From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: U.S. | Government & Elections
Voting Systems Are Supposed To Be Idealistically Agnostic. But Score Voting Is The Best
by blues
Tuesday Sep 24th, 2019 5:59 AM
Score voting is very, very simple. You simply 'score' as many candidates as you wish from "1" to "10", or you can give them an 'abstention' score. If there are twelve (or any number of) candidates, you may give them all "1" vote, or you may give them all "10" votes, or any number in between. Then the tabulators simply add up all the votes. This is very easy and simple.
There are many possible voting systems, but simple score voting is the only one that gives voters the power to completely disrupt elite party lock-in. Right now the US has only two power elite locked-in parties (Republican and Democrat), but there could easily be three or more elite parties. Only with the simple score method can you defeat all power elite parties. And you can do that by using simple strategy to sink the ruling elite parties. Here is how it can be done:

The ruling elites control 'major' parties, (there don't have to be just two) and these parties typically offer 'greater evil' and 'lesser evil' candidates. Once in a while, a truly decent candidate will run. But with the present system, which only allows for a single selection, you must chose only one; you can only give one vote to either the greater evil, the lesser evil, or the truly decent (non-ruling elite) candidate. You will likely fear the greater evil one greatly, and this will probably force you to give your one vote to the lesser evil (yet still ruling elite collaborative) candidate. If you vote for the decent, relatively unsponsored, non-elite-collaborative candidate, your vote will almost certainly be sacrificed, and so count for nothing.

With simple score voting, you can use the 'hedge strategy' to very effectively disrupt the elite's 'good cop - bad cop' strategy, merely by using your own strategy. All you must do is give the non-elite-collaborative candidate (or candidates) "10" votes, and then 'hedge vote' by granting the the lesser evil candidate (or candidates) "6", "7", "8", or "9" votes, depending on what you thing will favor the best outcome. There are some people who have come to believe that using this hedge strategy is somehow 'dishonest', but this is silly. After all you simply cannot perpetrate force or fraud inside a voting booth. There is nothing at all dishonest about trying to achieve the best outcome in an election. It's not about 'voting your conscience'; it's about voting for your freedom.

Several other voting systems are presently being very heavily promoted. These other systems make voter's use of the hedge strategy to defeat the ruling elite's party lock-in strategy very cumbersome, to the point of making it practically impossible. To repeat: "with simple score, you simply 'score' as many candidates as you wish from "1" to "10", or you can give them an 'abstention' score. If there are twelve (or any number of) candidates, you may give them all "1" vote, or you may give them all "10" votes, or any number in between. Then the tabulators simply add up all the votes." Most of those other systems do not allow you to do that. Instead, you are required to 'place' each candidate in a sequence. Only one candidate can be selected to hold the first place, and only one other can be assigned to the second place, and so on. You may not ever assign two or more candidates to, say, the second place. This is obviously vastly more restrictive of the voters. Of course you could put a non-elite-collaborative candidate in the first place, and some lesser evil in second place, but this is a very poor hedge strategy as compared with the options you would have had with score voting, and it is far more likely to result in victory for the greater evil. And this restriction causes an amazing number of other complications that would frustrate the hedge strategy.

Once a reasonably effective system is made available, we might expect several non-elite-collaborative candidates to run, each somewhat different in perspective, but basically 'kindred' in the sense of not being elite controlled. Then, any two or more voters would likely chose to put some different (albeit still decent) candidate in first, second, and so on, place, basically at random. (Note that with the score method, they could all simply give each of these a score of "10".) The outcome would likely be that some elite-collaborative candidate would win, since the elites could probably use money and power to organize 'bullet voting' for one candidate of their choosing. (We could call this mutual electoral detraction from kindred candidates.) And this is merely the 'tip of the iceberg' of odd complications that would arise if voters are restricted to putting only one candidate in each place in a sequence.

It appears that the current US ruling elites have collectively become extremely antisocial, and are using the political system to bring create very brutal hardships for the common people, which even include horrendously bloody wars. Therefor we must try to stop them, and a demand for simple score voting would certainly be one step in the right direction.

We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!


donate now

$ 107.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.


Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network