:

            “bribery.”

            Hi Wayne,
            I did not know you were part of this group.  I assume by your presence, that the Reform Party would likely support IRV as a reform.  Is this correct?  Also have you or other Reform Party folks been participating in the third party coalition meetings? 

            "Bribery" is another of my reform ideas.  Acknowledging that bribery is a reality, nothing precludes the people from bribing their elected officials.  We would create an incentive pay system for Congress.  For example, we would run an initiative in Colorado that is loaded with incentives like a Bronco player contract.  If the issue we care about is term limits, then members of the Colorado Congressional Delegation would get a check for $X from the state (1) when the Congressional Term Limits Act is introduced into congress (2) when they vote yes to pass it and no to emasculate it with amendments (3) when it is passed out to the states for ratification, etc. 

            I don't want to shift the discussion away from IRV.  We are gonna get term limits ... and that is a discussion for another time and place.  IRV is achievable.  So much so, that there is incentive for governments to cooperate in the adoption of this reform.  I do not foresee that IRV will shake the foundations of the political establishment, like term limits.  But things are so screwed up that I will take any and all reforms we can get done.  IRV has the additional benefit of strengthening all third parties ... first by their cooperative leadership in advancing the reform and ... second once the reform is in place, it will once again be possible for a third party to challenge the two dominant parties ... because a third party vote is not thrown away (extrapolating this notion a bit, my guess is the 20% of voters who voted for Perot in 1992 [Colorado was higher than average: 23% (?)] would almost all vote some third party as their first choice. And I further guess that the 20% number will grow.  Hardly trivial events.  And likely to elicit some different behavior from the 2 parties.)

            The history behind the last point is long.  The U.S. has always had a 2 party system.  Single-member, winner-take-all districts insure two parties.  But one of the 2 dominant parties was occasionally displaced.  That ended about 100 years ago, because the 2 parties figured out they could avoid such competitive threats by restricting third parties.  They did this thru a series of ballot access limitations.  One is fusion voting.  I have advocated that the ban on fusion voting be lifted.  However, IRV seems to make fusion moot.  That is, IRV seems be a more modern evolution of fusion.

            Of course, reformers are impatient.  So our temptation is to do IRV statewide.  We do not have the horsepower to go statewide and if we could get on the ballot the powers that be will insure that the measure does not pass.  So, the way to advance IRV is locally.  We can do local petitions.  Some of these petition requirements are astonishingly small.  The third party coalition or any one of the third parties who chose to capture the IRV idea and run with it, could get this on the ballot and assist local activists to win the reform.  WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?

            Dennis Polhill
          • WATAYLOR10@aol.com
            ... I am no longer registered Reform nor do I participate in Reform Party activities. They have not taken my name off of the RP e mail circulation list. Once
            Message 5 of 7 , Jul 31, 2003
            • 0 Attachment

              In a message dated 7/31/03 8:33:53 AM, Dpolhill@... writes:


              Hi Wayne,
              I did not know you were part of this group.  I assume by your presence, that the Reform Party would likely support IRV as a reform.  Is this correct?  Also have you or other Reform Party folks been participating in the third party coalition meetings? 


              I am no longer registered Reform nor do I participate in Reform Party activities.  They have not taken my name off of the RP e mail circulation list.  Once in a while I find something that sets me off and I respond.

              I am no longer interested in squandering my energies on minor issues (Those that probably won't cause the loss of our freedoms in the next 5 to 10 years).

              The issues that I consider important include the UN and it's One World Government,  The treason, bribery and racketeering associated with the bribery that allows Corporate America to put a two party coalition together in either national house on any subject at any time who will support the wholesale sale of the People's freedoms, and promotion of development of a campaigning system where in neither party affiliation nor money help the candidate.

              Wish me luck - It's not likely to happen.
            • Dpolhill@aol.com
              In a message dated 7/31/2003 5:10:16 PM Mountain Daylight Time, ... Hi Wayne, I am sorry to hear that. Part of the challenge for us, reform activists, is to
              Message 6 of 7 , Jul 31, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 7/31/2003 5:10:16 PM Mountain Daylight Time, WATAYLOR10@... writes:

                I am no longer registered Reform


                Hi Wayne,
                I am sorry to hear that.  Part of the challenge for us, reform activists, is to pick things that can be achieved and make a difference.  You could be the leader that IRV in Colorado is lacking ... if you choose to.  I will help, but I will not lead.

                Is it correct that Victor Good left Colorado? 

                When did you move to Highlands Ranch?

                Who are the leaders in the Reform Party now?

                Thanks.
                DP
              • WATAYLOR10@aol.com
                ... MINOR PARTY DILEMMA On June 28, 2001 I read an article in the Denver Post, written by Peter Finn of the Washington Post, which, with subsequent research
                Message 7 of 7 , Aug 3 11:31 AM
                • 0 Attachment

                  In a message dated 7/31/03 5:53:43 PM, Dpolhill@... writes:


                  Hi Wayne,
                  I am sorry to hear that.  Part of the challenge for us, reform activists, is to pick things that can be achieved and make a difference.  You could be the leader that IRV in Colorado is lacking ... if you choose to.  I will help, but I will not lead.

                  MINOR PARTY DILEMMA

                  On June 28, 2001 I read an article in the Denver Post, written by Peter Finn of the Washington Post, which, with subsequent research led me to believe that the only options the American People have to retain their freedoms is to take up arms to preserve our “condition of being free” as allowed by the 2nd Amendment or to talk the Joint Chiefs of Staff into declaring martial law.  In either case the objective would be to return our now-corporate-controlled government to the People.  The June 28 article reported on a final decision by the International Court of Justice.  As reported, the US was found guilty of violating international law as well as guilty of ignoring a 1999 “Interim Decision.”   It appears that the Court’s interim decisions constitute “International law” until the court rescinds them.  This type of “law” is the vary reason our forefathers brought forth on this continent a new nation.  It takes only minor “reading between the lines,” but there is no doubt after reading the article that; the effort I had could expend (promoting the Reform Party or a myriad of other “worthwhile” causes) would be as well spent if I went fishing.  Since then I have spent considerable effort to understand the status of the UN effort for creation of a “(dictatorial) One World Government.”  What I know or think I know includes:

                  •     The US has signed many treaties pledging our support of the UN.  This undoubtedly includes a pledge that we will be subject to the One World Government (OWG) rule when 60 or more nations sign treaties in support of the One World Government Constitution.
                  •     We came under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice when we signed the first treaty creating the UN.
                  •     A year or more ago it was reported in the Reform Party E-mail messages that the OWG constitution was being prepared at a university in Chicago.  My understanding was that the constitution was to be distributed for review by the UN member nations by now.
                  •     With as many nations as hate us, it should be a cinch to get 60 signatures.
                  •     To have complied with the 1999 Interim Decision our President or the Supreme Court would have had to declare the “State’s Rights” and the US citizens sovereignty elements of our constitution and Declaration of Independence Null and Void.  (The article contains a quote from Claus Kress, a senior researcher at the Department of international criminal law at Cologne University – “My reading is that there is an obligation on the US to organize its criminal justice system to ensure there are no violation of international treaties.”)
                  •     The UN has adopted a “Bill of Rights” (currently appended to the UN Charter) patterned after the US Bill of Rights with some very important exceptions.  Our 2nd Amendment was not included; thus, we will have no right to defend our freedoms under international law.  All other articles of our Bill of Rights had a very important sentence added which says laws can be passed nullifying the rights.
                  •     Since as ordinary citizens, of the US, we are not allowed to know what treaties we have signed in the support of he UN, we can only guess at a timetable for creation of the “One World Government.”  We may have 5 or, perhaps a few more, years before we will be “up the creek.”

                  If we want our grandchildren to be free, we must find a way to throw out our Corporate controlled government before we are “up the creek.”  Without access to the Corporate controlled media, that is going to be difficult.  But; unless we accomplish that task, all of the activities I might work on, to make this a better world for our grandchildren, are meaningless.

                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.