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

Re: Why Not Focus on our FLAWED Voting System?

Expand Messages
  • D Frank
    I see and sympathize with your points. I am the founding Chair and Chair Emeritus of the Oklahoma LP. I was also Chair of the Rules & ByLaws Cmte at the
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 6, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I see and sympathize with your points. I am the founding Chair and Chair
      Emeritus of the Oklahoma LP. I was also Chair of the Rules & ByLaws Cmte
      at the Founding Convention in Denver in 1972. With that disclosure out
      of the way, I, too, have noted several institutional obstacles to
      reversing the grip of the polarity politics. IN addition to plurality
      voting and ballot access, I conclude the present system of campaign
      finance suppresses alternative parties and candidates, gerrymandering
      suppresses alternatives, and the refusal to RESUME enlarging the size of
      the US House of Representatives (suspended after the 1910 Census), ALL
      combine by design to suppress control of the state by the citizenry and
      vest it in an plutocratic elite which has held control of the US for
      well over a century. I endorse range voting and have devised reform
      proposals for the other obstacles.

      But the 'take away' for me is none of these issues will be addressed
      without massive civil disobedience and perhaps, regrettably, some
      violence. Good luck.

      --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, bernard b carman <bbc@...> wrote:
      >
      > greetings Christopher, and friends -- i've known Sean for years within
      > the LP... hey Sean! 8-)
      >
      > i joined the FreeMarkets Radio show in the last 10-15 minutes. during
      > that time, i was typing an email and Mike received it seconds before
      > the show was over, but perhaps we can address this issue on another
      > upcoming show.
      >
      > in the last few years of being involved with the Libertarian Party, i
      > learned a little about voting systems. in fact, years back, our LP-
      > Buncombe group did a couple experiments using a couple different
      > voting systems, seeking an alternative to Plurality Voting.
      >
      > upon further study, i soon realized that the largest hurdle in regards
      > to the election system for LIBERTY, third parties and achieving a real
      > poll of the will of the voting Americans, IS the horrible Plurality
      > Voting system, yet it seems that there is still little emphasis placed
      > on this issue. well, why not?
      >
      > what is the point of the folly with regard to striving to reform
      > ballot access laws, when the voting system is fundamentally flawed?
      > so long as we continue using the Plurality Voting system, we will have
      > two parties.
      >
      > whereby, if we changed over to a Range/Score Voting system, we could
      > dispense with both the Wasted Vote Syndrome (voting for the "lesser of
      > two evils") and the Spoiler Syndrome.
      >
      > this would allow/encourage voters to vote according to their
      > conscience rather than playing the "voting game" which is obviously
      > not serving to advance liberty at all.
      >
      > if we cannot change from the Plurality Voting system to Range/Score
      > Voting, third parties are not even a factor.
      >
      > i've been a libertarian for a very long time and used to spout the LP
      > mantra of "a wasted vote is voting the same way expecting to get a
      > different result" (also Einstein's definition of "insanity"), but it
      > appears that the majority of libertarians (not just in the LP, but the
      > entire liberty movement) have apparently not yet learned that the
      > Plurality Voting system mandates the "lesser of two evils" syndrome.
      >
      > why are we not trumpeting dispensing with the Plurality Voting system
      > and adopting Range/Score Voting?
      >
      > OR, at least holding some kind of intellectual forums designed to be a
      > kind of "voting system shootout" of sorts...?
      >
      > not that any good will come of it, but just yesterday i wrote a letter
      > to Joyce McCloy, Director of NC Coalition for Verifiable Voting, in
      > response to an email she sent out regarding a survey of voters in
      > Henderson County who apparently used the Instant Runoff Voting system
      > (IRV) again without exploring why it is someone would switch voting
      > systems without any educational forum on which voting system works
      best.
      >
      > in this email, i again advanced the idea of holding such a forum in
      > NC, highlighting my fundamental point in bold:
      >
      > "it seems entirely foolish to adopt another voting system without
      > holding an intellectual forum about at least the top voting system
      > contenders and examining them."
      >
      > i suggested such a forum include comparing/contrasting three voting
      > systems:
      >
      > 1. Plurality Voting
      >
      > 2. Instant Runoff Voting -
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
      > &
      >
      > 3. Range/Score Voting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting &
      http://rangevoting.org
      >
      > FYI:
      > proponent of IRV: http://www.fairvote.org/?page=2103
      > opponent of IRV: http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/
      >
      >
      > if your group, Free & Equal, is interested in such a forum, please let
      > me know how we might be able to pressure NC groups, such as the NC
      > Coalition for Verifiable Voting, and any others you know of, in order
      > to increase knowledge about this fundamental flaw in the American
      > voting system.
      >
      > thank you & in liberty,
      >
      > 8-)
      >
      > bernard baruch carman
      > * * *
      > 2009 Continental Congress • Nov 11 ~ 22 • St. Charles, IL
      > * * *
      > - seeker of truth / seeder of truth • SeedsOfTruth.org •
      ∞Liberty
      > - BornToWin.net • FellowshipOfTheWord.org
      > - We The People • Oath Keepers • LibertyAsheville •
      State of
      > America
      > - infinity games ∞ infinity solutions ∞ audio/Mac
      specialist
      > ∞∞∞
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • bernard b carman
      greetings D Frank & Clay -- and everyone in the Range/Score Voting Yahoo group: i m new here, but i am eager to jump in and sharing my thoughts with you all...
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 11, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        greetings D Frank & Clay -- and everyone in the Range/Score Voting
        Yahoo group:

        i'm new here, but i am eager to jump in and sharing my thoughts with
        you all...

        for the record, i have not been affiliated with the LP since i became
        involved in the Ron Paul Revolution. after our Buncombe County
        affiliation was threatened by an LPNC member for "endorsing a non-
        Libertarian" in conjunction with merely offering to share our weekly
        meeting space with the Ron Paul Meetup group which had formed, i
        decided i was done with the LP for good.

        the reaction was somewhat expected, seeing how the majority of the
        LPNC gang was apparently very perturbed with our creating the
        Libertarian Reform Caucus, which served in part to abolish the insane
        90+ plank "political" platform at the 2006 Portland National
        Convention. BTW (and as Clay alluded to), the LRC opted to use Range
        Voting for our online polling of idea submissions, as it provided
        excellent feedback of the overall direction in which to take the
        reform efforts.

        but also, upon my learning more about PV & RV, i soon realized that
        "third parties" are pretty much folly in American politics, unless a
        party can grow to the point where it entirely displaces one of the
        duopoly parties. regardless, i concluded that the LP has far too many
        internal problems including its conflicting business models, dogmatic
        lofty ideals of "Libertopia", and misc baggage to ever accomplish such
        a feat of political history.

        regardless, we in the 'larger libertarian tent' are striving to
        continue preaching the gospel of liberty through the ongoing greater
        liberty revolution/movement via Tea Parties, 9•12 Groups, GOP
        reformation/takeover, etc.

        besides being an advocate for the We the People Foundation & Congress
        and First Amendment Accountability Clause, and the Oathkeepers, one of
        the issues i continue to regularly trumpet is that of the horrendous
        Plurality Voting system, while educating others about Range/Score
        Voting.

        from my perspective, the problem seems to be that there isn't a whole
        lot of effectiveness in Range/Score Voting outreach. here we have a
        solution to most of the voting system problems created by a very
        flawed voting system, which nearly everyone on this planet already
        uses on a regular basis, yet nearly anyone hardly knows about it!

        i submit, that just as the LP has been lacking in effectively
        marketing "liberty", the good folks who have spent so much effort into
        studying and promoting Range/Score Voting have not quite found the
        most effective way to "sell" what appears to me (not being a math
        geek) the best voting system available.

        it seems to me that if the advocates of Range/Score Voting could come
        with a good strategy of selling the idea to others, the idea would
        sell itself!


        there is certainly a plethora of valuable information on the
        RangeVoting.org website -- more than enough to convince nearly anyone
        without some kind of biased agenda to be a RV advocate.

        i just thought i'd share a few suggestions of ways in which we might
        be able to increase the effectiveness of Range/Score Voting outreach:


        1. decide on the name -- either Range or Score Voting, and adjust the
        website, including the URL, and all related outreach accordingly.

        the system was first introduced to me back in ~2004 as "Range
        Voting". shortly thereafter, i thought of a perhaps catchy while
        comic marketing name which could perhaps piggy back on a popular
        social trend in order to help spread the message and help it go viral:
        "Free Range Voting". i had planned on coming up with some possible
        outreach material based around this concept, but never followed
        through with it.

        i've only recently understood that there has been some kind of move
        with regard to the name. i do see the merit in the name "Score
        Voting", as it is more direct in its explanation of scoring each
        candidate/option on a ballot. it makes perfect sense, but the
        official website has not yet been changed to reflect this change.
        since i'm new here, i presume all this is in progress.


        2. simplify the voting examples with regard to practicality -- rather
        than providing as an example a 100 point and 10 point scale in the
        outreach, begin with the example of merely a 10 point scale.

        the practicality of the matter is that even if we were able to grow
        major support for adopting Range/Score Voting in America, it would
        never be offered to the voting public as anything more than a 10 point
        scale. and really, anything beyond a 10 point scale is arguably
        unnecessary. if a majority of the mathematicians involved
        wholeheartedly disagree, then it would still be better to implement a
        20 point scale on a 10 point range, including half points.


        3. simplify the website across the board -- the main page is really
        not all that complicated (other than the 100 point scale graphic
        example). if further simplification is warranted (i think it is),
        this should be done on the main page rather than creating an
        additional "simplified" page.

        i would imagine that an experienced web designer could also better
        organize the page, which would also help in its simplification
        (perhaps having one header with drop downs would provide extra space,
        as the truncated left hand column currently wastes much space).


        4. perhaps create a fun and comical YouTube video which could reach
        millions, which focuses primarily on the simplicity and popular usage
        of RV, and secondarily on the "Wasted Vote System" (for most folks are
        tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils" and would LOVE to have
        more choices than that). the spoiler effect should also be mentioned,
        but doesn't seem to be as important of an issue as the other two.


        5. as my initial post suggests, perhaps we can organize a model for
        holding educational voting system forums across the nation. these
        forums could perhaps be coordinated along with other State and private
        non/trans-partisan organizations, including various think tanks, and
        voting reform groups.

        seeing how Henderson County, NC has continued dabbling in IRV voting,
        i have again begun contacting others in NC who are concerned about the
        status of the ballot and voting systems, with hopes of drumming up
        enough support and enthusiasm to hold such a forum in NC.


        6. once we have some updated, simplified, and effective outreach
        material, perhaps we could pracice Range/Score Voting literature
        dropping at voting polling locations. i have seen IRV folks do this
        (once), so why not us? it's certainly an easy sell considering we're
        not pushing a candidate and we're non/trans-partisan.


        7. what about a thank tank which focuses on voting systems... is there
        one? would this be advantageous and/or possible?



        these are only the ideas i've had thus far which we could perhaps
        consider in order to help increase the effectiveness of Range/Score
        Voting outreach. i feel certain that with the variety of creative and
        brilliant minds already involved in the Range/Score Voting crowd, we
        should fairly easily be able to come up with an effective outreach
        strategy for the already most popular, effective, and proficient
        voting system known to mankind!

        please let me know what you all think...

        8-)

        bernard baruch carman
        * * *
        2009 Continental Congress • Nov 11 ~ 22 • St. Charles, IL
        * * *
        - seeker of truth / seeder of truth • SeedsOfTruth.org • ∞Liberty
        - BornToWin.net • FellowshipOfTheWord.org
        - We The People • Oath Keepers • LibertyAsheville • State of
        America
        - infinity games ∞ infinity solutions ∞ audio/Mac specialist
        ∞∞∞




        On Nov 6, 2009, at 8:53 AM, D Frank wrote:

        > I see and sympathize with your points. I am the founding Chair and
        > Chair
        > Emeritus of the Oklahoma LP. I was also Chair of the Rules & ByLaws
        > Cmte
        > at the Founding Convention in Denver in 1972. With that disclosure
        > out
        > of the way, I, too, have noted several institutional obstacles to
        > reversing the grip of the polarity politics. IN addition to plurality
        > voting and ballot access, I conclude the present system of campaign
        > finance suppresses alternative parties and candidates, gerrymandering
        > suppresses alternatives, and the refusal to RESUME enlarging the
        > size of
        > the US House of Representatives (suspended after the 1910 Census), ALL
        > combine by design to suppress control of the state by the citizenry
        > and
        > vest it in an plutocratic elite which has held control of the US for
        > well over a century. I endorse range voting and have devised reform
        > proposals for the other obstacles.
        >
        > But the 'take away' for me is none of these issues will be addressed
        > without massive civil disobedience and perhaps, regrettably, some
        > violence. Good luck.


        On Nov 5, 2009, at 5:23 PM, brokenladdercalendar wrote:

        > bernard,
        >
        > i made the case for having libertarians embrace score voting some
        > time ago:
        > http://www.reformthelp.org/reformthelp/issues/voting/range.php
        >
        > since then i've become more of a georgist than an anarcho-
        > libertarian -- and i ultimately only evaluate political philosophies
        > based on how utilitarian i think they are (since i look at
        > violations of "rights" simply as reductions of personal utility to
        > freedom-lovers). nevertheless, i still think libertarians have a lot
        > of good ideas, and they certainly deserve to have their voice heard,
        > not made irrelevant by plurality voting.
        >
        > i really think it might make sense for some prominent libertarians
        > to make the push for score voting as part of the party platform.
        >
        > clay
        >
        > p.s. please consider joining the election science foundation. we
        > have a discussion group at http://groups.google.com/group/electionsciencefoundation




        >
        > --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, bernard b carman <bbc@...> wrote:
        >>
        >> greetings Christopher, and friends -- i've known Sean for years
        >> within
        >> the LP... hey Sean! 8-)
        >>
        >> i joined the FreeMarkets Radio show in the last 10-15 minutes.
        >> during
        >> that time, i was typing an email and Mike received it seconds before
        >> the show was over, but perhaps we can address this issue on another
        >> upcoming show.
        >>
        >> in the last few years of being involved with the Libertarian Party, i
        >> learned a little about voting systems. in fact, years back, our LP-
        >> Buncombe group did a couple experiments using a couple different
        >> voting systems, seeking an alternative to Plurality Voting.
        >>
        >> upon further study, i soon realized that the largest hurdle in
        >> regards
        >> to the election system for LIBERTY, third parties and achieving a
        >> real
        >> poll of the will of the voting Americans, IS the horrible Plurality
        >> Voting system, yet it seems that there is still little emphasis
        >> placed
        >> on this issue. well, why not?
        >>
        >> what is the point of the folly with regard to striving to reform
        >> ballot access laws, when the voting system is fundamentally flawed?
        >> so long as we continue using the Plurality Voting system, we will
        >> have
        >> two parties.
        >>
        >> whereby, if we changed over to a Range/Score Voting system, we could
        >> dispense with both the Wasted Vote Syndrome (voting for the "lesser
        >> of
        >> two evils") and the Spoiler Syndrome.
        >>
        >> this would allow/encourage voters to vote according to their
        >> conscience rather than playing the "voting game" which is obviously
        >> not serving to advance liberty at all.
        >>
        >> if we cannot change from the Plurality Voting system to Range/Score
        >> Voting, third parties are not even a factor.
        >>
        >> i've been a libertarian for a very long time and used to spout the LP
        >> mantra of "a wasted vote is voting the same way expecting to get a
        >> different result" (also Einstein's definition of "insanity"), but it
        >> appears that the majority of libertarians (not just in the LP, but
        >> the
        >> entire liberty movement) have apparently not yet learned that the
        >> Plurality Voting system mandates the "lesser of two evils" syndrome.
        >>
        >> why are we not trumpeting dispensing with the Plurality Voting system
        >> and adopting Range/Score Voting?
        >>
        >> OR, at least holding some kind of intellectual forums designed to
        >> be a
        >> kind of "voting system shootout" of sorts...?
        >>
        >> not that any good will come of it, but just yesterday i wrote a
        >> letter
        >> to Joyce McCloy, Director of NC Coalition for Verifiable Voting, in
        >> response to an email she sent out regarding a survey of voters in
        >> Henderson County who apparently used the Instant Runoff Voting system
        >> (IRV) again without exploring why it is someone would switch voting
        >> systems without any educational forum on which voting system works
        > best.
        >>
        >> in this email, i again advanced the idea of holding such a forum in
        >> NC, highlighting my fundamental point in bold:
        >>
        >> "it seems entirely foolish to adopt another voting system without
        >> holding an intellectual forum about at least the top voting system
        >> contenders and examining them."
        >>
        >> i suggested such a forum include comparing/contrasting three voting
        >> systems:
        >>
        >> 1. Plurality Voting
        >>
        >> 2. Instant Runoff Voting -
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
        >> &
        >>
        >> 3. Range/Score Voting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting &
        > http://rangevoting.org
        >>
        >> FYI:
        >> proponent of IRV: http://www.fairvote.org/?page=2103
        >> opponent of IRV: http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/
        >>
        >>
        >> if your group, Free & Equal, is interested in such a forum, please
        >> let
        >> me know how we might be able to pressure NC groups, such as the NC
        >> Coalition for Verifiable Voting, and any others you know of, in order
        >> to increase knowledge about this fundamental flaw in the American
        >> voting system.
        >>
        >> thank you & in liberty,
        >>
        >> 8-)
        >>
        >> bernard baruch carman



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • an.octopus
        You might want to take a look at our ESF group at google: http://groups.google.com/group/electionsciencefoundation It s the current basis of our outreach work
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 11, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          You might want to take a look at our ESF group at google:
          http://groups.google.com/group/electionsciencefoundation

          It's the current basis of our outreach work and many of the ideas you've mentioned are being or have been discussed in there.

          --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, bernard b carman <bbc@...> wrote:
          >
          > greetings D Frank & Clay -- and everyone in the Range/Score Voting
          > Yahoo group:
          >
          > i'm new here, but i am eager to jump in and sharing my thoughts with
          > you all...
          >
          > for the record, i have not been affiliated with the LP since i became
          > involved in the Ron Paul Revolution. after our Buncombe County
          > affiliation was threatened by an LPNC member for "endorsing a non-
          > Libertarian" in conjunction with merely offering to share our weekly
          > meeting space with the Ron Paul Meetup group which had formed, i
          > decided i was done with the LP for good.
          >
          > the reaction was somewhat expected, seeing how the majority of the
          > LPNC gang was apparently very perturbed with our creating the
          > Libertarian Reform Caucus, which served in part to abolish the insane
          > 90+ plank "political" platform at the 2006 Portland National
          > Convention. BTW (and as Clay alluded to), the LRC opted to use Range
          > Voting for our online polling of idea submissions, as it provided
          > excellent feedback of the overall direction in which to take the
          > reform efforts.
          >
          > but also, upon my learning more about PV & RV, i soon realized that
          > "third parties" are pretty much folly in American politics, unless a
          > party can grow to the point where it entirely displaces one of the
          > duopoly parties. regardless, i concluded that the LP has far too many
          > internal problems including its conflicting business models, dogmatic
          > lofty ideals of "Libertopia", and misc baggage to ever accomplish such
          > a feat of political history.
          >
          > regardless, we in the 'larger libertarian tent' are striving to
          > continue preaching the gospel of liberty through the ongoing greater
          > liberty revolution/movement via Tea Parties, 9•12 Groups, GOP
          > reformation/takeover, etc.
          >
          > besides being an advocate for the We the People Foundation & Congress
          > and First Amendment Accountability Clause, and the Oathkeepers, one of
          > the issues i continue to regularly trumpet is that of the horrendous
          > Plurality Voting system, while educating others about Range/Score
          > Voting.
          >
          > from my perspective, the problem seems to be that there isn't a whole
          > lot of effectiveness in Range/Score Voting outreach. here we have a
          > solution to most of the voting system problems created by a very
          > flawed voting system, which nearly everyone on this planet already
          > uses on a regular basis, yet nearly anyone hardly knows about it!
          >
          > i submit, that just as the LP has been lacking in effectively
          > marketing "liberty", the good folks who have spent so much effort into
          > studying and promoting Range/Score Voting have not quite found the
          > most effective way to "sell" what appears to me (not being a math
          > geek) the best voting system available.
          >
          > it seems to me that if the advocates of Range/Score Voting could come
          > with a good strategy of selling the idea to others, the idea would
          > sell itself!
          >
          >
          > there is certainly a plethora of valuable information on the
          > RangeVoting.org website -- more than enough to convince nearly anyone
          > without some kind of biased agenda to be a RV advocate.
          >
          > i just thought i'd share a few suggestions of ways in which we might
          > be able to increase the effectiveness of Range/Score Voting outreach:
          >
          >
          > 1. decide on the name -- either Range or Score Voting, and adjust the
          > website, including the URL, and all related outreach accordingly.
          >
          > the system was first introduced to me back in ~2004 as "Range
          > Voting". shortly thereafter, i thought of a perhaps catchy while
          > comic marketing name which could perhaps piggy back on a popular
          > social trend in order to help spread the message and help it go viral:
          > "Free Range Voting". i had planned on coming up with some possible
          > outreach material based around this concept, but never followed
          > through with it.
          >
          > i've only recently understood that there has been some kind of move
          > with regard to the name. i do see the merit in the name "Score
          > Voting", as it is more direct in its explanation of scoring each
          > candidate/option on a ballot. it makes perfect sense, but the
          > official website has not yet been changed to reflect this change.
          > since i'm new here, i presume all this is in progress.
          >
          >
          > 2. simplify the voting examples with regard to practicality -- rather
          > than providing as an example a 100 point and 10 point scale in the
          > outreach, begin with the example of merely a 10 point scale.
          >
          > the practicality of the matter is that even if we were able to grow
          > major support for adopting Range/Score Voting in America, it would
          > never be offered to the voting public as anything more than a 10 point
          > scale. and really, anything beyond a 10 point scale is arguably
          > unnecessary. if a majority of the mathematicians involved
          > wholeheartedly disagree, then it would still be better to implement a
          > 20 point scale on a 10 point range, including half points.
          >
          >
          > 3. simplify the website across the board -- the main page is really
          > not all that complicated (other than the 100 point scale graphic
          > example). if further simplification is warranted (i think it is),
          > this should be done on the main page rather than creating an
          > additional "simplified" page.
          >
          > i would imagine that an experienced web designer could also better
          > organize the page, which would also help in its simplification
          > (perhaps having one header with drop downs would provide extra space,
          > as the truncated left hand column currently wastes much space).
          >
          >
          > 4. perhaps create a fun and comical YouTube video which could reach
          > millions, which focuses primarily on the simplicity and popular usage
          > of RV, and secondarily on the "Wasted Vote System" (for most folks are
          > tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils" and would LOVE to have
          > more choices than that). the spoiler effect should also be mentioned,
          > but doesn't seem to be as important of an issue as the other two.
          >
          >
          > 5. as my initial post suggests, perhaps we can organize a model for
          > holding educational voting system forums across the nation. these
          > forums could perhaps be coordinated along with other State and private
          > non/trans-partisan organizations, including various think tanks, and
          > voting reform groups.
          >
          > seeing how Henderson County, NC has continued dabbling in IRV voting,
          > i have again begun contacting others in NC who are concerned about the
          > status of the ballot and voting systems, with hopes of drumming up
          > enough support and enthusiasm to hold such a forum in NC.
          >
          >
          > 6. once we have some updated, simplified, and effective outreach
          > material, perhaps we could pracice Range/Score Voting literature
          > dropping at voting polling locations. i have seen IRV folks do this
          > (once), so why not us? it's certainly an easy sell considering we're
          > not pushing a candidate and we're non/trans-partisan.
          >
          >
          > 7. what about a thank tank which focuses on voting systems... is there
          > one? would this be advantageous and/or possible?
          >
          >
          >
          > these are only the ideas i've had thus far which we could perhaps
          > consider in order to help increase the effectiveness of Range/Score
          > Voting outreach. i feel certain that with the variety of creative and
          > brilliant minds already involved in the Range/Score Voting crowd, we
          > should fairly easily be able to come up with an effective outreach
          > strategy for the already most popular, effective, and proficient
          > voting system known to mankind!
          >
          > please let me know what you all think...
          >
          > 8-)
          >
          > bernard baruch carman
          > * * *
          > 2009 Continental Congress • Nov 11 ~ 22 • St. Charles, IL
          > * * *
          > - seeker of truth / seeder of truth • SeedsOfTruth.org • ∞Liberty
          > - BornToWin.net • FellowshipOfTheWord.org
          > - We The People • Oath Keepers • LibertyAsheville • State of
          > America
          > - infinity games ∞ infinity solutions ∞ audio/Mac specialist
          > ∞∞∞
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > On Nov 6, 2009, at 8:53 AM, D Frank wrote:
          >
          > > I see and sympathize with your points. I am the founding Chair and
          > > Chair
          > > Emeritus of the Oklahoma LP. I was also Chair of the Rules & ByLaws
          > > Cmte
          > > at the Founding Convention in Denver in 1972. With that disclosure
          > > out
          > > of the way, I, too, have noted several institutional obstacles to
          > > reversing the grip of the polarity politics. IN addition to plurality
          > > voting and ballot access, I conclude the present system of campaign
          > > finance suppresses alternative parties and candidates, gerrymandering
          > > suppresses alternatives, and the refusal to RESUME enlarging the
          > > size of
          > > the US House of Representatives (suspended after the 1910 Census), ALL
          > > combine by design to suppress control of the state by the citizenry
          > > and
          > > vest it in an plutocratic elite which has held control of the US for
          > > well over a century. I endorse range voting and have devised reform
          > > proposals for the other obstacles.
          > >
          > > But the 'take away' for me is none of these issues will be addressed
          > > without massive civil disobedience and perhaps, regrettably, some
          > > violence. Good luck.
          >
          >
          > On Nov 5, 2009, at 5:23 PM, brokenladdercalendar wrote:
          >
          > > bernard,
          > >
          > > i made the case for having libertarians embrace score voting some
          > > time ago:
          > > http://www.reformthelp.org/reformthelp/issues/voting/range.php
          > >
          > > since then i've become more of a georgist than an anarcho-
          > > libertarian -- and i ultimately only evaluate political philosophies
          > > based on how utilitarian i think they are (since i look at
          > > violations of "rights" simply as reductions of personal utility to
          > > freedom-lovers). nevertheless, i still think libertarians have a lot
          > > of good ideas, and they certainly deserve to have their voice heard,
          > > not made irrelevant by plurality voting.
          > >
          > > i really think it might make sense for some prominent libertarians
          > > to make the push for score voting as part of the party platform.
          > >
          > > clay
          > >
          > > p.s. please consider joining the election science foundation. we
          > > have a discussion group at http://groups.google.com/group/electionsciencefoundation
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > >
          > > --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, bernard b carman <bbc@> wrote:
          > >>
          > >> greetings Christopher, and friends -- i've known Sean for years
          > >> within
          > >> the LP... hey Sean! 8-)
          > >>
          > >> i joined the FreeMarkets Radio show in the last 10-15 minutes.
          > >> during
          > >> that time, i was typing an email and Mike received it seconds before
          > >> the show was over, but perhaps we can address this issue on another
          > >> upcoming show.
          > >>
          > >> in the last few years of being involved with the Libertarian Party, i
          > >> learned a little about voting systems. in fact, years back, our LP-
          > >> Buncombe group did a couple experiments using a couple different
          > >> voting systems, seeking an alternative to Plurality Voting.
          > >>
          > >> upon further study, i soon realized that the largest hurdle in
          > >> regards
          > >> to the election system for LIBERTY, third parties and achieving a
          > >> real
          > >> poll of the will of the voting Americans, IS the horrible Plurality
          > >> Voting system, yet it seems that there is still little emphasis
          > >> placed
          > >> on this issue. well, why not?
          > >>
          > >> what is the point of the folly with regard to striving to reform
          > >> ballot access laws, when the voting system is fundamentally flawed?
          > >> so long as we continue using the Plurality Voting system, we will
          > >> have
          > >> two parties.
          > >>
          > >> whereby, if we changed over to a Range/Score Voting system, we could
          > >> dispense with both the Wasted Vote Syndrome (voting for the "lesser
          > >> of
          > >> two evils") and the Spoiler Syndrome.
          > >>
          > >> this would allow/encourage voters to vote according to their
          > >> conscience rather than playing the "voting game" which is obviously
          > >> not serving to advance liberty at all.
          > >>
          > >> if we cannot change from the Plurality Voting system to Range/Score
          > >> Voting, third parties are not even a factor.
          > >>
          > >> i've been a libertarian for a very long time and used to spout the LP
          > >> mantra of "a wasted vote is voting the same way expecting to get a
          > >> different result" (also Einstein's definition of "insanity"), but it
          > >> appears that the majority of libertarians (not just in the LP, but
          > >> the
          > >> entire liberty movement) have apparently not yet learned that the
          > >> Plurality Voting system mandates the "lesser of two evils" syndrome.
          > >>
          > >> why are we not trumpeting dispensing with the Plurality Voting system
          > >> and adopting Range/Score Voting?
          > >>
          > >> OR, at least holding some kind of intellectual forums designed to
          > >> be a
          > >> kind of "voting system shootout" of sorts...?
          > >>
          > >> not that any good will come of it, but just yesterday i wrote a
          > >> letter
          > >> to Joyce McCloy, Director of NC Coalition for Verifiable Voting, in
          > >> response to an email she sent out regarding a survey of voters in
          > >> Henderson County who apparently used the Instant Runoff Voting system
          > >> (IRV) again without exploring why it is someone would switch voting
          > >> systems without any educational forum on which voting system works
          > > best.
          > >>
          > >> in this email, i again advanced the idea of holding such a forum in
          > >> NC, highlighting my fundamental point in bold:
          > >>
          > >> "it seems entirely foolish to adopt another voting system without
          > >> holding an intellectual forum about at least the top voting system
          > >> contenders and examining them."
          > >>
          > >> i suggested such a forum include comparing/contrasting three voting
          > >> systems:
          > >>
          > >> 1. Plurality Voting
          > >>
          > >> 2. Instant Runoff Voting -
          > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
          > >> &
          > >>
          > >> 3. Range/Score Voting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting &
          > > http://rangevoting.org
          > >>
          > >> FYI:
          > >> proponent of IRV: http://www.fairvote.org/?page=2103
          > >> opponent of IRV: http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/
          > >>
          > >>
          > >> if your group, Free & Equal, is interested in such a forum, please
          > >> let
          > >> me know how we might be able to pressure NC groups, such as the NC
          > >> Coalition for Verifiable Voting, and any others you know of, in order
          > >> to increase knowledge about this fundamental flaw in the American
          > >> voting system.
          > >>
          > >> thank you & in liberty,
          > >>
          > >> 8-)
          > >>
          > >> bernard baruch carman
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • brokenladdercalendar
          Bernard, Yeah, we are pretty much aware of all of your suggestions. In fact, ScoreVoting.net is an alias to RangeVoting.org. And I m a professional web
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 12, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Bernard,

            Yeah, we are pretty much aware of all of your suggestions. In fact, ScoreVoting.net is an alias to RangeVoting.org. And I'm a professional web developer in San Francisco, so I know the site could be radically better. I just don't have a ton of free time. I feel busy as it is just taking the time to participate a bit in these online discussions. Making nice-looking videos and stuff like that is just beyond me.

            BUT...I have a little money I could donate to a score voting organization each month. And I'll bet a lot of people like you do as well. Sooo... if we could just get incorporated as a non-profit, and then set up a nice internal decisions making structure (perhaps relying on delegable proxy combined with score voting), then we could rapidly determine priorities and maybe even build a big enough donor pool to have some full time staffers, even if it's just some poli-sci major who needs a relevant job that pays like 10 bucks an hour. ;)

            So yeah, it is about resources. But I think the resources actually ARE out there, if we can get them to realize that donating to score voting (changing the SYSTEM) is more important than donating to Ron Paul (one particular candidate). That's ironic for me to say, because I gave him hundreds of dollars. But it also means it's fair for me to make that argument! :D

            So, can you get in touch with any lawyer friends and have them help us to incorporate? And can we make our tent big enough to be effective? I think that we should probably try to make this Election Science Foundation happen, and then try to found it with the initial stance that we are dedicated to the most representative ("utilitarian") voting methods, which we currently feel are score voting and approval voting, depending on their respective political adoptibility in the region we are proposing to implement them. I think both camps can live with the other voting method. E.g. I prefer score voting, but I'd be thrilled to death to have approval. I could totally live with that and be quite happy. The tent has to be big enough that it's beneficial, but not so big that it's detrimental because we have to compromise too much.

            I had even at one time proposed the "third parties" unify as the Electoral Reform Party, and all run in one big score voting nomination process, then have all party members promise to vote for the party nominee in the general election. In this way, we would try to unite in our efforts against the duopoly. Maybe that means someone pretty mildly-libertarian like myself would have to support a Green -- but that would be totally worth it for the ability to consolidate all our efforts against the "Republocrats".

            There are plenty of other ideas along those lines, for using score voting in some extra-governmental capacity that side-steps and subverts the current system. But I think we need to start by just incorporating, then letting everyone here become official members, and then voting on which of these proposals should be the priority. In fact we even need to vote about how we'll vote. How will voting method experts agree on the best way to run their own organiation? I expect it could be a bit like herding cats. But we're smart enough to figure it out if someone with lawyer connections will just get us INCORPORATED already.

            Best,
            Clay
            206.801.0484
          • Dave Ketchum
            Worth study, for a bunch of thoughts that may help - though not perfect. ... Third parties can be useful, even without displacing major parties: Major parties,
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 12, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Worth study, for a bunch of thoughts that may help - though not perfect.

              On Nov 11, 2009, at 7:45 PM, bernard b carman wrote:
              > greetings D Frank & Clay -- and everyone in the Range/Score Voting
              > Yahoo group:
              >
              > i'm new here, but i am eager to jump in and sharing my thoughts with
              > you all...
              >
              > for the record, i have not been affiliated with the LP since i became
              > involved in the Ron Paul Revolution. after our Buncombe County
              > affiliation was threatened by an LPNC member for "endorsing a non-
              > Libertarian" in conjunction with merely offering to share our weekly
              > meeting space with the Ron Paul Meetup group which had formed, i
              > decided i was done with the LP for good.
              >
              > the reaction was somewhat expected, seeing how the majority of the
              > LPNC gang was apparently very perturbed with our creating the
              > Libertarian Reform Caucus, which served in part to abolish the insane
              > 90+ plank "political" platform at the 2006 Portland National
              > Convention. BTW (and as Clay alluded to), the LRC opted to use Range
              > Voting for our online polling of idea submissions, as it provided
              > excellent feedback of the overall direction in which to take the
              > reform efforts.
              >
              > but also, upon my learning more about PV & RV, i soon realized that
              > "third parties" are pretty much folly in American politics, unless a
              > party can grow to the point where it entirely displaces one of the
              > duopoly parties. regardless, i concluded that the LP has far too many
              > internal problems including its conflicting business models, dogmatic
              > lofty ideals of "Libertopia", and misc baggage to ever accomplish such
              > a feat of political history.

              Third parties can be useful, even without displacing major parties:
              Major parties, if not subject to such competition, have a
              simpler life contending only with each other.
              Thirds, if existing, will take over if majors fail to clean up
              their acts.
              >
              > regardless, we in the 'larger libertarian tent' are striving to
              > continue preaching the gospel of liberty through the ongoing greater
              > liberty revolution/movement via Tea Parties, 9•12 Groups, GOP
              > reformation/takeover, etc.
              >
              > besides being an advocate for the We the People Foundation & Congress
              > and First Amendment Accountability Clause, and the Oathkeepers, one of
              > the issues i continue to regularly trumpet is that of the horrendous
              > Plurality Voting system, while educating others about Range/Score
              > Voting.

              From the inside we complain about Plurality, but we could argue more
              effectively - about making it easier for voters to be prepared to vote
              better - and understand value of this:

              A thought: Let all the candidates in a race introduce themselves
              together - perhaps a page a piece in a shared document, where a
              candidate's page could include a link to whatever else the candidate
              would like to say.

              Bullet voting IS NOT A CRIME - that CAN be adequate for some voters to
              express what they want to say in some elections.

              Approval can satisfy some, for whom it is able to exactly express
              their thoughts.

              Score rating or Condorcet ranking can both satisfy above desires and
              let voters express unequal desires as to the candidates they vote for:
              For Score it is easy to rate Best and Worst at extremes, but
              Soso is a challenge - rating Soso high improves odds of Soso beating
              Best; rating Soso low improves odds of Soso losing to Worst.
              For Condorcet ranking Best>Soso>Worst is easy and expresses the
              simple relationship possible here.

              Btw, a method useful for electing several members of an assembly from
              a district designed for this can be useful, but does not replace need
              for above methods for single offices.
              >
              > from my perspective, the problem seems to be that there isn't a whole
              > lot of effectiveness in Range/Score Voting outreach. here we have a
              > solution to most of the voting system problems created by a very
              > flawed voting system, which nearly everyone on this planet already
              > uses on a regular basis, yet nearly anyone hardly knows about it!
              >
              > i submit, that just as the LP has been lacking in effectively
              > marketing "liberty", the good folks who have spent so much effort into
              > studying and promoting Range/Score Voting have not quite found the
              > most effective way to "sell" what appears to me (not being a math
              > geek) the best voting system available.
              >
              > it seems to me that if the advocates of Range/Score Voting could come
              > with a good strategy of selling the idea to others, the idea would
              > sell itself!
              >
              > there is certainly a plethora of valuable information on the
              > RangeVoting.org website -- more than enough to convince nearly anyone
              > without some kind of biased agenda to be a RV advocate.
              >
              > i just thought i'd share a few suggestions of ways in which we might
              > be able to increase the effectiveness of Range/Score Voting outreach:
              >
              > 1. decide on the name -- either Range or Score Voting, and adjust the
              > website, including the URL, and all related outreach accordingly.
              >
              > the system was first introduced to me back in ~2004 as "Range
              > Voting". shortly thereafter, i thought of a perhaps catchy while
              > comic marketing name which could perhaps piggy back on a popular
              > social trend in order to help spread the message and help it go viral:
              > "Free Range Voting". i had planned on coming up with some possible
              > outreach material based around this concept, but never followed
              > through with it.
              >
              > i've only recently understood that there has been some kind of move
              > with regard to the name. i do see the merit in the name "Score
              > Voting", as it is more direct in its explanation of scoring each
              > candidate/option on a ballot. it makes perfect sense, but the
              > official website has not yet been changed to reflect this change.
              > since i'm new here, i presume all this is in progress.
              >
              > 2. simplify the voting examples with regard to practicality -- rather
              > than providing as an example a 100 point and 10 point scale in the
              > outreach, begin with the example of merely a 10 point scale.

              Practicality needs more thinking:
              I am ALL for doing with computers whatever they are capable of
              doing well.
              But, some voting will be done with absentee ballots - likely
              made of paper.
              Both voting and counting of ballots needs to be doable without
              special skills.
              >
              > the practicality of the matter is that even if we were able to grow
              > major support for adopting Range/Score Voting in America, it would
              > never be offered to the voting public as anything more than a 10 point
              > scale. and really, anything beyond a 10 point scale is arguably
              > unnecessary. if a majority of the mathematicians involved
              > wholeheartedly disagree, then it would still be better to implement a
              > 20 point scale on a 10 point range, including half points.
              >
              > 3. simplify the website across the board -- the main page is really
              > not all that complicated (other than the 100 point scale graphic
              > example). if further simplification is warranted (i think it is),
              > this should be done on the main page rather than creating an
              > additional "simplified" page.
              >
              > i would imagine that an experienced web designer could also better
              > organize the page, which would also help in its simplification
              > (perhaps having one header with drop downs would provide extra space,
              > as the truncated left hand column currently wastes much space).
              >
              > 4. perhaps create a fun and comical YouTube video which could reach
              > millions, which focuses primarily on the simplicity and popular usage
              > of RV, and secondarily on the "Wasted Vote System" (for most folks are
              > tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils" and would LOVE to have
              > more choices than that). the spoiler effect should also be mentioned,
              > but doesn't seem to be as important of an issue as the other two.
              >
              > 5. as my initial post suggests, perhaps we can organize a model for
              > holding educational voting system forums across the nation. these
              > forums could perhaps be coordinated along with other State and private
              > non/trans-partisan organizations, including various think tanks, and
              > voting reform groups.
              >
              > seeing how Henderson County, NC has continued dabbling in IRV voting,
              > i have again begun contacting others in NC who are concerned about the
              > status of the ballot and voting systems, with hopes of drumming up
              > enough support and enthusiasm to hold such a forum in NC.
              >
              > 6. once we have some updated, simplified, and effective outreach
              > material, perhaps we could pracice Range/Score Voting literature
              > dropping at voting polling locations. i have seen IRV folks do this
              > (once), so why not us? it's certainly an easy sell considering we're
              > not pushing a candidate and we're non/trans-partisan.
              >
              > 7. what about a thank tank which focuses on voting systems... is there
              > one? would this be advantageous and/or possible?
              >
              > these are only the ideas i've had thus far which we could perhaps
              > consider in order to help increase the effectiveness of Range/Score
              > Voting outreach. i feel certain that with the variety of creative and
              > brilliant minds already involved in the Range/Score Voting crowd, we
              > should fairly easily be able to come up with an effective outreach
              > strategy for the already most popular, effective, and proficient
              > voting system known to mankind!
              >
              > please let me know what you all think...
              >
              > 8-)
              >
              > bernard baruch carman
            • ⸘Ŭalabio‽
              Range/Score Voting Outreach Posted By: “Bernard B Carman” Infinitybbc Date: Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:45 Pm ((Pst)) ... Professor Warren
              Message 6 of 10 , Nov 12, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Range/Score Voting Outreach
                Posted By: “Bernard B Carman” <Bbc@...> Infinitybbc
                Date: Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:45 Pm ((Pst))

                > 2 Simplify the voting examples with regard to practicality —
                > rather than providing as an example a 100 point and 10 point scale
                > in the outreach, begin with the example of merely a 10 point scale.

                There is method in his madness:

                > The practicality of the matter is that even if we were able to grow
                > major support for adopting range/score voting in america, it would
                > never be offered to the voting public as anything more than a 10
                > point scale. And really, anything beyond a 10 point scale is
                > arguably unnecessary. If a majority of the mathematicians involved
                > wholeheartedly disagree, then it would still be better to implement
                > a 20 point scale on a 10 point range, including half points.

                Professor Warren D. Smith did simulations. In the simulations,
                rounding errors flipped the election 4% of the time. In other words,
                using a 10-point scale is like playing Russian Roulette with a 25-
                shooter. This is unacceptable. That is why Professor Warren D. Smith
                prefers the range 00 to 99. The range 00 to 99 leads to
                electionflipping .4% of the time or only 1 out of 250 elections.

                In the real world, ¿what comes immediately to mind when one thinks
                about scoring? ¡Porn — oh, I meant the Olympics!:

                In the Olympics, initially, the judges used a range from 00 to 10,
                but athletes kept tying. That is why the Olympics expanded the range
                to 00.0 to 10.0 which is equivalent to 000 to 100. The range 00 to 99
                is better than the range 000 to 100 because it is all double-digit.
                Personally, I prefer the range of -99 to +99.
              • ⸘Ŭalabio‽
                ¡Silly me! ¡I forgot the link¡: http://rangevoting.org/Why99.html
                Message 7 of 10 , Nov 12, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  ¡Silly me! ¡I forgot the link¡:

                  http://rangevoting.org/Why99.html
                • bernard b carman
                  thanks for the reply, Ulabio! i understand the concerns which have been raised by these computer simulations using a 10 point voting range. however, i m not
                  Message 8 of 10 , Nov 17, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    thanks for the reply, Ulabio!

                    i understand the concerns which have been raised by these computer
                    simulations using a 10 point voting range.

                    however, i'm not sure these computer simulations warrant such a
                    massive scale when considering a real world vote. a person really
                    cannot distinguish between a "76" and a "77", but a computer can.

                    also, i don't think the Olympic model is all that relevant to a real
                    world vote for candidates. the nuances of differences between say,
                    athletes in a figure skating competition and the voter's preference of
                    political candidates, seems like two completely different worlds.

                    i have a very hard time believing that in a real world vote with real
                    people, that a 10 point range would not work. for that matter, work
                    far much better than the current plurality voting system.

                    heck, wouldn't even a 2-point range approval voting system be a major
                    improvement over PV? i would imagine it would be! then how much more
                    of an improvement over PV would be a 10 point range? i would imagine
                    the difference would be like night and day!

                    yes, most people should be able to understand and work with a 100
                    point range. but let's be totally honest with ourselves... does
                    anyone here really think a 100 point range would be an easier sell
                    than a 10 point range?

                    in order to have the potential of actually implementing Range/Score
                    Voting in elections, simplicity is key for selling the people and the
                    politicians on taking a chance in trying out an alternative system to
                    the horrid PV.

                    the fact that the 10 point 0-9 range is presented on the
                    RangeVoting.org website says that it is a valid construct.

                    the most real world norm in range voting is either a 5 or 10 point
                    range. 5 point is most commonly used in movie rating -- and yes, i
                    agree that the 5 point range does not allow for enough voter
                    expression. however, the 10 point range is nearly as common among
                    everyone, and provides a much greater depth of expression than 5.

                    i would LOVE to see more localities experiment with testing Range/
                    Score Voting. i think this is a very potential goal IF we correctly
                    sell it to the people and the politicians.

                    i submit that in order to do so, we have to think less like
                    mathematicians, and more like simple voters.

                    8-)

                    bernard baruch carman
                    * * *
                    2009 Continental Congress • Nov 11 ~ 22 • St. Charles, IL
                    * * *
                    - seeker of truth / seeder of truth • SeedsOfTruth.org • ∞Liberty
                    - BornToWin.net • FellowshipOfTheWord.org
                    - We The People • Oath Keepers • LibertyAsheville • State of
                    America
                    - infinity games ∞ infinity solutions ∞ audio/Mac specialist
                    ∞∞∞




                    On Nov 12, 2009, at 10:03 PM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:

                    > Range/Score Voting Outreach
                    > Posted By: “Bernard B Carman” <Bbc@...> Infinitybbc
                    > Date: Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:45 Pm ((Pst))
                    >
                    >> 2 Simplify the voting examples with regard to practicality —
                    >> rather than providing as an example a 100 point and 10 point scale
                    >> in the outreach, begin with the example of merely a 10 point scale.
                    >
                    > There is method in his madness:
                    >
                    >> The practicality of the matter is that even if we were able to
                    >> grow major support for adopting range/score voting in america, it
                    >> would never be offered to the voting public as anything more than a
                    >> 10 point scale. And really, anything beyond a 10 point scale is
                    >> arguably unnecessary. If a majority of the mathematicians involved
                    >> wholeheartedly disagree, then it would still be better to implement
                    >> a 20 point scale on a 10 point range, including half points.
                    >
                    > Professor Warren D. Smith did simulations. In the simulations,
                    > rounding errors flipped the election 4% of the time. In other
                    > words, using a 10-point scale is like playing Russian Roulette with
                    > a 25-shooter. This is unacceptable. That is why Professor Warren
                    > D. Smith prefers the range 00 to 99. The range 00 to 99 leads to
                    > electionflipping .4% of the time or only 1 out of 250 elections.
                    >
                    > In the real world, ¿what comes immediately to mind when one thinks
                    > about scoring? ¡Porn — oh, I meant the Olympics!:
                    >
                    > In the Olympics, initially, the judges used a range from 00 to 10,
                    > but athletes kept tying. That is why the Olympics expanded the
                    > range to 00.0 to 10.0 which is equivalent to 000 to 100. The range
                    > 00 to 99 is better than the range 000 to 100 because it is all
                    > double-digit. Personally, I prefer the range of -99 to +99.



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.