I.
Your Assignment If You Choose to Accept It
If
you can make the time, the first subject I would like you to get
acquainted with before we talk is the inherent problems with our
voting, political, and governance system. These are videos that all
people across the world should watch and become familiar with the
topics. As you may know, Maine just this year became the first of the
50 United States to pass Ranked Choice Voting for all future voting
across the state. That is a great start. Prior to now, only certain
cities or municipalities in the US have adopted Ranked Choice Voting.
For
future reference to readers of this document, for all people who
complain about the results of elections and who will not take the
time to watch less than half an hour of video about a super important
subject that could allow all people to get better represented by
their government, I have no sympathy. My advice, humbly given, is to
take half an hour out of any other less productive time spent and
watch them. Maybe less time could be “wasted” doing whatever your
vices are (phone chatting, staring out the window, playing a game,
watching a sport team, watching tv, hanging out at the bar, eating
junk food, watching porn, playing on social media, whatever vice you
probably do too much of, procrastinating, etc.). ALSO,
these videos are HIGHLY USEFUL TO CHILDREN OF MOST
AGES and probably much more important than a lot of things they want
to do with their time. I
highly recommend passing this info on to teachers, parents, and
anyone who wants a better governance system than the one we've got.
That should probably pretty much be all the people of the population
who have less money than the highest ranking Rothschild relative.
(The
following 5 video links below do
a great job of showing mathematically, simply
and quickly why we want to stop using an FPTP voting system and why
we want to switch to an STV system. Ranked Choice Voting, which will
be used state wide in Maine for elections from now on, is basically
STV.)
I
recommend watching the minimum of these 5 short videos in this
specific order.
The
Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained
(6:30)
minutes, seconds
FPTP
is
the voting system we have now. Other names for it include Winner Take
All. FPTP produces the results we have now – governance that is
highly corruptible, is highly subject to gerrymandering, and
inevitably
ends up with 2 political parties. Neither
of the
2 parties it ends up with represent
much
of the population. This
leaves everyone feeling unhappy, powerless, disillusioned, and much
less interested in bothering to vote. There
may be other names for it too but I would have to check my notes.
Politics
in the Animal Kingdom: Single Transferable Vote
(7:10)
Single
Transferable Vote (STV)
is the best
voting system to end up with. It can be used for single seat
elections and multi seat elections with almost no difference. When it
is for single seat elections, it is sometimes called IRV (Instant
Runoff Voting). There are 2 versions of STV called the Droop Method
and the Hare Method. The Droop Method is considered superior and is
used by most of the world that uses STV. Droop
slightly skews the election toward the larger majority. Hare slightly
skews the election toward the fringe minority. Hare and Droop almost
always end up with the same result. The
Hare Method is not quite as good because, once in a while, in a
narrow set of circumstances, it can end up with not exactly the
results you want. Ranked
Choice Voting (RCV),
which will be used state wide in Maine for elections from now on, is
STV.
Extra:
STV Election Walkthrough
(4:43)
Now
that you had the basic video on STV, this video shows a larger
election with more candidates in the election. This allows you to see
how the system works a little better.
Footnote
‡
from STV, Hare vs Droop
(3:01)
This
video quickly shows why Droop is better and why CGP Grey didn't start
with Droop since he expected too many questions if he had started
with that one.
Footnote
†
from STV, Switch to STV
(3:39)
This
video quickly shows how a system not already using STV would switch
over to being STV.
II.
For Those Who Watched the Above Videos and Who Are Now Interested In
Further Study
If
you are willing to do further video watching for even more
understanding of why our voting system is bad and how to correct it,
I
recommend watching
the
rest of these
short videos in this
specific order.
Gerrymandering
Explained
(5:26)
This
video explains
how gerrymandering
can skew the results to make
anyone win or lose to the manipulator's benefit, usually monetary.
FPTP,
the
current FPTP
voting
system
we
use now,
is easily subject to gerrymandering.
The
Shortest-Splitline Algorithm: a Gerrymandering Solution [Bonus Video]
(3:38)
This
video explains
how
to avoid gerrymandering and the benefits of allowing
local representation without corruption.
Multiple
Party Gerrymandering [Bonus Video]
(3:33)
This
video explains
what
happens if there
are
multiple parties and
gerrymandering. With
more than 2 parties, gerrymandering, and FPTP all present, it's super
easy for the largest 2 parties to push out any smaller political
parties.
Primary
Elections Explained
(5:19)
This
video explains
primaries
vs caucuses. closed vs semi-closed vs open primaries, the effect on
independent parties, who
is allowed to vote and who is not based on where they are, national
conventions for parties, how delegates are picked, delegates
vs super-delegates.
How
the Electoral College Works
(4:42,
the
last 7
seconds of
which are just
credits)
This
video explains
how
the electoral college works and how there are some problems with the
system.
The
Trouble with the Electoral College
(6:30,
the
last 12
seconds of
which are
just
credits)
This
video explains
more
problems with the electoral college.
What
If the Electoral College is Tied?
(3:36)
This
video explains
additional
problems with the electoral college and why we should not use it.
The
Alternative Vote Explained
(4:26,
the
last 19
seconds of
which
are
just
credits)
This
video explains
FPTP
vs the Alternative Vote (AV) which is the same as IRV (Instant Runoff
Voting). AV and IRV are basically the same as STV but in the case
where you only have one seat that's being voted on. Both FPTP and AV
have the following 4 characteristics in common. They are both
susceptible to gerrymandering. They do not have proportional
representation. They cannot guarantee a Condorcet winner. Over time,
they both trend toward two parties instead of allowing/encouraging
political diversity. However, AV avoids the spoiler effect which
makes it much better than FPTP. Because it avoids spoiler effect, it
allows small parties to not compete with one another. It also forces
the big dominant parties to not be complacent and forces candidates
to try harder to earn the votes. It allows more diversity within the
population because people who might vote for competing parties can
get who they want most out of the choices they are given.
When
more than one candidate runs for the same party or when multiple
parties run candidates that would compete more with each other, those
voters do not have to compete. For example which
is particularly pertinent for states with different parties
representing left leaning candidates,
the Liberty Union
Party, Libertarian Party, Green Party, US Marijuana Party, Democratic
Party and some candidates running as Independents may all be
competing with one another. In the FPTP system, these parties all
hurt one another. In the FPTP system, the more candidates who run who
might all lean more to the left, the less chance any left-leaning
candidate has of getting elected. The same would be true for allowing
diversity among right leaning political parties such as moderate
conservative candidates
versus extremist far right candidates.
The Alternative Vote is not as good as STV because it still allows
there
to be a party on the ballot and still allows each party to control
who is representing that official party title. But it does
at least allow more diversity than
FPTP.
The FPTP system makes it impossible to have small parties at
all.
Mixed-Member
Proportional Representation Explained
(4:37,
the
last 27
seconds of
which
are
just
credits)
This
video explains
the
difference between FPTP (First Past the Post) and Mixed-Member
Proportional (MMP). MMP is a proportional
system. MMP has twice
as many seats on the council and each citizen gets 2 votes instead of
one. The first vote is for the person, the second vote is for the
party. The video shows a case where FPTP allows more than half of the
citizens to have no representation on the council. MMP
allows it to be balanced out afterwards so that everyone is
represented. The parties still get to decide who gets which extra
seats. This happens because the parties themselves also rank their
choices of 1st,
2nd,
3rd,
etc. before the election. That is how the extra seats get chosen.
So
when the party votes are tallied, people are chosen from the
appropriate party until all the seats are filled. This allows a
minority to at least get a little representation. MMP
allows more control over the candidates than STV because they can
reward or punish their actions.
STV,
by
contrast,
is not perfectly
proportional, but it is very
close to proportional in almost all cases. STV
also has the advantage of people being more happy with the individual
person elected. In the case of STV, the citizens choose who wins the
seats directly instead of the party choosing beforehand. Using
Droop method for STV allows it to be closer to proportional than Hare
method in certain rare cases. STV
is pretty close to proportional and has the additional advantage of
not having the parties have
so much control
who can run. True
STV allows multiple people to run for the same party and doesn't have
primary elections.
I
prefer STV over MMP. I think it is high time that the parties had
less power and that almost all the power go to the citizens.
See
the next video for a direct comparison of Proportional Systems to
STV. In the next video, CGP Grey doesn't explain exactly how the
proportions are filled. This past video, #14, shows how MMP works vs
FPTP. The next video, #15, shows how all proportional systems work
compared to STV but doesn't explain how a proportional system
balances out the council. There are more kinds of proportional
systems in the world than MMP. CGP Grey and I like STV better. It's
just a matter of how involved you want the parties to be.
Footnote
* from STV – Proportional Systems vs STV
(1:13)
This
video explains
the
difference between STV and proportional. As I stated under #14 above,
STV is proportional-ish instead of perfectly proportional. STV has
the advantage of maximizing voter happiness because the specific
candidates they voted for get picked. STV is very close to being
perfectly proportional. Droop method is more close more often than
Hare method but either one is good. See video #4 above to compare STV
Droop vs STV Hare.
Quick
and Easy Voting for Normal People
(1:35,
the
last 11
seconds of
which
are
just
credits)
This
humorous video explains the fastest most efficient ways to vote for a
simple fast decision like which restaurant are we all going to. It
avoids arguments. You let everyone vote more than once. They all vote
for all the choices that are okay instead of which is their favorite
and the video shows mathematically how it's most efficient.
III.
Examples of Better Wikipedia Pages and Worse Wikipedia Pages
This
URL goes to a wikipedia page that is a decent description of IRV
(Instant Runoff Voting for single seat elections) and STV (for multi
seat elections). It will make infinitely more sense if you first go
to the videos I have posted above. At the bottom of the page, they
give a table of countries, states/provinces, and municipalities using
STV, IRV, or RCV.
This
URL goes to a cr*ppy article that seems written with the intention of
being as confusing and meandering as possible. They do not clearly
define things nor separate them. It would not surprise me if the
content had been created or edited by people who like the
dysfunctional system we have now and want no one to be able to
understand STV or IRV.
IV.
If you wonder why you should listen to me:
These
are the 3 people I was on the phone with for hours yesterday
discussing my research paper and next societal systems and in some
cases comparing/contrasting them:
● Edgar
Cahn
▪
founder
of time banking which has spread all over the world
▪
time
banking is comprised of 2 major international networks of time banks
(Time Banks USA which I like better and can explain why later) and
Hour World (which I feel is not as progressive), plus several time
banks in various countries that are not in either of the main 2
networks
▪
author
of several books including “No
More Throw-away People”
● Kurt
Roskopf
▪
a
leader in the Mutual Aid Network and lots of business and leadership
experience,
▪
currently
working on a project to create a network of coordinated time banks
across the state of Wisconsin,
▪
currently
in training with Stephanie Rearick and Kathy Perlow (2 of the
impressive leaders of Mutual Aid Network and former coordinators for
huge successful time banks)
▪
member
of TimeForAll (a special international time bank for Time Bank
Coordinators).
◦ “TB
Coordinators” are the founders, leaders, and major administrators
of time banks.
◦ I
am currently the only member of TimeForAll which is not a time bank
coordinator myself.
◦
Because
of prior work with Stacey Jacobsohn in Maine, because of my vision
and educational skills, and because of the other
national/international organizations I'm involved with regarding next
societal systems, TimeForAll just recently changed their rules and
their website to allow in other important community leaders with
special permission on a case-by-case basis.
● Mark
Muso
▪
founder
of Debt to Success System (DTSS)
◦ DTSS
is one of the 2 remaining companies that bring people to Sovereignty
(a status where they don't have to pay taxes, pay back debts, can't
be arrested or brought to court for anything and basically are no
longer citizens of any country but are their own sovereigns with
their own specialized passport, drivers license and identification.
In other words, they are no longer slaves to the current societal
systems).
▪
Mark
has a global plan to change societal systems. I think it's a good
plan but I don't think it will necessarily be as quick to expand as
others I've learned or worked with.
I
want to have a conversation with you and other progressive
or open-minded leaders and politicians
soon, probably including
Bernie Sanders once I have my data adequately prepared,
but I am working with a tight deadline for
this paper. The
next systems that I would like to talk to you about are covered in my
paper. They include 1) time banking, 2) mutual aid networks (which
include time banking and which are being started across the world
with different titles), 3) Ubuntu Contributionism, 4) GSAT (Group
Systems Awareness Training which is an educational network
that will work in parallel with alternate economy structures such as
time banks), and a brief mention of Mark Muso's system which depends
on sovereignty at first (mentioned above).
I
also have some familiarity with alternative economies such as gift
economy, local currencies, electronic coded currencies, etc.
I
hope you find this document useful. We are the people we have been
waiting for to change the systems we are not happy with. There is no
better time than the present.
Take
care or God bless or both (your philosophical choice).
In
unity and service,
Pam
