Found some IRV talkers who think Approval leads to two party dominance


#21

The website I link to above is the work Legalman – America’s most trustworthy lawyer. He is simply a very intelligent and totally frustrated real lawyer. He has his (albeit nigh unbelievable) facts nailed down tight. In fact I could go even further – voting is not even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution:

============/
usconstitution.net – The Right To Vote
https://usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by “the People,” and who comprises “the People” has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.
/============

Read the articles and then check the data. The very concept of “law,” especially in regard to voting, is largely a shallow scam. You don’t have to read over-the-top conheresy theories about “capitalizing your name” to discover that history is choc full of rotten skeletons, and “the law” is a jungle of deception.

(And no, I have not been hacked. Please read the articles carefully!)


#22

First, “America’s most trustworthy lawyer” would never set up such an unprofessional looking webpage. Second, I have read the Constitution and know that there is no guaranteed right to vote for president, and I have also read WDS’s page about how Jefferson got into the presidency, but to me it seems like the point of those webpages I still to start with something true and slowly start exaggerating and making emotional statements as you go deeper until you are trapped in a world of lies. All because you thought it was trustworthy from the beginning.

Also, the state constitutions and laws are what guarantee the right to vote for president, no? State laws are still laws for citizens of that state.


#23

Accurate or not, those articles will make people think.

I’ve seen incredible instances of corruption.

I’ve seen that most people’s minds have been compromised by corrupt fantasies.

Time to wake up! When people’s votes actually matter it will become worthwhile for them to look deeper.


#24

Starting to suspect troll, personally.


#25

What annoys me is that this seems like the kind of scam designed to trick people who are skeptical. Like a worm that actually sinks naturally and the line and hook are completely invisible. So even a skeptical fish would realize the worm is “legit” and bite.


#26

I have no doubt that there are many actual facts in there, but it seems like that is only to hide a slate of lies and a secret agenda.


#27

Why is “America’s most trustworthy lawyer” so profoundly subversive? How might he be “tricking” people, and to what purpose?

What might be his sinister secret agenda? Specifically.

I find it enjoyably humorous. And I think he’s probably correct.

Election methods investigators need to be far more cynical, as far as I am concerned.

And what exactly is this “secret agenda?” Any answer?


#28

Look, if a guy has to brand himself ‘trustworthy’, he’s probably a crank. There’s a quote: “Any website with ‘truth’ in the URL contains none.”

There’s an intelligent discussion to be had about what impacts the framers’ aversion to democracy is having on modern American politics, but linking to random conspiracy theorists is not the way to have that discussion.


#29

The agenda is most likely Money or Attention. I am not sure of the specifics, of course, but there are numerous red flags.


#30

Or, as Shakespeare put it:

The lady doth protest too much, methinks


#31

If used ballots aren’t subtracted from the scores for the next round, then the majority will get multiple votes, while the minority gets one or zero. So if the ballots aren’t tallied right, you get tyranny of the majority, because the count each vote exactly once rule is violated.

Subtracting used ballots and transfering surplus votes right is essential for a fair system, regardless of how the ballots are filled out (scored, ranked, etc.)