Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What if Your President's Just Not That Into You?
Tomorrow in Washington, at the sprawling and wonderful Power Shift, a few of us are on a panel titled "What If Your President's Just Not That Into You?" Funny title, serious question.
The first thing: those of us in the environmental movement aren't high school sophomores feeling jilted by their first crush. Most of us liked Obama a lot: I was among the first green leaders to join upon 'Environmentalists for Obama,' back when he seemed a longshot. It wasn't because I thought he would solve every problem; it's because I thought he'd make climate change one of the top two priorities of his presidency. And he thought so too: on the day in June of 2008 when he finally clinched the nomination he said that people would someday look back and say "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
And it's not that we don't appreciate what he has done. He's been far better than George Bush (even if that is a little like saying 'I drink more beer than my ten-year-old niece.") We have higher gas mileage standards; the stimulus package funded plenty of green projects; at least some of the most egregious mountaintop removal mining practices are being regulated. All good.
But when the political going got a little tough, Obama didn't. By all accounts he watched from the sidelines as the cap-and-trade law went down to defeat last summer. He famously allowed vast new leases for offshore oil drilling weeks before the BP explosion. In the last couple of weeks, the administration has ably defended the Clean Air Act against ham-handed Congressional assault. But they've also done two things really beyond the pale:
1) Opened 750 million tons of coal beneath federal land in Wyoming to mining. It makes one wonder if the president has really understood his climate science briefings: any hope of warding off global warming depends on keeping that carbon in the ground. Had this happened under Bush, it would have caused real outrage. When burned, that coal will give off as much co2 as opening 300 new coal-fired power plants and running them for a year.
2) Walked away from the global climate talks. His chief negotiator, Todd Stern, gave a little-noticed interview to Bloomberg News earlier this month. He said a global climate pact was both "not doable" and "unworkable." He added that "legally binding international obligations to cut emissions are not necessary," because individual nations could make their own pledges. This was pretty much the Bush administration formula, and it is amazing to hear it coming from Obama's officials. If they stick to it (and other countries follow their lead), there is no hope of dealing with global warming in time; it really will be the death knell of effective action.
And it underscores the reason that many of us are left wondering how to deal with the president. Climate change, above all issues, requires a transformative and not an incremental vision. We have fundamental change to make, and a very short window to make it in--Obama's typical (and often quite savvy) little-bit-at-a-time approach doesn't square with the physics and chemistry that govern this debate.
It's that physics and chemistry that really trouble me. I understand political reality, and I'm glad I don't have Obama's job; it's tough. But I know that reality reality trumps political reality--I know that unless he shows some powerful leadership soon we're going to lose this fight. At which point the question of who's president will be less important.
119 Comments so far
Show All".......i know that unless he shows real leadership soon......."
et tu william?
Friday evening 4/15.
I'm suspicious by disposition, but it's awfully convenient that the president was "accidentally" recorded talking tough about Republican budget proposals. The leader of the free world with nuclear war at his fingertips, secret agents of the all our friends and enemies using state-of-the-art spy tech trying to listen in, and he's caught with an open mike, saying exactly the sort of stuff progressive pundits (what few there are) have been saying they'd been hoping to hear him say. Now additional recordings have surfaced has him complaining about the low tech White House phone systems. A leak and a cover story that explains the leak all coming out at the same time. Maybe.
Whoever picked Barack Obama is the political casting director of all time. I even voted for him, and I hadn't voted for a candidate for president since George McGovern in 1972. I should have paid attention when he said that we had to get out of Iraq but that Afghanistan is the "good war." I should have paid more attention to the teeny suspicion I had that he was too good to be true. I won't get fooled again, to quote the old rock song. We'll see next year if the rest of the land is on the same page as me (that would indeed be a first).
To those on another thread who think that he's a misguided progressive who needs only to find his way, I can only say I think that isn't true.
Apparently those who are deciding what he's to do and say have concluded that things won't get critically bad for another five years, so he can run for another term. I don't know what he "actually" thinks and I no longer care.
I've said that I believe environmental issues are the biggest problem facing humankind and I agree with McKibbon here so I'll cut and paste the sentence I like best: "Climate change, above all issues, requires a transformative and not an incremental vision. We have fundamental change to make, and a very short window to make it in--Obama's typical (and often quite savvy) little-bit-at-a-time approach doesn't square with the physics and chemistry that govern this debate,"
My situation is very similar to yours PP, I voted for Obama after 25 years of direct action environmental activism and voting for Nader or Leonard Peltier for President. Mea Culpa Cynthia McKinney! Sorry!
When you cast your vote in a Plurality Voting election, Plurality Voting unduly restricts your constitutionally protected rights to freedom of speech and freedom of political association in ways that favor candidates supported by wealthy elites, thereby also violating the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Plurality Voting should be replaced with a consent dissent grading scale base voting procedure like Yes No ‘Maybe So’ Voting (YNMS) or Category Scale Power Voting (CSPV) which respects your opinions and permits you to exercise political power free of the coercion typically present in Plurality Voting elections.
You don’t need to apologize to Cynthia McKinney.
We need to force our state legislatures to replace Plurality Voting with Yes No ‘Maybe So’ Voting (YNMS) or Category Scale Voting (CSPV), so that you and so many other voters can support and oppose candidates on the ballot as you see fit.
If YNMS or CSPV had been used in the 2008 Presidential Election you could have supported Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney and Barack Obama while opposing John McCain and any others on the ballot. Had you figured out the Obama thing before the election, you could have opposed Obama as well.
[Please note: The dashed underline is needed here to maintain the ballot's two dimensional structure upon entering the post as a comment.]
* * * * *
EXAMPLE BALLOTS
These two YNMS and CSPV ballots are equivalent.
2008 Presidential Election
Example YNMS Ballot for a single Ralph Nader supporter
[3 columns]
Candidate _ _ _ _ _ Yes _ _ _ No
John McCain _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Barack Obama _ _ _ X _ _ _ _ _X
Cynthia McKinney_ _X _ _ _ _ _X
Ralph Nader _ _ _ _ _X
Bob Barr _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Chuck Baldwin _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
- - - - -
2008 Presidential Election
Example CSPV Ballot for a single Ralph Nader supporter
[6 columns]
Candidate _ _ Most Oppose_Oppose_ No Comment_Support_Most Support
John McCain _ _ _ _X
Barack Obama _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Cynthia McKinney_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Ralph Nader _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Bob Barr _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Chuck Baldwin _ _ _ X
Instant runoff voting does the same thing and is less cumbersome, but yeah the two party duopoly needs to be broken.
(Part 1 of 4)
Instant Runoff Voting violates the consent of the governed
(The "We Hate Them" test - 3 person example)
- - - - -
guitarist wrote (in response to PuffinThrush):
"Instant runoff voting does the same thing and is less cumbersome, but yeah the two party duopoly needs to be broken."
- - - -
My Reply:
Actually, Instant Runoff Voting is incapable of doing the same thing as Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting (YNMS) or Category Scale Power Voting (CSPV).
As I am sure you must know Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is not based upon expressions of consent and dissent, but rather is based upon voters ranking the candidates by preference.
Preference based voting procedures are incapable of determining whether or not the consent of the governed exists within the electorate (i.e. potential voters) for any of the candidates on the ballot.
Instant Runoff Voting cannot even pass the "We Hate Them" test when a "None of the Other" option is added to the ballot.
Consider first this simple three person "We Hate Them" test. We won't test with a "None of the Others" option added just yet.
Person 1:
Prefers Candidate A to Candidate B
Supports Candidate A but opposes Candidate B
Person 2:
Prefers Candidate A to Candidate B
But opposes both Candidate A and Candidate B
Person 3:
Prefers Candidate B to Candidate A
Supports Candidate B but opposes Candidate A
Please note
There are obviously 3 people in this electorate.
Candidate A is opposed by a majority consisting of Person 2 and Person 3.
Candidate B is opposed by a majority consisting of Person 1 and Person 2.
If Person 2 (who is experiencing a "lesser of two evils" dilemma) votes, then IRV will elect Candidate A who is opposed by a majority of the voters.
If Person 2 does not vote then IRV results in this simple example in a tie. That generally means that one of the two candidates will be chosen somehow. But please remember that both Candidate A and Candidate B are opposed by a majority of the electorate.
Election results for Plurality Voting are, of course, the same.
Voters in a Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting (YNMS) or Category Scale Power Voting (CSPV) election are able to reject both Candidate A and Candidate B, which is the correct answer consistent with the idea of the consent of the governed and the only truthful election outcome.
Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting both manufacture the appearance of consent even when no consent exists within the electorate for any of the candidates on the ballot.
This contributes to the manufacture of another kind of consent by promoting the belief that elections are democratic and can determine the consent of the governed, and that the people are sovereign and the government itself is leigitimate.
In other words, the manufacture of the appearance of consent for the candidate elected against the will of the people by Plurality Voting or IRV, in the above example that was Candidate A, leads to the belief and to common agreement (i.e. consent) that we live in a genuine democracy with fair elections and a government based upon the consent of the governed.
Of course, most anyone who spends much time posting comments here knows that is not true because of the enormous amount of money involved in the election of candidates to office.
But what they probably don't know is that both Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting are in themselves an obstacle to the implementation of genuine democracy in the United States. Both Plurality Voting and IRV favor candidates supported by the elite members of society (although IRV isn't as bad in this respect as Plurality Voting) and contribute to the propaganda that elections in the United States are fair and democratic.
(Part 2 of 4)
Instant Runoff Voting violates the consent of the governed
(The "We Hate Them" test - 9 person example)
- - - - -
guitarist wrote (in response to PuffinThrush):
"Instant runoff voting does the same thing and is less cumbersome, but yeah the two party duopoly needs to be broken."
- - - -
My Reply:
In Part 1 it was demonstrated that, Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is incapable of doing the same thing as Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting (YNMS) or Category Scale Power Voting (CSPV), because IRV cannot pass the "We Hate Them" test and is incapable of determining whether or not the consent of the governed actually exists for any of the candidates on the ballot in an election.
Here is the somewhat more complicated example of the "We Hate Them" test, which demonstrates that neither Plurality Voting nor IRV can pass the "We Hate Them" test even when a "None of the Above" (NOTA) or a "None of the Other" (NOTO) option is added to Plurality Voting and IRV respectively.
Please note that this next example has been derived from the previous example in Part 1 by taking the three descriptions of opinion for the three persons in Part 1 and using those descriptions as the descriptions of the opinions of the individual people in the three groups of people used in the next example.
Group 1 - (4 people):
Prefers Candidate A to Candidate B
Supports Candidate A but opposes Candidate B
Group 2 - (2 people):
Prefers Candidate A to Candidate B
But opposes both Candidate A and Candidate B
Person 3 - (3 people):
Prefers Candidate B to Candidate A
Supports Candidate B but opposes Candidate A
Please note:
There are 9 people in this electorate.
Candidate A is opposed by a majority consisting of 2 people in Group 2 plus the 3 people in Group 3.
Candidate B is opposed by a majority consisting of 4 people in Group 1 plus 2 people in Group 2.
A Plurality Voting election with a "None of the Above" option added will elect Candidate A with 4 votes against 3 votes for Candidate B and 2 votes for "None of the Above". The winner is still Candidate A even if the 2 people in Group 2 decide not to vote.
An Instant Runoff Voting election with a "None of the Others" option added initially results in no candidate receiving a preferential majority from the voters.
Since the "None of the Others" option has received the fewest number of IRV 1st ranked votes, just 2 from the 2 people in Group 2, the "None of the Others" option is eliminated and the 2 votes from the 2 people in Group 2 go to their preferred Candidate A giving Canidate A a 6 to 3 preferential majority victory over Candidate B.
If the 2 people in Group 2 decide not to vote, then IRV elects Candidate A with a 4 to 3 preferential majority of Candidate A over Candidate B.
But remember both Candidate A and Candidate B are opposed by a majority of the voters.
An individual voter who is not permitted to dissent and vote against individual candidates on the ballot does not have very much power, certainly not the kind of power that has anything to do with genuine consent.
A group of voters who are not permitted to dissent and vote against individual candidates on the ballot does not have very much power, certainly not the kind of power that has anything to do with genuine consent of the governed.
"We The People" are supposed to be the boss, we are suppose to be the ultimate sovereign of the nation that is called the United States of America and of each of the individual fifty states. That is the myth anyway.
If a boss or hiring manager goes through a pool of job applicants and none of the applicants is qualified for the job, that boss or hiring manager has 3 choices.
1) Seek more applicants.
-- (This means another election. In YNMS & CSPV elections
-- people who receive write-in votes if they don't win outright may
-- qualify (i.e. be nominated) as additional candidates for listing on
-- the ballot in the next election when more "applicants" are
-- needed.)
2) Lower the qualification standards.
-- (YNMS & CSPV automatically use a plurality consent standard
-- when there is no majority consent.)
3) Don't hire anyone if that is possible.
-- (There may be some elected government jobs that can remain
-- unfilled.)
When the selection of someone for government office is involved, it may make some sense to add another option to the 3 already mentioned that permits the appointment to office (preferably by another already elected official like a governor or group of elected officials like the members of a the upper or lower house of the legislature) to fill the job (possibly just temporarily) until an election can be held.
4) Appointment by already elected official or group of officials.
-- (e.g. a governor or the members of a the upper or lower house
-- of the legislature)
Using a voting procedure like YNMS or CSPV which gives voters the power of a boss and that produces election results that tell the truth is better than using voting procedures like Plurality Voting or IRV which essentially give the advantage to the elite and contribute to the barrage of propaganda about the supposedly democratic society we live in.
Finally, determining the election outcome in YNMS or CSPV elections is not difficult and when there are more than three candidates should be faster than determining the outcome in IRV elections.
(Part 3 of 4)
Instant Runoff Voting violates the consent of the governed
(The Majority Rule Voting Paradox)
- - - - -
guitarist wrote (in response to PuffinThrush):
"Instant runoff voting does the same thing and is less cumbersome, but yeah the two party duopoly needs to be broken."
- - - -
My Reply:
Another set of circumstances under which Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) violates the consent of the governed and is unable to do what Yes No ‘Maybe So’ Voting (YNMS) and Category Scale Power Voting (CSPV) can do is whenever a Majority Rule Voting Paradox (MRVP) exists within the electorate and that instance of MRVP involves the “leading” candidate.
Once again this will be demonstrated through a simple 3 person example involving only 2 candidates.
Person 1:
Prefers Candidate A to Candidate B
Supports both Candidate A and Candidate B
Person 2:
Prefers Candidate A to Candidate B
Opposes both Candidate A and Candidate B
Person 3
Prefers Candidate B to Candidate A
Supports Candidate B but opposes Candidate A
The 3 people making of this electorate prefer Candidate A by a 2 to 1 majority consisting of Person 1 and Person 2 against Person 3.
But these same 3 people oppose the preferred Candidate A by a 2 to 1 majority consisting of Person 2 and Person 3 against Person 1
While these same 3 people support the less preferred Candidate B by a 2 to 1 majority consisting of Person 1 and Person 3.
Hence the paradox!
Because both Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting are preference based voting procedures, both Plurality Voting and IRV will always elect Candidate A the candidate opposed by a majority of the electorate rather than Candidate B the candidate supported by a majority of the electorate.
If Person 2 does not vote because Person 2 opposes both candidates, then both Plurality Voting and IRV will result in a tie. Tie breaking rules typically used with these two voting procedures require the election of someone to office. But neither Plurality Voting nor IRV collect the information needed from the voters to identify Candidate B as the candidate supported by a majority of the electorate.
This of course violates the fundamental democratic principle of the consent of the governed. Yet, genuinely democratic government is supposed to derive its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
(Part 4 of 4)
Instant Runoff Voting offers little to voters suffering from the “Lesser of Two Evil” Dilemma
(“Lesser of Two Evils” Dilemma)
- - - - -
guitarist wrote (in response to PuffinThrush):
"Instant runoff voting does the same thing and is less cumbersome, but yeah the two party duopoly needs to be broken."
- - - -
My Reply:
Clearly, you were unable to take the time to actually think about the voting possibilities that were suggested by the sample Yes No ‘Maybe So’ Voting (YNMS) and Category Scale Power Voting (CSPV) ballots I posted earlier.
That's ok.
So, I am posting some additional sample ballots that demonstrate some of the possibilities offered by YNMS and CSPV to voters suffering from the “lesser of two evils” dilemma that are not provided by Instant Runoff Voting.
[Please note: The dashed underline is needed here to maintain the ballot's two dimensional structure upon entering the post as a comment.]
* * * * *
EXAMPLE BALLOTS
Instant Runoff Voting does not allow voters to express a preference between the two major party candidates without supporting either major party candidate while at the same time supporting or opposing any of the other candidates on the ballot. But both Yes No ‘Maybe So’ Voting and Category Scale Power Voting do.
These two YNMS and CSPV ballots are equivalent.
2008 Presidential Election
Example YNMS Ballot for a single Ralph Nader supporter
[3 columns]
Candidate _ _ _ _ _ Yes _ _ _ No
John McCain _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Barack Obama
Cynthia McKinney_ _X _ _ _ _ _X
Ralph Nader _ _ _ _ _X
Bob Barr _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Chuck Baldwin _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
- - - - -
2008 Presidential Election
Example CSPV Ballot for a single Ralph Nader supporter
[6 columns]
Candidate_MostOppose_Oppose_NoComment_Support_MostSupport
John McCain _ _X
Barack Obama _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Cynthia McKinney_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Ralph Nader _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Bob Barr _ _ _ _ X
Chuck Baldwin _ X
* * * * *
Instant Runoff Voting does not allow voters to express a preference between the two major party candidates while opposing both major party candidates and at the same time supporting or opposing any of the other candidates on the ballot. But Category Scale Power Voting does.
2008 Presidential Election
Example CSPV Ballot for a single Ralph Nader supporter
[6 columns]
Candidate_MostOppose_Oppose_NoComment_Support_MostSupport
John McCain _ _X
Barack Obama_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Cynthia McKinney_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Ralph Nader_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Bob Barr _ _ _ _ X
Chuck Baldwin _ X
* * * * *
Instant Runoff Voting does not allow voters to oppose both of the two major party candidates without expressing a preference between them while at the same time supporting or opposing any of the other candidates on the ballot. But both Yes No ‘Maybe So’ Voting and Category Scale Power Voting do.
These two YNMS and CSPV ballots are equivalent.
2008 Presidential Election
Example YNMS Ballot for a single Ralph Nader supporter
[3 columns]
Candidate _ _ _ _ _ Yes _ _ _ No
John McCain _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Barack Obama _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Cynthia McKinney_ _X _ _ _ _ _X
Ralph Nader _ _ _ _ _X
Bob Barr _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Chuck Baldwin _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
- - - - -
Example YNMS Ballot for a single Ralph Nader supporter
[6 columns]
Candidate_MostOppose_Oppose_NoComment_Support_MostSupport
John McCain _ _X
Barack Obama _ X
Cynthia McKinney_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Ralph Nader _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Bob Barr _ _ _ _ X
Chuck Baldwin _ X
Duplicate.
Borrowing from that song, PP, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"...
So, would you rather have had "Gramps and Barbie"? Who are you going to vote for next time, "The Donald"? I voted for Ralph Nader many times, and we all know how that turned out. By the time a name makes it on to the presidential ballot, almost all hope of any progressive action is gone. We've been lucky to have gotten what we have out of this one, but you realize that Nixon was more progressive on the environment than Obama has been. What really matters is who we send to Congress, our state governors mansions, our local councils, even our school boards. As the right-wing-nut-job party well knows, you don't change politics from the top down, you change it from the bottom up. Want to change the world? run for school board.
You remind me of people who say: I've been re-cycling for years. Where has that gotten us? People just consume more.
Or the shy guy who says: I asked a girl out and she said no! I will never date again. It doesn't work, it's not a "viable" exercise.
You are expecting instant results. It's a lazy way of looking at activism. You have to work up to things, build a base, dig in your heels, quit lowering your standards.
While I and many others here have had the same voice, the same standards of political discourse and decency all throughout the 30 or more years of relentless propaganda, too many have given in.
You can't complain about Obama "giving in" when you do it yourself.
Progressive voters must be the example of steadfastness. If you allow yourselves to be jerked to and fro with every duopolistic propaganda campaign, you'll lose in the end.
"Whenever we compromised, we lost." the late David Brower, Arch Druid
ccairnes and rvrwalker,
Whether presidential elections, gubernatorial elections, or mayoral elections, or whatever; Plurality Voting is still a problem whenever used in elections.
Plurality Voting unduly restricts each voter's constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of political association in ways that favor candidates backed by wealthly elites, thereby also violating the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.
We need to force our state legislatures to replace Plurality Voting with a consent dissent grading scale based voting procedure like Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting (YNMS) or Category Scale Power Voting (CSPV).
Voters are supposed to be able to decide how they will vote free of the coerciion typical of Plurality Voting elections.
If we had either YNMS or CSPV in 2010 in the Wisconsin Gubernatorial Election, maybe the ballots cast by many Wisconsinites, including all those "enthusiasm gap" Wisconsinites who did not vote in 2010, would have looked something like the ballots depicted below!
[Please note: The dashed underline is needed here to maintain the ballot's two dimensional structure upon entering the post as a comment.]
* * * * *
EXAMPLE BALLOTS
These two YNMS and CSPV ballots are equivalent.
Voters would have been able to oppose both the Republican Scott Walker and the Democrat Tom Barrett without expressing a preference between them while supporting or opposing any of the other candidates including write-in candidates such as Mary Harris "Mother" Jones on the ballot.
2010 Wisconsin Gubernatorial Election
Example YNMS Ballot for a single Mary Jones ‘write-in’ supporter
[3 columns]
Candidate _ _ _ _ _ Yes _ _ _ No
Scott Walker_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Tom Barrett _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Jim Langer
James James
Terry Virgil
write-in:
mary jones _ _ _ _ _ _X
- - - - -
2010 Wisconsin Election
Example CSPV Ballot for a single Mary Jones ‘write-in’supporter
[6 columns]
Candidate_MostOppose_Oppose_ NoComment_Support_MostSupport
Scott Walker_ _ _X
Tom Barrett _ _ _ X
Jim Langer _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
James James _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Terry Virgil _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __X
write-in:
mary jones_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
- - - - -
These two YNMS and CSPV ballots are equivalent.
Voters would have been able to express a preference between the Republican Scott Walker and the Democrat Tom Barrett without supporting either Walker or Barrett while at the same time supporting or opposing any of the other candidates including write-in candidates such as Justin Case on the ballot
2010 Wisconsin Gubernatorial Election
Example YNMS Ballot for a single Justin Case ‘write-in’ supporter
[3 columns]
Candidate _ _ _ _ _ Yes _ _ _ No
Scott Walker_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Tom Barrett
Jim Langer
James James
Terry Virgil
write-in:
justin case_ _ _ _ _ _X
- - - - -
2010 Wisconsin Election
Example CSPV Ballot for a single Justin Case ‘write-in’ supporter
[6 columns]
Candidate_MostOppose_Oppose_ NoComment_Support_MostSupport
Scott Walker_ _X
Tom Barrett _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Jim Langer_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
James James _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Terry Virgil _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
write-in:
justin case _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
- - - - -
Or perhaps the CSPV ballot might have looked like this, for which there is no YNMS equivalent.
Voters would have been able to express a preference between the Republican Scott Walker and the Democrat Tom Barrett while opposing both Walker and Barrett and supporting or opposing any of the other candidates including write in candidates such as Rita Ready on the ballot
2010 Wisconsin Election
Example CSPV Ballot for a single Rita Ready ‘write-in’ supporter
[6 columns]
Candidate_MostOppose_Oppose_ NoComment_Support_MostSupport
Scott Walker_ _X
Tom Barrett _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Jim Langer _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
James James _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Terry Virgil _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __X
write-in:
rita ready _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
- - - - -
These two YNMS and CSPV ballots are equivalent.
Voters would have been able to express a preference for Democrat Tom Barrett over Republican Scott Walker, while supporting Tom Barrett and opposing Scott Walker, and also supporting or opposing any of the other candidates including write-in candidates such as Norma Paine on the ballot.
2010 Wisconsin Gubernatorial Election
Example YNMS Ballot for a single Norma Paine ‘write-in’ supporter
[3 columns]
Candidate _ _ _ _ _ Yes _ _ _ No
Scott Walker_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Tom Barrett _ _ _ _ _ X_ _ _ _ X
Jim Langer
James James
Terry Virgil
write-in:
norma paine _ _ _ _ _X
- - - - -
2010 Wisconsin Election
Example CSPV Ballot for a single Norma Paine ‘write-in’supporter
[6 columns]
Candidate_MostOppose_Oppose_ NoComment_Support_MostSupport
Scott Walker_ _ _X
Tom Barrett _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Jim Langer _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
James James _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Terry Virgil _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __X
write-in:
norma paine_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
You said it well PP. Seems many of us were fooled first time around. Obama cured me of my ridiculous obsession with voting.
I think it's important to vote him out as an object lesson to the Democratic party which has forgotten that they aren't the Republicans. If we buy weak sauce, we'll just get more of it. Don't sit home, or you'll be categorized as indifferent, when that isn't the case at all. Stand up and be counted as angry with the direction things are going.
I think it was Harry Truman who said, "Given a Republican and a Democrat who talks like a Republican, the voters will pick the Republican every time."
lora and pundaint,
Plurality Voting is fucked up!
People shouldn’t have to vote for a candidate they don’t like in order to vote against a candidate they detest.
Plurality Voting unduly restricts your constitutionally protected rights to freedom of speech and freedom of political association in ways that favor candidates supported by wealthy elites, thereby also violating the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Plurality Voting should be replaced with a consent dissent grading scale base voting procedure like Yes No ‘Maybe So’ Voting (YNMS) or Category Scale Power Voting (CSPV) which respects your opinions and permits you to exercise political power free of the coercion typically present in Plurality Voting elections.
We need to force our state legislatures to replace Plurality Voting with Yes No ‘Maybe So’ Voting (YNMS) or Category Scale Voting (CSPV), so that you and so many other voters can support and oppose candidates on the ballot as you see fit.
If either YNMS or CSPV were in place for the 2012 election (not at all likely of course), you could vote Barack Obama out without having to sell you soul to some other devil. The vote that you cast might look like one of the following ballots.
[Please note: The dashed underline is needed here to maintain the ballot's two dimensional structure upon entering the post as a comment.]
* * * * *
EXAMPLE BALLOTS
These two YNMS and CSPV ballots are equivalent.
2012 Presidential Election
Example YNMS Ballot for a single Barack Obama opponent with 3 write-in candidates
[3 columns]
Candidate _ _ _ _ _ Yes _ _ _ No
“republican”_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Barack Obama _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
“green” _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
“libertarian” _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
write-in
justin case_ _ _ _ _ _ X_ _ _ _ _X
write-in
norma paine _ _ _ _ _ X
write-in
david duke_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
- - - - -
2012 Presidential Election
Example CSPV Ballot for a single Barack Obama opponent with 3 write-in candidates
[6 columns]
Candidate _ _ Most Oppose_Oppose_ No Comment_Support_Most Support
”republican” _ _ _ _X
Barack Obama _ _ X
“green_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
“libertarian” _ _ _ _ X
write-in
justin case_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
write-in
norma paine _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
write-in
david duke_ _ _ _ _ X
- - - - -
This CSPV ballot permits the voter to express a preference for the libertarian candidate over Barack Obama and the republican candidate while opposing all three and supporting or opposing any other candidates on the ballot as the voters see fit to do. There is no YNMS equivalent to this CSPV ballot.
2012 Presidential Election
Example CSPV Ballot for a single Barack Obama opponent with 3 write-in candidates[6 columns]
Candidate _ _ Most Oppose_Oppose_ No Comment_Support_Most Support
”republican” _ _ _ _ X
Barack Obama _ _ X
“green_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
“libertarian” _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
write-in
justin case_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
write-in
norma paine _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
write-in
david duke_ _ _ _ _ X
wow...so, if Obama doesn't get it done, we lose this fight?
what fight, Bill?
begging isn't fighting...
I never understand the use of the word 'fight' when no fighting is occurring...
writing the word 'fight' seems so...tough...
but isn't...
the real fight would come when all the world's peoples refuse to pay the landlords our mortgages and rents anymore...when the ownership of property is negated, and energy use is curtailed...
which we could do, all toghether, on September 22, 2012...
the president is a criminal...he works for other criminals...
Agreed, but why 9/22/12?
I just chose that day as the end of an upcoming growing season...the equinox...
locally growing food is vital...I wanted to encourage those not growing to begin...
I don't think our planet's ecology can hold out much longer, so I chose a date not too far out...
Obama is a notorious war criminal and traitor. The United States has laws, a few of which even make sense, and the laws state that the country doesn't go to war unless Congress approves. Did the Congress approve the Libyan war? No. There we go - treason.
Then we have International Laws, according to which attacking another country is the ultimate crime. There we go - Obama, Sarkozy - the whole bunch of the damn war-whores are war criminals.
The above are only a couple of Obama's many crimes. At this stage serious people should be talking about impeachment and trial. Questions like "What if the president isn't into you?" belong to the lunatic fringe. Of course the president isn't "into you!" The guy is a corporate whore, a puppet of the elite, a nihilist opportunist. Obama is pro-Obama and pro-Obama's-owners. He doesn't care about you. None of them do! The elite doesn't care about you! To them you are cattle. So when you go to the nice schools and jobs the elite has organized for you, and when you support the nice causes the elite has created for you ("global warming", "hope&change", "slut pride" (in Toronto), gay marriage, democracy in Libya (hehehehe), etc...), expect to be treated like cattle.
So I take it you do not support the democratic aspirations of other people
Ah . . . you're confusing terminology. We're not at war in Libya. We're creating a no-fly zone. Now, doesn't that make you feel a lot better? Repeat after me . . . War is Peace, Hate is Love, . . . .
We have to face facts! Nothing serious is going to be done about global warming in the near future. There are just too many selfish people who stand to lose money if effective steps were to be taken.
Jim Shea
Jim Shea succinctly sums it up.
Nice article by Bill, and we're all glad that Naomi Klein is now on the Board of 350.org. It's easy for some of us to be distracted from the reality that the tipping point is fast approaching and that the Evildoers have successfully sold denial.
As Bill points out, politics, Obama, and lots of other "issues" will lose relevance as climate change goes exponential. The article seems quite understated and PC because the author is a professional - he avoids being as confrontational as he deserves to be.
This is serious shit. Mother Nature is very angry.
Remember: Nature bats last.
....obama is a venal corporate prick.......the so-called left cannot tell this truth and therefore is impotent.....the environment is in a death spiral and so is culture as we know it....in other words we're doomed! (pp--you are a piss poor pessimist....peace)
Re: Obama, Mr. McKibben writes" And it's not that we don't appreciate was he's done". What???? That lying sack of crap has done nothing to help the healing of our planet. He panders to corporations and will continue to do so.
Whatever so-called "good" he did was beyond wiped off the slate in spades by the crimes committed in the Gulf region and the call for more nukes right after the earthquake in Japan -- and that is just to name two. Clean coal, anyone? Phrases like "not that we don't appreciate what he's done" sound like begging or, excuse me, Mr. Obama, I don't want to sound like I'm whining or asking too much, but, but ... Bull crap! This man is not your employer and not your owner. He is your employee. He is a public servant. They all are. I have no respect for the man and I would have no problems telling him right to his face and why. And, yes, he is also a war criminal, as is his predecessor. They don't deserve deference, they don't deserve respect.
>They don't deserve deference, they don't deserve respect.<
This is something many americans don't seem to get, most especially our self-styled congressional overlords; They are nothing but a pack of Civil Servants! not our masters, not our superiors, That goes for the loser + cheif currently living in government housing! (the white house) He is firs servant to the coustitution, then to the people! two jobs he's done a piss, poor job at.
I respect a good job, not a position, or person.
>^^<
Samalabear and RichardsCatz,
Well, actually they way we elect / hire people for government office does not follow the standard process typically used in for profit and non-profit corporations or in other kinds of organizations in the rest of society.
That’s because Plurality Voting is used in most elections of government officials; and Plurality Voting is a preference based voting procedure, rather than a consent dissent grading scale based voting procedure.
Plurality Voting requires that the voter indicate which one of the candidates is the voter's most preferred candidate. All other candidates are grouped together as less preferred candidates. At no point does Plurality Voting actually permit voters to directly express support or opposition for or against any of the candidates on the ballot.
Anyway, you know how the typical hiring process works: advertize the job, receive résumés or applications from interested candidates, go through the résumés or applications individually discarding unqualified candidates, and then pick the best candidate from the remaining qualified candidates, if any. If none of the original candidates are qualified: seek additional candidates, or adjust standard for selecting qualified candidates, or don’t hire anyone.
If we are going to do this as voters we need to collect the following information from each voter.
1) For each candidate on the ballot the voter needs to indicate whether or not they support or oppose the candidate.
2) An evaluation of how strongly the voter wishes to support or oppose each of the candidates.
Well, gee whiz! Isn't that just whoopee?
There just happens to be two consent dissent grading scale based voting procedures that collect this sort of information from the voters: Yes No ‘Maybe So’ Voting (YNMS) and Category Scale Power Voting (CSPV)
Yes, the people are supposed to be the sovereign, the boss, the hiring manager. Elected government officials and elected representatives are supposed to be public servants working on behalf of the people in the people's best interest.
So, we should use a voting procedure that empowers voters by expanding each voter's freedom of speech and freedom of political association and that arrives at election results which are consistent with the consent of the self-governed. This is the only way we will be able to hire people for government office through elections that meet the standard used everywhere else in society when hiring someone for a job.
If we had either YNMS or CSPV in 2008 your ballots could have looked like one of the following ballots depicted just below.
[Please note: The dashed underline is needed here to maintain the ballot's two dimensional structure upon entering the post as a comment.]
* * * * *
EXAMPLE BALLOTS
These two YNMS and CSPV ballots are equivalent.
2008 Presidential Election
Example YNMS Ballot for a single Ralph Nader supporter
[3 columns]
Candidate _ _ _ _ _ Yes _ _ _ No
John McCain _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Barack Obama _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Cynthia McKinney_ _ X _ _ _ _ X
Ralph Nader _ _ _ _ _ X
Bob Barr _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X
Chuck Baldwin
- - - - -
2008 Presidential Election
Example CSPV Ballot for a single Ralph Nader supporter
[6 columns]
Candidate _ _ Most Oppose_Oppose_ No Comment_Support_Most Support
John McCain _ _ _ _X
Barack Obama _ _ _X
Cynthia McKinney_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Ralph Nader _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Bob Barr_ _ _ _ _ _ _X
Chuck Baldwin_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X
- - - -
Re: "Lesser of Two Evils" Dilemma (Make Up Your Own Sample Ballots)
Please note that both Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting (YNMS) and Category Scale Power Voting (CSPV) permit voter's to express a preference between majority party candidates without supporting either majority party candidate while at the same time supporting or opposing any of the other candidates on the ballot.
Also note that Category Scale Power Voting (CSPV) permits voter's to express a preference between the majority party candidates while opposing both majority party candidates and at the same time supporting or opposing any of the other candidates on the ballot.
Guys - since you are so sophisticated re: voting, check out www.simpol.org for a truly innovative and bold vision of how to use citizen votes all over the world to drive climate change policy.
McKibben must love mountain top removal and all that "clean coal."
The obomber is in fact the problem..
A very good lier is a very dangerous man.. My mother still believes that there is
a difference between Republicans and Democrats.. I and lots of others I talk to
know there is only one party in the usa and that is greed, they are winning we are
not..And the fight is not even on.. The people who are designing this system are very
careful not to make it so bad that the fat assed amerikans will get up off the couch and
protest..
We need to blanket elected leaders with our demand for action like a global warming heat wave and not let up. The science is settled no matter what the denialists claim, and they are controlling the discussion. Blaming Obama isn't enough, although it's awfully accurate. We need to make him do it in the spirit of FDR. Even that loony leader of Libya gets it, when several months ago he warned European nations that unless they deal with climate change they can expect millions of refugees on their shores looking for food and water.
As long as it's in a form they can ignore, phone, letter, e-mail. don't expect much. Since he's surrounded with flacks, and bully boys I don't see getting in his face is an option either, We never should have allowed the fence, none the less the closing of 1 mile around the White House and the not so small army that has sprung up around the capitol to protect them from us, and maybe some nucance terrorists... but mostly from us.
>^^<
www.simpol.org is one way to do that
Big O has shown us his backside. Progressives need to move on, find and get behind a real visionary with spine and the ability to stay true to his word. There is no magic in the incumbent thing. It can be done. People all over the world are making their voices heard and taking action. I learned in civics many years ago that Democracy worked that way.
BLS,
The US politician to best fit that description is Senator Bernie Sanders, Vermont.
My feeling is that he's content to stay in the senate.
Bill in Dubuque
yes. The attacks against him would be mercilous since he is a socialist. In the reality of politics, he couldn't get enough funding
Socialist or not--Sanders voted YES on Obama's fascist health care deform bill. No way....
Vote Green.
dont mess with sanders he the only one that stands up to repub as well as dems & by the way he got a lot of free health walk in treatment centers for the poor . if you want to talk about socialist look at the bank & corp bailouts. fyi the major health care insurance the day after it passed their stock went up 20 to 40 %
"I know that unless he shows some powerful leadership soon we're going to lose this fight."
__________________
This is a variation of the plea expressed in "Don’t Betray Us, Barack — End the Empire" by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick published here today:
"If Obama would seize the opportunity for peace that the Bushes and Clintons seem so intent on strangling in its cradle, perhaps the vision that Gorbachev so brilliantly articulated in 1988 can finally become a reality."
"If"; "unless". For reasons expressed eloquently and repeatedly up and down CD comments threads every day for months now, it ain't gonna happen.
Honestly, O.S., i don't get why they write these kinds of articles. I am not even pissed off anymore. It is just boring and pathetic as a literary style (if that is what it is)?
rita
I have always had a feeling that Bill McKibbens is a big Norman Rockwell art collector. It is just a kind of imagery i have. Take from it what you will. Or not.
He just strikes me as a guy who stayed in the boy scouts right through high school. And is still getting us to do projects for our environmentalist badges. But this is all just my own little reality here.
Do you ever check out your images with facts? Have you read his most recent book "Eaarth? "
I searched with Google and this came up from his web page.
Bill McKibben is an American environmentalist and writer who frequently writes about global warming and alternative energy and advocates for more localized economies. In 2010 the Boston Globe called him "probably the nation's leading environmentalist" and Time magazine described him as "the world's best green journalist. In 2009 he led the organization of 350.org , which coordinated what Foreign Policy magazine called "the largest ever global coordinated rally of any kind," with 5,200 simultaneous demonstrations in 181 countries. The magazine named him to its inaugural list of the 100 most important global thinkers, and MSN named him one of the dozen most influential men of 2009.
Then a little later we find that he wrote the first general book on climate change.
His first book, The End of Nature, was published in 1989 by Random House after being serialized in the New Yorker. It is regarded as the first book for a general audience about climate change, and has been printed in more than 20 languages. Several editions have come out in the United States, including an updated version published in 2006.
Well readytotransform, does this sound like a boy scout? Has he done more than Obama? Give my your long list of more influential people. We can put James Hansen on the list right off the bat.
Don, i am aware of him. It wasn't based on his photo, i can assure you. I have heard him interviewed. Different strokes for different folks.
Not completely wrong about Bill's demeanor, but he is also one of those determined, persistent, nose to the grindstone types who is not afraid to work his butt off. Some of the demeanor makes it easier for him to bring in natural allies that tend to sit on the sidelines. A good guy with a spine.