portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements global

election fraud | government

Stop The Madness!

Strategic simple score ("simple score") voting can be completely described in one short simple sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all (ignore them as if the did not exist), or strategically bid from five (5) to ten (10) votes to any number of candidates you wish (up to some reasonable limit, say 20 candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.
No more "Republicans". No More "Democrats".

End this descent into abject poverty. End it now.

We the people must live.

google search of simple score voting 07.Mar.2016 12:18


returns only blues talking about simple score voting.

Never give up blues. There is a very good chance that by the end of the decade, you could increase the numbers in your movement by 100 percent. I would only take one other person!


We should take a serious look (at any proposed voting system) 08.Mar.2016 05:10

Mike Novack

Analyze what it accomplishes. What are its good points? What are its bad consequences?

Blues, I've asked you to try to do this, not just explain what "SSV" is, but what it DOES. Since you don't seem to want to do that, I'll give it a try, although this really should be coming from somebody who is FOR Simple Score Voting.

1) plus side --- as described, easy to do (adding up and reporting of voting results is simple.
2) plus side --- allows an indication of support for a candidate not expected to win << you can vote for this candidate but still use your vote for a strategic choice >>
3) minus side -- will make the eventual plurality winner seem to have less support than in reality. In other words, unless the electorate understands this consequence, would make people less winning to accept the results as legitimate. And most people not good at math (needed to understand this)
4) minus side -- nobody could analyze the results as to what they really mean (all a vote given to a candidate means is this candidate not being rejected, can't tell if that was a primary preference or a strategic vote.)

5) possible plus (needs more analysis) -- unlikely to eliminate a "Condorcet candidate" if one exists (elimination of a Condorcet candidate, one who would beat any of the others one on one, can lead to catastrophic outcomes).

In other words Blues, wioe I agree easy to do, I don't see where this change woulod accomplish what you seem to think it would. Please take a look at "4" above. You are thinking that the votes cast for an outside choice would help the growth of outside parties. I am questioning that because that requires being able to tell if that is a vote "for" or simply a secondary preference. You also need to take a serious look at "3". Elections where large numebers of people find the results unacceptable/inexplicable are not good.

A Serious Look, I Hope! 08.Mar.2016 11:36


WRT .i. --

It's true that only I call it "simple score voting". But it is actually just a highly simplified form of a very well known voting method called "score voting". It's called simple because I've stripped away superfluous "bells and whistles" that other proponents compulsively, even obsessively, seem to need to add. Things such as "don't know votes" and "vote averaging". Also I strongly advocate strategic, rather than "honest", "sincere", "heroic", or "artless" vote casting. Here are some websites that advocate "less simple" score voting:




WRT Mike Novack --

The "plus sides" --

The most significant primary feature of simple score voting is that it will disrupt the spoiler effect, and thus disrupt the too-few (presently two) party system, and will ultimately abolish it. This means that the common voters will, for the very first time, have choices other than the ones offered by the oppressive duopolists. They can give ten votes to candidates they deem desirable, from five to ten to those they deem sufferable, and give nothing to those they deem intolerable.

Another significant primary feature is that it is dirt-simple; easy to understand, easy to cast votes with, easy to tally. And it's all purely additive, with no special logic or sorting involved. And no machines need to be involved.

Comparing voting systems with the Condorcet systems is not very useful, since that method is actually not very beneficial to the welfare of the voters. It's mostly a mathematical ornament. There is no need to analyze what votes "mean". They simply mean people voted for something.

The oppressive duopolists can always use strategy, so strategy must be available to the common voters if they are to win. The really significant contest has not been between individual candidates, but always between the oppressive duopolists and the common voters, who have always lost.

The "down sides" --

The winners and runner-ups would presumably finish with closer margins during the first few elections. But this would become less common after the two-party system has broken down. However, this is not significant issue, since winners are, after all, winners.

Actually there are no real significant "down sides".

"Political scientists" have bemoaned alleged "downsides" of democracy for millennia. It is high time we abolished "political science" and its malevolent myths.

These arguments could go on forever, and I don't feel comfortable taking up more space on this blog. I hope this was at least of interest to some folks here.

Excuse For A "Life" Under The Two-Party? 10.Mar.2016 15:44


Don't Dare DEMAND Strategic Simple Score?

You get Mafia Security Media (MSM):

You are all Negros. Think you're white? Think again.

Get machine-free strategic simple score voting.

Demand DEMOCRACY! NOT Republicanism.

Common American voters want social justice. NOT Oligarchy.