Debating The Accusations Against Russia Distracts From The Real Problems

[ Update 2017-01-08:

I’ve come across another writer with a somewhat similar point to mine. Caitlin Johnstone says:

The correct response to “Russia hacked the election!” isn’t “Oh yeah? Prove it!” The correct response is, “Our government actively sabotages any candidate who wants to help ordinary Americans put food on their table. That is infinitely more dangerous and outrageous.”


Original post by me 2016-12-20:

I write the present post to protest against the onslaught of anti-Russian bullshit in the US that the self-styled “Democrats” and the lamestream media are propagating. It’s about the worst bout of misleading and wrong propaganda I have seen, and I guess I would have started to notice things like that around the age of 10, which arrived for me in the early ’60’s. Of course, there was McCarthyism, and the current hysteria makes no more good sense than that did.

Now these pernicious propagandists are saying daily and in many voices that the government of Russia “hacked” the e-mails of the “Democratic” National Committee, and that thereby it (and specifically President Putin) “interfered” with the US electoral system, and that so interfering amounts to a coup, and that the US system is a “democracy” and that this supposed interference works against democracy. All of these assertions are wrong.

Whoever did expose Ms. Wasserman Schultz and the “Democratic” National Committee as what they are, in actuality an antidemocratic national committee, did democracy a service, not a disservice. The “DNC” and Ms. Wasserman Schultz ran a crooked campaign in the primary season so that the contest of ideas would not be fair.

Some say to me, the “Democratic” Party is a private organization and they have the right to make their internal decisions as they see fit. This is not in essence true. Every State (so far as I know) in this United States of ALEC (and so far as I know, the District of Columbia as well) accords to the “Democratic” and Republican parties the power to put a name on each ballot for political office, a power that said States and DC deny to other parties unless such parties take the time to gather signatures. This power makes the Republican and self-styled “Democrat” decision-making processes in effect parts of the political system, and therefore, a matter of public interest. This special ballot access by the major parties (which I oppose) makes them responsible to participate in a democratic way. When they don’t, then their actions amount to an attack on democracy. If they know better (and I credit the Republicans with probably not knowing better), then their actions are immoral and reprehensible. Whoever exposes antidemocratic secrets serves democracy by such exposing.

Then on top of all that, there is no evidence that the Russian government did anything. The likely purposes of accusing them are to whip up hysteria so the accusers can sell more bombs, aircraft, etc., and to distract from “Democratic” national committee criminality.

Now some say to me, that it doesn’t matter how the self-styled “Democratic” national committee ran their primary season, on the grounds that the only contest in that primary was that between Mrs. Clinton and Senator Sanders, and that Sanders showed his true colors when he endorsed Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. And I agree that those were his true colors. However, the principle is what matters, that the political system of the US must become a contest of ideas rather than some other kind of power struggle or game. Every part of the mechanism that works against democracy deserves to be exposed and rooted out.

Some of my interlocutors say that they oppose democracy for central North America. They call it mob rule and so on. My response is to ask, what grounds do you have for denying me equal political power to your own, because that is the essence of what you stand for. I assert a civil right to equal political power. Any system that would sort people according to whether they should have power deserves suspicion. Maybe you just want to use political power to enrich yourselves and assure the your family proliferates and mine dies out so you can eat the resources of the earth and leave us none. To hell with that; you should have to share or get out. And on top of that, we have a common interest in reducing waste and in trying to raise the probability of the survival of the human species for longer than just a few years. Why should I accept that you are wiser than I am in deciding about how to achieve those common goals?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

US Renews Contracts For Private Prisons, Going Back on Promise

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

nicky case: Interactive Explanation of Voting Systems

Please see

Posted in regime change, voting systems | Leave a comment

Antarctica Ice Shelf is Breaking from the Inside Out

Posted in global warming | Leave a comment

USA 2016 presidential election – with better voting methods, the results would have been different

By Warren D. Smith

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (film)

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Posted in Energy, global warming | Leave a comment

The Mother of All Voting Systems?

Form of Ballot to be used in Tally

Let a ballot (to be called an executable ballot) consist of an ordered list of rules.

A rule consists of two parts: head and tail.

A rule head consists of a Boolean combination of constraints concerning the question of which candidates remain in the running or, equivalently, which candidates have been eliminated. Note that one of the possible Boolean combinations is the tautology. (The contradiction would also be legal, but useless).

A rule tail consists of a Score ballot.


Tallying proceeds in rounds. A round eliminates one or more candidates. The last candidate standing wins.

For the case where the last round results in a tie, any number of rules (generic sense, not technical sense of rules on a ballot) could be chosen from among for resolving the tie, e. g. random selection.

In a given round, the tally examines the ballots. For each ballot, the algorithm must look for a single rule to apply in the current round. Recall that the rules are ordered on the ballot, and that the order signifies. The algorithm must choose the first rule in the order, whose head evaluates to true under the conditions of the current round. We may say that this rule fires for the round. If no rule fires, the ballot is exhausted and must be thrown out.

During the round of tallying, the tallying algorithm must accumulate for each candidate, the sum over the scores given to that candidate by the tails of the rules that fired from across the ballots.

The candidate receiving the lowest total score is eliminated. If more than one candidate ties for the lowest score, all who so tie are eliminated.

Some Properties of This System

Unless I am missing something, IRV ballots can be mapped into executable ballots in such a way that if all voters vote in IRV style, the result of the system will be the same as in IRV. If this is not the case, I want to revise the system. IRV stops on finding a majority, but does that rule affect the outcome?

If everyone votes in IRV style, the system will treat their votes quite similarly to how IRV does, except that where IRV stops on finding a “majority”, the present system continues to eliminate candidates until only one stands. I am not sure whether IRV advocates would object to this difference. The present system retains the property of IRV, if the voters choose, that ones vote counts fully for ones favorite candidates until they are eliminated by the weight of the opposing votes.

Score ballots can be mapped into executable ballots in such a way that if all voters vote in Score style, the result of the system will be the same as in Score.

The system is as democratic as any other winner-take-all system. A vote’s antivote includes the same rule heads in the same order, but negated tails. Thus the antivote tracks the vote through all the rounds and opposes it fully and exactly in each round.

Simplified Ballots

If the above system seems interesting from the point of view of how it distributes power among the voters and from the point of view of applicability to the fight against two-party dominance (2PD), but is objected to on the grounds that the ballots are too complex, then perhaps a solution would be to design some simplified ballot forms and prescribe a mapping from the simplified ballots to executable ballots.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment