Who's going to Unrig Summit in Nashville, 3/29..31?


#1

Unrig Summit is one of the big events in the US for election reform, and voting method reform.
Fri March 29 – Sun March 31, 2019 | Nashville, TN
Who’s been there before?
Who’s going?
The Center for Election Science is a sponsor and Aaron will be speaking.
Unsplit the Vote will be there
Fairvote will be there.

I hear that to be guaranteed a ticket you must register by 2 March:

https://unrigsummit.com/


Large Foundations
#2

I’ll be there, as a member of the CES delegation.
I believe Stephen Cobb will be going, as I saw him on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Approvalvoting/permalink/1946041808854941/


#3

Sadly I won’t be able to make it myself, but Blake Huber will drive out from Colorado, and some Equal Voters will also attend.


#4

Seems FairVote is dominating the election science portion and as such “Ranked Choice” gets a special mention. I hope somebody is there to call them out. How did such a dishonest group get so much influence?


#5

“A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can put on its shoes.” - Albert Einstein
Edit: Of course the attribution to Einstein is an intentional lie. From what I can tell, the origin of the quote is complicated, and not actually by Einstein or its more common attributee Mark Twain.

Anyway, I was watching this video and the really bad thing was that I had that feeling that RCV, not Score or Approval or Asset, would be what they recommend – minutes before the speaker even said it!
Edit: Forgot that they even said that RCV would allow third parties and independents to run and win. And yet I wholeheartedly agree with basically everything else in that video. What has the world come to?

Last Wednesday, I sent an email to 1A because their topic seemed like one that may be good to branch into voting reform. They did talk about “voting system” and “the way that we vote” but it was gerrymandering, voting rights, and money-in-politics. No mention of Approval, Score, or RCV.

I almost feel like a conspiracy theorist.


Large Foundations
#6

IRV would let third parties grow and even supplant the major parties, but not centrist third parties. That’s what matters most.


#7

We actually have real-world proof that IRV does not let “third” parties grow nor supplant “major” (elite-fronted) locked-in parties. As I’ll endeavor to document in links just below.

Sometimes people take a wrong analytical turn and end up arriving at wrong conclusions. Actually, any reasonably normal election method will be totally blind with regard to “extremism,” “centrism,” and so forth. And IRV is blind to such aspects of politics also. Consider these links:

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ //
Australian politics circa 2006
By Warren Smith & Jan Kok. (Later updates now added pertaining to years 2015/2016.)
https://rangevoting.org/AustralianPol.html

[…] “We conclude that the IRV system in Australia has led (and in the opinion of the Australians themselves has led) to 2-party domination, although it could perhaps be argued it is 3-party domination depending on how independent you regard the Nationals as being from the Liberals, and also depending on how significantly you view their present 7.6% seat share in the Senate+House combined.” […]
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

Also:

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ //
What do minor parties in Australia think about Instant Runoff Voting (since they actually live in a country that uses it)?
By Clay Shentrup with some contribution by Warren D. Smith
https://rangevoting.org/AusIRV.html

“Contrary to the beliefs of many instant runoff voting advocates in non-IRV countries, IRV produces two-party domination. Minor parties in Australia are apparently well aware of this, and want to get rid of it.” […]
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

I don’t call it “two-party-domination” however – I call it elite-fronted few-party lock-in – which I say it truly is.


#8

I think that some of the CES delegation to Unrig should speak directly to some of the other reform people. Rob Richie and the FairlybadVote crew may be unswingable, but people from, say, RepresentUs or Congress may not have their stance firmly planted in the Illusory Reform Voting.

And keep trying to get a NYT/WaPo/etc editorial about Score Voting. I have seen far too many Really Corrupt Voting mentions in the national news. Work to get a Grand Clash of Voting Systems. We’ll win that.


#9

Fairvote and RepresentUS are NGOs owned and operated by the military-industrial complex. The people who actually control such NGOs do not want anything like real democracy, which would disrupt their multi-trillion dollar globalist agenda. They are funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Carnegie Mellon Foundation, Ford Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, and so on. They know full well that “RCV/IRV” are conceptual illusions that lock-in few-party corporate totalitarianism.

I am sure this “Unrig Summit” will certainly be a complete “RCV/IRV” computer-voting festival. See:

Some Fairvote Money


Large Foundations
#10
  1. They are not funded by the Ford Foundation
  2. Even if they were, Ford =/= Ford Foundation. Both were founded by Ford but one is a a for-profit company and the other is a non-profit philanthropy organization.
  3. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Carnegie Mellon Foundation, Hewlett Foundation and Ford Foundation are not the military industrial complex.
  4. NGO just stands for Non-Governmental Organization.

#11

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ //

  1. They are not funded by Ford
  2. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Carnegie Mellon Foundation and Hewlett Foundation are not the military industrial complex.

// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

If you really believe that they are just “charities” that help old ladies get across the street™ – (a la the Hell’s Angels) – I truly believe this is truly frightening. Fairvote has been funded by Ford Foundation in the past.

At this point in history, you would have to believe in Santa Claus to imagine that these are mere innocent “charities.”

You could state that “NGO” just stands for “Non-Governmental Organization.” You could just as truthfully state that “Pu” just stands for “Plutonium.”

Money talks.


#12

Does the same go for the Open Philanthropy Project that has given a total of 2.4 million dollars (0.6 mil grant + another 1.8 mil grant)? If you are assuming that those non-profit organizations have malicious intent, then are you also going to assume that the Open Philanthropy Project has malicious intent as well? Let’s stick to what we know for certain rather then making unfounded accusations.

So what do you think NGO stands for?


#13

I object. I never said a single bad thing about Santa Claus.

In many places around the world, “NGO” really stands for “Atlanticist Integrationist.”


#14

???

Was that in any way supposed to be obvious?!?

I don’t know much about “Atlanticist Integrationist” but I’d imagine that it’s related to the term Atlanticism which just refers to the belief in a strong relationship with both USA/Canada (which are on one side of the Atlantic ocean) as well as European countries (which are on the other side of the Atlantic ocean).

And how is FairVote related to this spooky Atlanticist Integrationism?!?


#15

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ //
The US: A Dead Nation Walking – Paul Craig Roberts – August 26, 2016 (Dr. Roberts has held academic appointments at Virginia Tech, Tulane University, University of New Mexico, Stanford University where he was Senior Research Fellow in the Hoover Institution, George Mason University where he had a joint appointment as professor of economics and professor of business administration, and Georgetown University where he held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy in the Center for Strategic and International Studies.)
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/26/the-us-a-dead-nation-walking-paul-craig-roberts/

In contrast to Orlov, The Saker underestimates Russian military strength, but he does understand the constraints placed on Russian decisiveness by the Atlanticist Integrationists, who seem to count in their ranks the economic establishment including the central bank and perhaps the prime minister himself. Putin does not seem to be overly concerned with what appears to me to be a fifth column of Washington’s agents as Putin himself has placed heavy bets on achieving accommodation with the West. However, Putin has cracked down on the US-financed NGOs that have tried to destabilize Russia.

Western reporting and think tank and university reports on Russia are propaganda and are useless to understanding the situation. For example, in the current issue of The National Interest Thomas Graham, who had the Russian desk on the National Security Council during the George W. Bush regime, attributes the “destabilization of eastern Ukraine” to “Russia’s annexation of Crimea.” He avoids mentioning the US-orchestrated overthrow of an elected Ukrainian government and that Crimea voted overwhelmingly (97 percent) to rejoin Russia when faced with the Russophobic government Washington established in Kiev.
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

As we can see in sources such as the above, US NGOs have garnered a reputation for helping to overthrow democratically elected governments. (“Technically” the term NGO refers to something that might be expected to be tame. I plus one other individual could draw up a charter for an unincorporated nonprofit association and we could then truthfully claim to have a real “NGO”.) And now we can see what the Atlanticist Integrationists are about. And their giant NGOs are supported by giant tax-exempt foundations (“charities”).

Now that CES has been gifted this 2.4 million dollars (!!!), will we still be able to lobby for score voting, or will we be forced to lobby for the far weaker approval method?

Remember, with score voting we can give nine or ten votes to some Ralph Nader, and seven or eight “hedge” votes to some “lesser evil” candidate. But with multiple ones-or-nothings approval voting, if we want acceptable results, we must give exactly one vote to a Ralph Nader and exactly one vote to some “lesser evil” candidate. This is the “double-bind dilemma,” and it would more than likely ensure few-party lock-in.

So, what do we get here?


Large Foundations
#16

Looks like this Paul Craig Roberts guy you cited is way down the lunatic conspiracy rabbit hole and was even featured on the Alex Jones Show. So, not a reliable source.


#17

Looks like this RALPH NADER guy is -> “way down the lunatic conspiracy rabbit hole and was even featured on the Alex Jones Show. So, not a reliable source” <-

Guilt by association?

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ //
Infowars.com – Alex Jones Interviews Ralph Nader at the DNC – August 27, 2008
https://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-interviews-ralph-nader-at-the-dnc/

Alex sits down with independent president and political activist Ralph Nader. Alex talks with Ralph about the lack of difference between Barack Obama and John McCain, the violations of the Constitution by the current administration, the futility of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the reasons Nader is running for president for a fifth time.
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

What about my questions?


#18

There is some evidence Approval may not be amazing right off the bat for 3rd parties; Greece used it for 60 years, and it took 50 to break two-party domination. Of course, they had a rule stating only the largest party in Parliament could choose the Prime Minister, a natural incentive to win a plurality of seats thus leading to two-party domination, so that’s a massive confounding variable.


Large Foundations
#19

IRV would let third parties grow and even supplant the major parties

It might or might not. Depends whether the candidates are distributed in a way that causes center squeeze spoiler when the population moves toward the third party.

but not centrist third parties.

Center squeeze doesn’t have anything to do with “centrist”. (It needs a better name)

And again, it might or might not. Depends whether the candidates are distributed in a way that causes center squeeze.


#20

Center squeeze ABSOLUTELY has to do with centrists.
35 J > Q > X
30 Q > (mix of J and X)
35 X > Q > J

Q is absolutely a centrist here. Centrists are those who appeal to both sides roughly evenly. Every partisan (J-voter or X-voter) in this example prefers Q over the main opponent. Yet Q gets fewer first place votes than either J or X, and so is eliminated.