Rating, Not Ranking

We need rating, not ranking.

Why rating instead of the choose-one system? Because choose-one gives more power to the major parties and less power to individuals. A rating system such as the four-valued one I propose gives all voters equal power over the outcome. This equality, there is reason to expect that it will at least somewhat decouple the effect of money from elections.

Proposed solution: https://1787regime.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/proposed-abfg-score-voting-system-for-single-winner-elections/

Some of the rationale for why to think such a solution would decouple money from electoral outcomes: http://rangevoting.org/Cash3.html

Ranking and choose-one are both bad because they limit the voter’s expression of the voter’s rating of a candidate depending on what the voter says about other candidates. A fair system has to leave those limitations off, has to permit the voter to rate or grade (not rank) each candidate independently of the other candidates. For example, if I like Nader but prefer Gore to Bush, I vote Nader A, Gore B, and Bush G.

This link explains how the choose-one voting system gives unequal voting power to voters depending on their position regarding the candidacies. http://www.equalvote.co/thestatusisnotquo#linkback2

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How To Debate Hillary — Suggestions For Donald Trump

By guest author Rosa Dines.

Mr. Trump:

Hillary challenged you on your support for the Iraq war. You should use the limited time you have in debate to turn the tables on her, that as a congresswoman who voted for the Iraq war, she should be called on the carpet, not you for your opinion when you were a private citizen for or against the war. She voted for the Iraq war, and then, opportunistically, when things went “wrong”, she said, “I don’t support it anymore.” And she’s also responsible for the war in Libya, where chaos was created, and as you pointed out, which you should emphasize again, it helped the creation and growth of ISIS.

You referred to NAFTA and TTIP and rightly challenged Hillary on her support of them. To make the critique resonate, it may help to also point out that these trade treaties are harmful to the American workers, especially those in small towns in for example West Virginia or middle America where there would be one factory in town, which would then close down, and leave those workers in small-town America with no alternative employment. I believe that you wasted too much of your time on attacking China. In this discussion, the important thing is that Hillary Clinton, while she was supposed to be representing Americans in public office, instead supported a policy that is harmful to American workers. It is important to mention the harmful effects of these policies on the American worker, not how it may benefit someone in China. You used your limited time attacking China, but instead you should spend all your time attacking Hillary. You are trying to get people who may be thinking of voting for Hillary to change their minds. You are not trying to get people who may vote for China to vote for you instead. So use all your force on your opponent in this particular boxing ring.

In the first debate, Mrs. Clinton never responded substantively to your challenges. Instead, she used her time to stay on her message, which consisted of attacking you and portraying you as evil. She never described her own policies, instead referring listeners to her web site and book. You should follow Mrs. Clinton’s example. Do not become defensive. The more you repeat her accusation, the more it stays with the listeners.

For example, when she attacks you for having incurred bankruptcies, you should say, “I am an entrepreneur and entrepreneurship is the American way. And entrepreneurs fail many times before they are successful. And the use of bankruptcy laws is legal. Those who run, sometimes fall.” Mrs. Clinton has never been an entrepreneur, so there is no bankruptcy in her background. In fact, she has used the status of her husband as ex-President and her powerful political position to draw hundreds of millions of dollars from various dubious entities and foreign governments, some of which have long records of human-rights violations. And as expert lawyers, herself and her husband, they have set up those sources of revenue to be “legal” in the system. She never explained, what it was that she and her husband did that was worth so much money.

If you check Dr. Jill Stein’s critiques of Hillary in various speeches that are online, you may find some points you can use as well.

I write these suggestions because of my absolute 100% opposition to a Hillary Clinton presidency and the dangers that she represents. This does not mean I agree with all your positions or policies.

Rosa Dines

To cite with short link: How To Debate Hillary http://wp.me/p23U97-dK

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Anti-IRV Videos and Literature

Favorite Betrayal in Plurality and Instant Runoff Voting
(which entails spoiler in IRV)

Spoiler effect in IRV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKCWNNYOOkw

SJVoter again!
“Instant Runoff Voting – Every Vote Counts!” (but the outcome isn’t for the best)

Favorite betrayal and other critiques of IRV

Refutations of false or misleading claims by Howard Dean about Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), by Warren D. Smith

refutation of Cobb / Green-party pro-IRV video, by Warren D. Smith: http://rangevoting.org/CobbVideoRefut.html


A way to cite this compilation:

Instant Runoff Voting (now deceptively referred to as “Ranked-choice Voting”) is not all it’s cracked up to be. Choose Score Voting instead. http://wp.me/p23U97-dD

Posted in regime change, voting systems | Leave a comment

Randomized Voting Strategy to use with Antiplurality Voting?


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Proposed ABFG Score Voting System for Single-winner Elections

1. For every candidate in the race, a voter has a right to give that candidate a “grade” of A, B, F, or G.

So for example, my ballot might look like this:
Nader – A
Gore – B
Bush – G

The ballots should of course be made of paper.

2. Each entry on a ballot, where a voter assigns a grade to a candidate, shall be called a “grading”.

3. The tallying process accumulates an _overall score_ for each candidate. At the start of the tally, the candidate’s accumulated score is zero. The tallying process examines the gradings that the candidate received from the voters. For every grade of “A” found among those, the process adds 50 points to that candidate’s score. For every grade of “B”, it adds 49 points. For every grade of “F”, it deducts 49 points. For every grade of “G”, it deducts 50 points. When all the gradings for that candidate, found on the ballots, have been taken into account, the accumulated score for that candidate is that candidate’s overall score.

The tallying process should of course be carried out by human beings, with witnesses to check to assure accuracy.

4. The candidate with the highest overall score wins the election.

Under this system, my working hypothesis about the best voting strategy for those who favor Nader and strongly oppose Bush, is to vote as in my example above, i. e., Nader A, Gore B, and Bush G. Someone may come along with mathematical reasoning, or made-up example elections, and cause me to reject that hypothesis. Or I could come up with such reasoning or examples myself. But for now, it is my best notion of how they should best vote for their own interests in this scenario.

Posted in regime change, voting systems | 1 Comment

Greens and Libertarians Must Promote Equal-Weighted Voting

Approval Voting is a subcategory of Range Voting (Range Voting is also known as Score Voting). The difference between Approval Voting and other variants of Range Voting is the granularity with which the voter may express degree of support for and/or opposition to a given candidate’s winning. In a large election, voters can make up for overly coarse granularity by voting probabilistically.

Probably the simplest way to describe Approval Voting is to say: Start with voting the way it is done in almost all elections in the US. Remove one constraint: that you can only vote for one. That’s Approval Voting.

For greens who want to support their candidates fully in a single-winner election but also want to use some of their political power to affect the lesser-evil portion of the race, I recommend they give something like 99% support to the lesser-evil candidate. The appropriate level of support for the lesser evil depends on ones assessment of the likely behavior of other voters. The more popular you think your acceptable candidates are, the less support you should give to compromise candidates.

I haven’t seen exactly how to prove the following mathematically yet, but I am fairly convinced that voting systems that don’t accord each voter equal political power to each other voter are vulnerable to two-party dominance via the application of political money. Here are some links related to this expectation:


Range Voting and therefore Approval Voting (since it is a subcategory) accord the voters equal power over the outcome of the election. This can be tested for by observing that for any vote that is possible to cast, one can construct an opposing vote that would exactly cancel the effect of the first vote. This is not true of “Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) (a form of “Ranked Choice Voting”) if voters are allowed to leave some candidates unranked. I think I could describe a variant of IRV that would have the property, but I see no advantage of such a variant over rating systems (Range Voting including Approval Voting).

IRV responds pathologically to small changes in the location of the center of public opinion, as demonstrated by http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ ; see in particular the diagrams under the heading “Shattered”, and the rest of the paper after that heading.

I agree with Gary Swing http://www.newprogs.org/gary_swing_on_election_reform that “IRV will help the two major parties by eliminating the potential threat posed by minor party candidates, but it won’t help the Green Party to win elections” and “If executive office holders are publicly elected rather than appointed by legislators, I consider range voting to be a much better method than IRV for electing single winner office holders.”

Multiwinner elections constitute a separate and more difficult topic from what I am talking about in most of this writing. I suppose proportional representation is a good idea, but I don’t as of yet know how to speak for any particular system for achieving that as adequate.

For the sake of making it possible for Greens to win single-winner elections, and for the sake of defeating the two-party oligarchy, and for the sake of democracy, I call on all Greens to support Range Voting (or specifically Approval Voting if you prefer) for any single-winner elections, and reject IRV along with vote-for-one Plurality Voting and all other systems that don’t accord the voters equal political power.

The same consideration applies to the Libertarians.



[Also posted as a reply in a thread https://secure.gpus.org/secure/GreenPartyForum/showthread.php?tid=719 in a discussion forum that is said to have fallen out of use.]

[Linked from, and discussed at https://www.facebook.com/groups/587432744659202/permalink/975284442540695/ ]

[Linked from https://www.facebook.com/william.waugh.33/posts/808915632550792 ]

[Linked from https://www.facebook.com/groups/greenpartynetworking/permalink/947398498628768/ ]

[ Linked from http://post.mnsun.com/2016/01/12/public-hearing-set-on-ranked-choice-voting-in-brooklyn-park/#comment-2458969123 if they ever approve my comment. ]

[ Linked from https://www.facebook.com/ThomHartmannProgram/?comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D ]

[Home location https://1787regime.wordpress.com/2016/01/17/greens-and-libertarians-must-promote-equal-weighted-voting/ ]

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Proposal for the Green Party in USA to Concentrate on One State At A Time?

Bob Wasserchuck may want to comment.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment