If Only I Had Simple Score Voting…

“Daring ideas are like chessmen moved forward. They may be beaten, but they may start a winning game.” — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

It’s very helpful to expose the fake liberals and the dupe liberals, etc, who infest politics, the media, and the Internet. But nonetheless, they are a small minority. The true Modern Era Liberals are vastly more numerous, but most of them just don’t bother with politics at all. Why should they? They have no power, and they are intelligent enough to realize it’s simply not worth their while. It would be easy to draw the silent modern era liberals (and modern era conservatives also) back into political discourse with one very simple reform. Read more »

You can comment on most threads.

The Unrealistic Circumscribed Speculations Of Feckless Election Methods Cognoscenti

95% of all the calamitous “problems” that we, most unfortunately, feel a need to discuss here, could presumably have been avoided if we had such a thing as democracy in the U.S.A. (and elsewhere too). But we are stuck with a “choose-one” voting method, which automatically results in a “spoiler effect” that causes it to be pointless to vote for candidates of small parties, other than the major two parties, that are not backed by the entrenched political apparatus. Also, it surely must be obvious that we need decentralized hand counting of paper ballots, with results announced prior to being sent to larger counting centers — we must not use voting machines of any kind.

For the last 13 years I have been studying election methods to find a method that can effectively disrupt the spoiler effect, and thus the two-party “system”. There is a method called “ranked voting” (“IRV” is a form of this) which is being promoted by giant corporate think tank. If anything, it is much worse than choose-one voting. It has been described by blogger Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com as a virus. Then there is something called “approval voting”, whereby the voter can give (or withhold) one vote to (or from) as many candidates as they wish. This is rather lame and does not mitigate the spoiler effect very much. At the end of the day, “strategic hedge simple score voting” is really the only thing that can work effectively. Yet it is ignored by the feckless election methods cognoscenti.

Here is some email material between myself and Warren D. Smith at The Center for Election Science (a “Google Group”):
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/electionscience

(I have already posted some of it at the Moon of Alabama website.)

/~~~~~~~~~~
email — [blues]
Apr 6 (10 days ago)

Sent
From:
[blues]
To:
[warren d smith]
Subject:
Strategic Hedge Simple Score Voting Is The ONLY Method That. . .
Date:
Thursday, April 06, 2017 6:42 AM
Size:
1 KB

. . . .does not treat elite interest involved elections as if they were
casual “hobby club” elections. Therefor it is able to effectively
disrupt the spoiler effect, and thus, the two-party “system”.

The Approval method is inadequately differentiative for degree of
preference, and thus cannot support any strategy to overcome the spoiler
effect. Other methods are more complex, and increased complexity,
however slight, generally leads to follow-on dilemmas that favor the
strategies of the elites. The Strategic Hedge Simple Score Voting
method is the only one that can effectively overcome elite strategies.

You might be interested in my post at:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/ignoring-the-people-where-the-left-of-the-aisle-side-fails.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c8ea4d7b970b

Thank you in advance for your kind attention.

Sincerely,

blues
\~~~~~~~~~~

Reply from W. D. Smith:
/~~~~~~~~~~
email — Warren D Smith
Apr 6 (10 days ago)

From:
Warren D Smith
To:
[blues]
Subject:
Re: Strategic Hedge Simple Score Voting Is The ONLY Method That. . .
Date:
Thursday, April 06, 2017 1:23 PM
Size:
7 KB

On 4/6/17, [blues] wrote:

. . . .does not treat elite interest involved elections as if they were
casual “hobby club” elections. Therefor it is able to effectively
disrupt the spoiler effect, and thus, the two-party “system”.

The Approval method is inadequately differentiative for degree of
preference, and thus cannot support any strategy to overcome the spoiler
effect. Other methods are more complex, and increased complexity,
however slight, generally leads to follow-on dilemmas that favor the
strategies of the elites. The Strategic Hedge Simple Score Voting
method is the only one that can effectively overcome elite strategies.

You might be interested in my post at:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/ignoring-the-people-where-the-left-of-the-aisle-side-fails.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c8ea4d7b970b

Thank you in advance for your kind attention.
blues
–Wonder what [blues] is talking about?
Consulting said post, he wrote in his key paragraph:

QUOTE
Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple
sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all for undesired candidates
(ignore them as though they did not exist), or strategically cast from
one to ten votes (or five to ten votes, for easier counting) for any
number of candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit of, say,
twelve candidates, so people don’t hog voting booths), and then simply
add all the votes up.
END QUOTE

Well, not exactly a “simple sentence,” sorry.
I do not know what he meant. It seems like he meant either
(a) What I call “score voting” aka “range voting,” sum-based version:
Each ballot provides a numerical score for each and every candidate
on an 0-9 scale;
candidate with highest sum of scores wins; treat unscored candidates
as scored 0 by that ballot.

or
(b) What has been called “cumulative voting”:
Same as (a) except the sum of all the scores on your ballot is
required to be <=10.

Either interpretation, I fail to see the “strategic hedge” new
contribution, if any.

Cumulative voting is neither as good nor as simple as range voting.
And I think average-based scoring, with unscored candidates
treated as “unscored” not as “0,”
is superior to the sum-based version in (a) above.

In any case I would recommend to [blues] that he actually clearly state
what the hell he is
talking about, in step-by-step fashion that is absolutely impossible
to misinterpret. Rather than just spew enthusiastic incoherence.


Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org
\~~~~~~~~~~

/~~~~~~~~~~
(Original comment at MoA):

Of the now literally hundreds of “fancy” voting methods all over the Internet, Strategic Hedge Simple Score Voting is the only one that specifically enables the common voters to win elections against the two-party empowered deep state. All of the many others treat elite interest involved elections as if they were casual “hobby club” elections. These distracting, ill-considered, unworkable election methods are the products of a booming academic “industry” erected by a large contingent of “election methods cognoscenti”. If the common voters are to ever defeat the elite deep state apparatus which will, of course, always utilize strategy, those common voters must have the ability to effectively vote strategically.

Too bad we don’t have simple score voting. Then we could give between 1 and 10 votes to many candidates. But no votes at all for Hillary the war monger. We might place 8 “hedge” votes for Bernie (since he is less bad than Hillary (or more accurately, was previously though to be)), 10 write-in votes for Jesse Ventura, and 10 write-in votes for Dennis Kucinich.

Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore them as though they did not exist), or strategically cast from one to ten votes (or five to ten votes, for easier counting) for any number of candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit of, say, twelve candidates, so people don’t hog voting booths), and then simply add all the votes up.

We must also abolish deep state subvertible election machines (“computer voting”), and get back to hand counted paper ballots, with results announced at each polling station just prior to being sent up to larger tabulation centers.

It should be obvious that congresspeople and presidents should be limited to one-year terms of office.

The Direct Democracy (e.g. Liquid Democracy) advocated by Iceland’s Pirate Party (and Jackrabbit) may also represent a very beneficial alternative to the spoiler effect imposing choose-one method. See:

How the German Pirate Party’s “Liquid Democracy” Works
http://techpresident.com/news/wegov/22154/how-german-pirate-partys-liquid-democracy-works

Posted by: blues | Apr 6, 2017 5:34:35 AM | 16
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/ignoring-the-people-where-the-left-of-the-aisle-side-fails.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c8ea4d7b970b
\~~~~~~~~~~

I responded 6 days ago, but have not heard back in any way:
/~~~~~~~~~~
Further Reasons {1}
[blues]
Apr 10 (6 days ago)
to [warren d smith]
Sent

Subject:
Further Reasons {1}
Date:
Monday, April 10, 2017 10:00 PM
Size:
2 KB

I painstakingly shun “social media” such as Facebook, Google Plus, etc. in order to make a token defense of what remains of my privacy.

Strategic Hedge Simple Score Voting is indeed not technically distinct from Score (or Range) voting, except for some inconspicuous details that are mandated by its special objectives. Its objectives include:

(+) It must effectively disrupt the spoiler effect, and thus end the two-party system.
(+) It must be very resistant to the influence of the entrenched political apparatus.
(+) It must be, and also give the appearance of being, very simple and comprehensible.
(+) It must be completely compatible with the decentralized hand counting of paper ballots.

For example, the possible votes on a ballot are: Ignore a candidate on the ballot as if they did not exist; give from one (or, say, five) to ten votes to a candidate on the ballot; or write in a candidate and similarly give from one (or, say, five) to ten votes to that candidate. And that is all.

Why give from one (or, say, five) to ten votes rather than give from zero to nine votes? Well, the common voters must employ strategy if they are to defeat the entrenched political apparatus. And having ten as the greatest vote simplifies this strategy, since giving eight votes is clearly seen to produce a sacrifice of 20% of the influence of a given vote entry, giving six votes produces a sacrifice of 40%, etc.

There is no point in offering a “zero” vote. It only invites election officials (the entrenched political apparatus) to demand a “full ballot”. Thus tossing out votes of those who are too dignified to cast “zero” votes (blaming with faint praise).

(To be continued.)

See:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/open-thread-2017-14.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01bb098f2c38970d

Thank you again,
[blues]
\~~~~~~~~~~

I hope this is not too long and confusing. However THIS is how we ended up with candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump! Meanwhile, these election methods cognoscenti continue with their “intellectual glass bead game”, playing in their “operative election methods tar pit”. These people are teaching useless college courses and spilling endless digital ink at Wikipedia while war horses breed at the border!

After The 2016 Election, Simple Score Voting Matters More Than Ever!

We must get strategic hedge simple score voting. Nothing else will beat the spoiler effect induced “two-party” “system”!

Christmas Is Great. Now Let’s Upgrade Groundhog Day!

::: by blues :::

I live in the Northern U.S., where:

“What you can’t thrive in is the freaking cold and its crappy rainy snowy weather and bad road conditions and whatnot. Food doesn’t grow, it runs and you have to chase it through mud and cold and blah, screw it all. Give me summer any day. The four seasons should be called Spring, Summer, Fall, and Hell.” — Graham Bradley

And winter hell really begins in earnest on Dec 25th — Christmas Day. It just does. And it ends 82 days later, on March 17th — Saint Patrick’s Day. So the half-way mark is 41 days. Well, Groundhog Day is 39 days later, on February 2nd, which is close enough. (Forget Valentine’s Day, 51 days later; all that sugar is bad for you.) If the celebration of Groundhog Day was as important as Christmas, which it should be, the mid-winter hell would be far more bearable.

So it is most important to build up the celebration of Groundhog Day! (The groundhog is really a huge squirrel that burrows in the earth.) Take the day off. Scatter nuts and raisins out for the hungry critters. Sing groundhog chants at the town hall.

This would make everything so much better!

Maybe We Could Start Here

Groundhog Day Festival Site:
http://www.groundhog.org/

Recipe for a Groundhog Day “Dirt” Feast:

1 3/4 cups water
1 cup BLACK rice (some black rice is sticky, and is thus said to be “glutinous,” but it contains no actual gluten. It will blacken the other ingredients.)
1 cup chopped onion
2 tablespoon olive oil or butter
1 cup sliced celery
1 cup chopped mushrooms
1/2 teaspoon salt

Cook together like rice until the rice is done. Easy.

(By clicking HERE you can read or write comments below.)

← Back to front page

Germany Has Party List Proportional Representation. Too Bad

::: by blues :::

With Germany’s party list proportional representation (List PR) in the Bundestag, the most significant legislative body in Germany, the voters only get to vote for parties (a feature of proportional representation) rather than candidates. Generally, the actual representatives are chosen by party bosses, not by the people. The Germans despise quite a lot of what their so-called “elected” government does. But they have no real say.

/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
ACE Electoral Knowledge Network — Advantages and disadvantages of List PR
http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esd/esd02/esd02c/esd02c01/

Disadvantages of List PR:

[….]

Excessive entrenchment of power within party headquarters and in the hands of senior party leaderships—especially in closed-list systems. A candidate’s position on the party list, and therefore his or her likelihood of success, is dependent on currying favour with party bosses, while their relationship with the electorate is of secondary importance. In an unusual twist to the List PR system, in Guyana parties publish their list of candidates not ranked but simply ordered alphabetically. This allows party leaders even more scope to reward loyalty and punish independence because seats are only allocated to individuals once the result of the vote is known.

[….]
\____________________

(By clicking HERE you can read or write comments below.)

← Back to front page

We Ain’t Got No Workers No More — Simply Demand Power!

::: by blues :::

Please forget about the “worker power” baloney. They are an historical artifact; They don’t exist anymore. In the U.S. today, you are damn lucky to get $7.25 per hour, with no “benefits.” And you’re really lucky if it’s 40 hours. But most of us don’t really get even that. This is because, since Reagan and Clinton we have FREE trade, so we we get to compete with the Chinese Foxconn workers who have to be restrained from jumping to their deaths with huge nets. So there are no longer enough indispensable workers to protest their political rape by means of general strikes. Do yourself and every one a favor, and give the power back to the masses. If you can’t trust the masses who can you trust?

The supreme court? HAHAHAHAHA! They protect ONE minority — the 1%, and give to gays on the same day that they take back from blacks, and vice versa. Get a simple type of score voting — it really is that simple. Learn about and demand the simple (and well-known to some) score voting method. Get rid of single-selection voting. IRV voting, for example, has been funded by Soros, Rockefeller Bros., Carnegie-Mellon, Ford foundation, etc. Yet even Ralph Nader has been duped into supporting it! IRV makes artful (strategic) voting impossible. With that, if you “rank” Nader one notch above Gore (no “hero” for sure), and Gore gets 50% of the vote (but not quite 50% +1), then in the next cycle, the biggest loser’s hero gets “eliminated” and their votes get advanced to their second (ranked) choice, and Nader gets 51% of the vote, but Bush gets 53%, and thus wins! (The percentages can add up to more than 100.) (And since you are not among the eliminated biggest losers, your second-rank choice is just tossed out anyway.) This is even worse than our current single-selection (so-called “plurality”) voting method.

Compare simple score voting with all the other methods. You get to give from 1 to 10 votes to each of up to maybe 20 candidates. Simple paper ballots may simply be added up by hand counting — no riggable vote casting or counting machines are needed. This encourages artful (strategic) voting. If you give some candidate 8 or 9 votes instead of 10, you know that you will only sacrifice 20% or 10% of your vote for him or her. This eliminates the spoiler effect by at least 90%, which is far better than what any other (reasonably simple) method achieves. You don’t need to be any mathematician to see how much simpler this is than all the other convoluted methods!

This would completely end the two-party system. There would be few or no more corrupt Democrats and Republicans.

All of the fancy election methods websites insist on artless (“honest,” “sincere,” “vote your conscience”) voting. Only lowly voters are required to sustain such a level of absurd “integrity” by all the “election methods” websites (except mine). If you go to an auction, do you refuse to bid less than what you think an item is worth?

Political scientists have known about the power of simple score voting for hundreds of years. They have perpetrated the biggest conspiracy in history.

(By clicking HERE you can read or write comments below.)

← Back to front page

How To Get Ready To Back Up Your Hard Drive

::: by blues :::

PLEASE DON’T follow this advice! I tried it myself and it turned into a train wreck. (Some of the ideas may be of interest, though.)

Backup folder conventions (Windows and Linux):Some users will not know the meaning of a few of the terms used here, but that should not be a problem.For Windows, an Indispensable Administrator User account, say “User-a”, must always be available to manage the operating system. There should also exist a Limited User account, say “User-b”, for everyday use, which is far less susceptible to malware infections, since it cannot be used to install most programs. Most ordinary data files should be in the Limited User account, which is easy to access. Avoid using the “All Users” account, which can be excessively difficult to access efficiently.(Note: Moving all established data into a Limited User account may require too much effort in older or heavily used systems. But new data should probably be set up in the manner described here to simplify back-ups.)Note: It is not known to be safe (particularly on Windows systems) to have more than 255 characters in any given entire path! (One could lose some data.)

Abbreviations that may be used:

• “Pcl” stands for “Parcel”. Parcel folders contain backup data. Parcels can be very large, or very small pieces of data. (Example: “Pcl130906-1-Pt13”).
• The date and the “-1” at the end of “Pcl130906-1” indicates the name of the parcel itself.
• “Pt” stands for “Parcel Part”. I would suggest that the size of each parcel part should be from about 650MB to no more than 695MB (always “trust” the largest file-size number shown in any “Properties” dialog box).
• “Saved” stands for “Saved Parcel Part” (already backed up). It is followed by a number “xx” to indicate which particular disk it is to be copied to. The second part “-xxxxx” is a random string that allows the folder name to remain undetermined until a final decision about which particular disk it is to be copied to (indicated by “xx”) is decided after the parcel parts are divided up (to avoid mixing up any names).
• “UnSav” stands for “Unsaved Parcel Part” (not already backed up). “Saved” should be renamed to “UnSav” after a backup has been completed, but “-xxxxx” (that is, the actual random string) should remain intact.
• “Final” stands for “Final Parcel Part”.
• “N-Fin” stands for “Nonfinal Parcel Part”.
• “Desc” stands for “Description”, indicates start of a description line in a “description path” that does not contain backup files. This easily shows what is within the corresponding parcel folders. (This is easy to see when the folders are opened.)
• “DevDrvPtn#-X-Y-Z” stands for “Device”, “Drive Unit”, Drive Partition”. The “X” names the computer or unit the drive is in, the “Y” names the whole drive, the “Z” names a partition on the drive.
• “Usr#” indicates an individual user.
• “Ltd” indicates a limited user (for Windows).
• “Adm” indicates an administrator user (for Windows).
• “Cat#” indicates data categories.
• “Val-” indicates the relative importance of the data, rated from 1 to 9.
• “Dummy.txt” prevents paths from terminating in empty folders.
• “BkupInf.txt” prevents paths from terminating in empty folders. May contain the text of this schema.
• “Cont” stands for “Content”. It indicates the data contents directory of a parcel part.
• “T-mp” stands for “Temporary” (but not to be automatically deleted). It indicates an extra “temporary parcel” that allows for flexibility during sorting. It’s probably best to place the oldest files and folders in the lowest numbered parcel parts.

When arranging parcel parts, make each parcel part between about 650 and 695 megabytes in size (able to fit CDs), or less if convenient; that is currently a reasonable maximum size.

Here are examples of insertable pre-fashioned path strings (for backups) (illustrated for Windows) (BE SURE to insert them into the original paths (series of folders) to maintain file priviledge security). The “description” path is inserted with its coresponding folder path to easily show what the folder path contains without using a string that exceeds the 255 character limit:

C:\Documents and Settings\User-a\Pcl130724-1\Pt01_UnSav-11-e3Aqy\Cont\ Dummy.txt
C:\Documents and Settings\Usr-a\Pcl130724-1\Pt01_UnSav-11-e3Aqy\Desc_Final_DevDrvPtn#-Dell-MastrDr-Win1_Usr#-Adm-Peter_Cat#-Pics-Vids_Val-7\BkupInf.txt
C:\Documents and Settings\User-a\Pcl130724-1\Pt01_UnSav-11-e3Aqy\T-mp\Dummy.txt

Below are some pre-fashioned template strings for insertion into appropriate paths (be sure to insert them into the original paths to maintain file priviledge security) (The second part “-xxxxx” after “UnSav” should immediately be filled with a random five character string to prevent the attempted insertion of “same-string” paths; comprised of the “easy-to-read” upper and lower case characters plus numerals, such strings can provide 47^5 = 229,345,007 combinations).

I use the “PWGen” program with the “<easytoread>” Character set, from SourceForge.net. And 12 character passwords (they will have upper and lower case letters and numerals). Its Windows, but works well with Linux’s Wine.

Pre-fashioned template strings for insertion into appropriate paths (be sure to insert them into the original paths to maintain file privilege security):

….\Pclyymmdd-1\Pt01_UnSav-xx-xxxxx\Cont\Dummy.txt

….\Pclyymmdd-1\Pt01_UnSav-xx-xxxxx\Desc_Final_DevDrvPtn#-Dell-MastrDr-Win1_Usr#-Adm-Peter_Cat#-Pics-Vids_Val-x\BkupInf.txt

….\Pclyymmdd-1\Pt01_UnSav-xx-xxxxx\T-mp\Dummy.txt

Easy-to-insert directories to form path strings (directory or folder names are placed between the “$$” pairs “$$….$$”):

$$Pclyymmdd-1$$ $$Pt01_UnSav-xx-xxxxx$$ $$Cont$$ $$Dummy.txt$$

$$Pclyymmdd-1$$ $$Pt01_UnSav-xx-xxxxx$$ $$Desc_Final_DevDrvPtn#-Dell-MastrDr-Win1_Usr#-Adm-Peter_Cat#-Pics-Vids_Val-x$$
$$BkupInf.txt$$

$$Pclyymmdd-1$$ $$Pt01_UnSav-xx-xxxxx$$ $$T-mp$$ $$Dummy.txt$$

Some “Desc” strings may be followed by “N-Fin” (for “non-final”), but at least one will be followed by “Final”.

There will be three path strings in each backup location:

1) The “Cont”, or content path string that inserts a named folder before the files and folders that are to actually be backed up. This is the only path that actually contains large, backed-up files and folders in the actual backups.

2) The “Desc” string that will make it easy to read a description of the information that is held within the folders that are preceded by the “simple” path string. It contains only a very tiny amount of data.

3) The “T-mp” string that will make it easy to “shuffle” and organize the backup files and folders prior to backups. It contains only a very tiny amount of data after the backup data has been organized.

All three of these three path strings should remain after each backup; but the date in their names should be returned to “yymmdd” so as to alter Windows shortcuts or Linux links as little as possible.

Simply begin inserting the “empty template” backup folders into folders that typically exist in the computer.

Non-system personal data files and folders may be moved into backup folders with modified paths, and allowed to remain there for future backup convenience; but not system, and not program-requisite files and folders, which must not be moved, only copied (if desired). (Some of these are data files and are very important to save, however.) The non-system personal data files and folders can be permanently moved into modified-path backup folders; however Windows shortcut files or Linux link files would need to be modified to accomodate the new folder locations.

When you back up, rename “yymmdd” to the current date, back up, then revert to “yymmdd”. And “Saved” should be renamed to “UnSav” after each backup job has been completed, but “-xxxxx” (that is, the actual random string, for example “e3Aqy”) should remain intact. Nonetheless, do make a list of any “special” path changes that are made during new backups.

Everything will remain organized. You can back up everything to a set of DVD-Rs, while leaving your system ready for the next backup.

This works in Windows and Linux.

(By clicking HERE you can read or write comments below.)

← Back to front page

Friday Market Collapse? ATM Technical Difficulties?

::: by blues :::
.
/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The Independent [News Website, UK] — Friday 21 June 2013 — Markets plunge in fear of end to US money-printing
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/markets-plunge-in-fear-of-end-to-us-moneyprinting-8665945.html

Traders and investors around the world began selling stocks and bonds yesterday, sucking money out of global markets after the US Federal Reserve signalled that it could begin rolling back its bond-buying programme later this year and end it altogether around next summer.

The prospect sent investors rushing for the exit at such speed that, in New York, both the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average recorded their worst daily declines since 2011. The Dow fell by 353.87 points, down 2.3 per cent, to 14,758.3, while the S&P 500 dropped by 2.5 per cent to 1,588.19.
\____________________

Experts say “bank holidays” (no withdrawals) would begin on a Friday.

The sky may be falling.

Could be a Very Bad Thing. Your money could disappear, as happened in Greece.

(By clicking HERE you can read or write comments below.)

← Back to front page