¡Never throw away your vote!

Regressives cannot help but to be misogynous, racist, sexist, xenophobic religious bigots because that is all they know, but we progressives have a choice about how we vote:

If every voter who voted Libertarian would have voted for Clinton, she would have won, If every voter who voted Green would have voted for Clinton, she would have won. If every person who voted for other 3rd parties or independents would have voted for Clinton, she would have won. If every voters who refused to vote in the General Election because their preferred candidates did not get the nomination would have voted for Clinton, she would have won. The shitstorm of the Trump Presidency is your fault. These are the rules of voting:

1. Always vote in every election; whether Primary, Special, or General.
2. In Primary Elections, vote for the best candidate.
3. In General and Special Elections, always vote for the lesser of 2 evils —— ¡voting any other way or not voting is equivalent to voting for the greater of 2 evils!

Comments

[Phaedra]

I'm pretty sure everyone who voted Libertarian followed your advice, except "the lesser of 2 evils" should be changed to "the least of the evils".

[NicLove]

https://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey/search?query=vote

[Charles Spratt]

You seem to be working under the assumption that everyone who voted Libertarian, Green, or not at all would’ve preferred Clinton to Trump. Speaking as one of the “degenerates” who voted Libertarian, I should emphasize that many of us voted 3rd party because we were voting for what we believed was the best option. And why did we believe that? Because both the democratic and republican options this round seemed equally abysmal (I’m not gonna vote for someone who’s no fly policy over Syria would require us going to war with Russia in order to enforce it). Even if you did force every non two party voter to vote for one of them, you have no guarantee it would change anything (not all of them think the way you do, and surprisingly enough, it’s not due to them being, and I quote, ‘misogynous, racist, sexist, xenophobic religious bigots’) so I don’t know what you think this will accomplish.

You don’t want to lose next time? Make sure you give us a decent option who doesn’t change her opinions based on whatever is popular at the time.

But hey, that's just my opinion. To each their own.

[iisaw]

Two words: Electoral College. If everyone in California had voted for Clinton, she would have lost. If everyone in California had voted for Trump, Clinton would have lost. If everyone in California had voted for Wile E. Coyote, Clinton would have lost. If every single person in California votes one way or another in the US Presidential election, not just the usual 30-40% that bother... it doesn't make any difference to the outcome at all.

Several other states are in this situation. Why shouldn't those people vote for a candidate that reflects their values instead of a business-as-usual warmonger that appears to be slightly less evil than the other business-as-usual warmonger?

Telling third-party voters in non swing states that the Trump Clown Show is their fault is pointless and untrue victim-shaming.

[Permanent Temporary]

Coming from somebody who voted for Clinton specifically for the reason that I felt that she was the [marginally] lesser of two evils... I honestly expected better from you, Walabio.

[Walabio]

4895043

Lesser of 2 Evils is the name of this idiom. Idioms being idiomatic, do not always have logical names.

4895050

1 of my hobbies is electoral mathematics. The next election, we shall use plurality. Sorry.

4895061

You fail epically:

Basically, we have 1 minute of lying per year. If each lie takes 5 seconds to say, that is 12 lies an year. Trump lied over 1 thousand times in his 1st year. That means that he lies 90 times more often. Let us look at the nature of the lies:

We have lies such as she not supporting homosexuals marrying when she really did. In other words, she lied to get elected and them tried to lead her constituency out of darkness. The lies of Trump are venal, egotistic, and pathological

Verdict:
False Equivalency

4895106

I have written about the Electoral College. Trump carried many states by a plurality. If all of the fucktards voting 3rd party and independent would have voted Clinton instead, she would be President. Trump won these states with only a plurality:

• Florida
• Michigan
• Nebraska 2nd District
• North Carolina
• Pennsylvania
• Utah
• Wisconsin

If all of the people voting for other than Trump would have voted Clinton instead of throwing away their votes, we would have President Clinton.

4895180

You are 1 of the good 1s, but too many morons threw away their votes:

Green Party candidate Jill Stein used the slogan "Don't vote for the lesser evil, fight for the greater good". That sure turned out great.

[NicLove]

4895716
plurality !?

[Walabio]

4895725

Plurality is the name of the single-winner method in which one an only vote for 1 candidate.

[NicLove]

4895729
isn't that First-past-the-post ?

or are you thinking something else ?

[Walabio]

4895733

Those are synonyms along with “Vote-For-1”. You might be interested in Electorama. It is a wiki for voting systems:

http://wiki.electorama.com

[NicLove]

4895735
I have one for you

Do you know FR ?
https://www.koreus.com/video/albert-politique-election.html

[Charles Spratt]

4895716
1: You're assuming that she always supported gay marriage, and only said something different to get elected, without any way to prove it definitively.

2: You're focusing on the lying part only, and not actually on the main reason I stayed away from Clinton, which was the first thing I mentioned. Liar or no, I'm not voting for someone who was strongly insisting on a no fly policy that would require us going to war with Russia in order to enforce it.

3:

If all of the fucktards voting 3rd party and independent would have voted Clinton instead, she would be President.

Let's ignore that calling everyone who didn't vote the way you wanted a 'fucktard' is a great way to swing people away from your side, from what I've heard from talking with people who voted 3rd and independent, which main party president they considered the lesser of two evils is actually pretty mixed among them, meaning even if they had to vote for one of the two, I guarantee they wouldn't all vote for Clinton anyway (I can't even say for sure if the majority would), meaning your point is moot. I don't like Trump either, but this post isn't going to do you any favors in convincing people to your side, as it only makes it look like you can't let go of the past.

[Walabio]

4895887

1: You're assuming that she always supported gay marriage, and only said something different to get elected, without any way to prove it definitively.

The Clintons always supported the rights of LGBTQ and whatever more letters we have added since last I checked. I am pretty sure that she supported something like marriage, such as civil unions. Indeed, religious bigots keeping civil unions from being as good as civil unions is what lead to the push for marriage-equality:

Homosexuals wanted to marry. The religious bigots would throw fits if they could: so now, politicians invented civil unions as a way of giving homosexuals something isomorphic with marriage but with a different name. the religious right threw a fit anyway, so politicians beholden to the religious right watered down civil unions so that they were inferior to marriages. This lead to a renewed push for marriage-equality.

This is a rough timeline:

President Bill Clinton wanted to integrate homosexuals into the military but the congress was not ready and congress passed a bipartisan resolution against it. President Bill Clinton knew that congress could overturn a veto, so signed it but order the military to not hunt for homosexuals. This is “Don’t ask, don’t tell:

Basically, the military cannot ask whether one is an homosexual, but one better not let it slip out that one is an homosexual because congress mandates that the military discharge homosexuals if it discovers them.

President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage act while pushing civil unions. Hypothetically, this should have made everyone happy (homosexuals cannot marry, so the religious right should be happy and homosexuals get marriage by another name, so they are happy) but the religious right insisted that civil unions remain inferior.

Hillary Clinton switched from supporting civil unions to supporting marriage-equality.

2: You're focusing on the lying part only, and not actually on the main reason I stayed away from Clinton, which was the first thing I mentioned. Liar or no, I'm not voting for someone who was strongly insisting on a no fly policy that would require us going to war with Russia in order to enforce it.

I focus on the lying part because I did not want to beat you while you are down. I gave you a chance to just forget this, but you insist:

Hillary Clinton was the 1st Lady, a Senatrix, and the Secretary of State. The idea that she would get us into a nuclear war against the Russian Federation over Syrian airspace is ludicrous.

rump is an unstable man. The grownups in the room had to keep him from attacking North Korea. Then he flipped and made the Munich-Agreement seem great and Neville Chamberlain seem like a great leader with his 1-side agreement with North Korea.

Thanks to him, Iran resumes the development of nuclear weapons

It came out this week that the grownups in the room had to take Trump out of invading Venezuela.

3:

“If all of the fucktards voting 3rd party and independent would have voted Clinton instead, she would be President.”

Let's ignore that calling everyone who didn't vote the way you wanted a 'fucktard' is a great way to swing people away from your side, from what I've heard from talking with people who voted 3rd and independent, which main party president they considered the lesser of two evils is actually pretty mixed among them, meaning even if they had to vote for one of the two, I guarantee they wouldn't all vote for Clinton anyway (I can't even say for sure if the majority would), meaning your point is moot. I don't like Trump either, but this post isn't going to do you any favors in convincing people to your side, as it only makes it look like you can't let go of the past.

Those throwing away their votes or not voting are fucktards. This post is not about the past, but the upcoming midterms. Those reading this blogpost now know 2 things:

1. They should vote.
2. They should not throw away their votes.

4895739

I do not speak French but YouTube translated the subtitles. The video is about voting systems:

1. Plurality
2. Single runoff
3. Instant runoff
4. Borda-Count
5. Condorcet

Condorcet is the best of these. I must warn you about instant runoff:

We have plurality because we had voice-voting:

Ed goes to the Clerk recording votes and says:
“I vote for Bob.”

Because of this, we have the overvoterule; one can vote for only 1 candidate. This leads to Duverger’s Law:

“Similar candidates split the vote, thus leading to defeat. This leads to all but 2 parties dying.”

Surely, you noticed that Republicrats and Democans dominate politically.

Voters want reform, but politicians winning under the current system may not win under a new system, so they invented IRV (instant-runoff voting) as a false reform perserving 2-party domination:

In IRV, one ranks the candidates. All voters on the left make the Democrat their fallback choice. All voters on the right make the Republican their fallback choice. All votes flow to the 2 major parties.

IRV is better than plurality:

If we would have had IRV in 2000, Gore would have won, but it is almost impossible for Nader to win.

Politicians in Australia invented IRV over a century ago.

FairVote, a group pushing IRV, call it Ranked-Choice Voting as a way of implying that it is the only kind of ranked-choice voting (the video also show the ranked-choice methods Borda-Count and Condorcet).

A much better solution exists:

Remove the overvote rule.

Let us suppose that Anna and Bob run for office. The results are:

Anna:
60%

Bob:
40%

Carl joins the election. Carl is similar to Anna. The new results are:

Anna:
31%

Bob:
40%

Carl:
29%

Let us remove the overvoterule:

Anna:
60%

Bob:
40%

Carl:
59%

¡Anna wins!

This is called approval voting. Approval voting is not susceptible to vote-splitting. Approval voting allows 3rd parties and independents to win. GPGrey has a video about approval voting:

Electorama also has an article about approval voting:

http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/approval_voting

A more advanced form of approval voting is score-voting (also known as range-voting):

http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/range_voting

[NicLove]

4896038 I know
5:15

https://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey/search?query=vote

[Walabio]

4896043

I was a little tired. Now that I got some rest, I see that I forgot some stuff which might interest you:

As I stated, Plurality developed from voice-voting. It did not take long for people to realize that it sucks. Logically, the thing to do is to remove the overvoterule. Unfortunately, many people believe that more complicated is better; so now, people turned to ranked voting. This happened in the USA in the late 19th Century:

The American James W. Bucklin invented Bucklin. It is a ranked system. This is how one counts the votes:

1. Count the 1st-ranked votes.
2. If a candidate receives over 50%, that candidate wins. If no candidate receives 50%, add the 2nd-placed votes.
3. Repeat until a candidate receives over 50%
4. If 2 or more candidates receive over 50% of the votes, the candidate receiving the greater number wins

http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Bucklin_voting

Let us suppose that we have 2 candidates. They are Anna and Bob. In an head-to-head election, the results are:

Anna:
60%

Bob:
40%

Clara enters the race. She is very similar to Anna. They split the vote thus:

Anna:
30%

Bob:
40%

Clara:
30%

At this stage none have over 50%. We add second choices:

Anna:
76%

Bob:
40%

Clara:
74%

¡Anna wins!

¿What happened?

The supporters of Anna and Clara had each others’ candidate as their 2nd choice and the supporters of Bob had to rank either Anna or Clara as their 2nd Choice.

¿Why is it that we do not use Bucklin today?:

Under Bucklin, 3rd parties and independents started winning. The Republicrats and Democans considered Bucklin an existential threat to their duopoly, if not their parties. They teamed together to get rid of Bucklin by means both fair and foul —— ¡mostly foul! Bucklin was mostly defeated before the WWⅠ, although a few municipalities held onto Bucklin into the interwar years.

¿Why do not American Schools teach American Children about Bucklin?:

The Democans and Republicrats do not want American Children to learn about a system which allows 3rd parties and independents to win.

¿Why does FairVote push Australian IRV which does not allow 3rd parties and independents to win instead American Bucklin which allows independents and 3rd parties to win?:

The purpose of FairVote is to prevent real reform.

¿What is the best system?:

For single-winner, computersimulations indicate that Score-Voting (AKA Range-Voting) is best. One votes on a scale from -9 to +9 skipping over 0 —— ¡voting 0 is just being wishy/washy! One give the worst candidate a score of -9 and the best candidate a score of +9. One rates all other candidates relative to these 2 candidates. Unranked candidates get -9. One sums the votes.

http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/range_voting

For proportional multiwinner, Asset-Voting is best:

One give one’s favorite candidate a vote. Candidates trade votes until the legislature is seated. Professor of Mathematics Charles Dodgson who wrote Children’s Books under the name Lewis Carroll invented Asset-Voting.

http://scorevoting.net/Asset.html

[Walabio]

4896043

Last Lesson, Redistricting:

If politicians can choose their voters democracy breaks down. As an example, if not for Gerrymandering, the House of Representatives would have flipped back to the Democratic Party in 2012. Since humans have agendas, it is best to get them out of the process. 2 shorts of algorithms exist:

• Maximizing Compactness
• Repetative Splitting

Because of the urban/rural-divide, maximizing compactness generates 60%/40%-districts. In such districts, only primaries matter and one gets candidates on the left wanting to nationalize all industry and candidates on the right wanting to abolish Social Security for putting the lazy old people back to work.

Repetitive splitting generates 55%/45%-districts. In these districts candidates have to worry about electability. This leads to reasonable candidates winning. This is an example of a splitting algorithm called SplitLine:

1. Start with the boundary outline of the state.
2. Let A = [N/2], B=[N/2]
3. Among all possible dividing lines that split the state into two parts with population ratio A:B, choose the shortest. (Notes: since the Earth is round, when we say "line" we more precisely mean "great circle." If there is an exact length-tie for "shortest" then break that tie by using the line closest to North-South orientation, and if it's still a tie, then use the Westernmost of the tied dividing lines. "Length" means distance between the two furthest-apart points on the line, that both lie within the district being split.)
4. We now have two hemi-states, each to contain a specified number (namely A and B) of districts. Handle them recursively via the same splitting procedure.

This is how the USA would look if it would be redistricted using SplitLine:

rangevoting.org/USsplitLine.png

The total number representatives should be the square-root of the population. If one has multiple tiers, each tier should have the cube-root of the number of population, with total number of seats at all tiers adding up to more than the square-root of the population. The House of Representatives should have 676 members. Ideally, we would have a Senate where states get representation, an House of Districts for regions, and an House of proportional representation. The size of the latter 2 houses should be set to the cube-root of the population.

• Get rid of the OverVote Rule, thus making elections approval.
• Use SplitLine.

Examples of our unbiased district-drawing algorithm in action / comparisons with gerrymandered districts drawn by politicians