I would venture to say that Lincoln lost his early elections because nobody knew who he was and what he stood for. Liz Cheney lost her election because people know exactly who she is and what she stands for.
My read is that a first-choice-only ballot will count until that candidate is excluded or wins. Since there is no second choice marked, that ballot will not be counted in any subsequent rounds after the candidate is eliminated.
IMO part of the problem created by RCV is people start gaming things out, when jnstead they should be picking their best possible choice first. With gamesmanship, it is not clear at all that the winner truly represents the majority will, as they may have won only because they showed up down the list as “not my actual choice”. This process manufactures a choice by applying an algorithm that does not necessarily correspond to the will of the people. (Wherever have we heard of algorithms going wrong?)
I can understand your point, but what is the answer to the problem people face when they won't vote for a Ron Paul because they assume (and are repeatedly told by the MSM) he can't win and they don't want to split the vote to give who they REALLY don't want to win a better chance at it?
What is the answer to the problem that Ron Paul might win if everyone who really wants him would actually vote for him?
It’s a hard enough decision when only one pick is allowed, imagine the dysfunction with multiple rounds of picks where votes get reassigned representing less and less actual desire.
I'm back to voting for a single candidate once, regardless of the format
'math reminds me a bit of the Monte Hall door question (which btw is a great example of very technically astute people becoming entrenched and not wanting to see reality)
It's a bit of a crock by Ms. Cheney to compare herself with Lincoln for losing elections when she won elections for her current seat as sole Congressional House Representative for the State of Wyoming at least twice. Why is she complaining? Isn't she thinking like an entitled Deep-stater? 'Because she thinks the right way, people be damned. What do those rubes in WY know anyway?' Get ready for Ross Perot, Part Three... But I would offer some hope, 'A tactic perceived is no tactic.' And you, Robert, and others might be correct in having perceived a tactic in this. Much appreciated.
I don't believe President Trump had a "private stash." Baloney. This is just an excuse for the abuse and misuse of the FBI.
Ranked choice voting is awful. It can be easily manipulated. The worst candidate can end up as the winner. Closed primaries are the best way to go. You get, in theory, two competing ways of approaching government. The conservative side chooses their candidate and the liberal side chooses theirs. Then there is a face off.
With ranked choice voting what happens is that the 2nd, 3rd or 4th tier candidates end up facing off. You get 2 Democrats running against each other so the choice becomes Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum and you end up with a California.
The Lefties are pushing ranked choice voting heavily because it is a way for them to win elections when otherwise they couldn't. Don't be fooled by it. Vote against it if it comes up on your ballot.
This is contrived to give the DOJ/FBI cover. Interesting the head FBI guy in DC was also the one involved in the Whitmer kidnapping plot, and then Jan 6th. It was his crew he sent to Mar-A-Lago. Hmmm....Oh wait, nothing to see here. Move along.
Heck, <grin> I wouldn't go that far. We know the DC people are questionable. How about the rank and file out there in the hinterlands? We just don't know.
I hope it's only a sliver but the rot could go deep. Starting in Bill Clinton's administration he gave head of the line to certain categories of people for hiring. Not good.
Think it has been pretty well covered. Too cumbersome and that right there makes it more expensive, doesn't it? And likelihood of being offered best of 2 pigs to lipstick not very appealing.
The main flaw in RCV is that it eliminates candidates based on first preference alone, which is only a small part of the picture. The example I give at MEVoting.com is an election with three candidates - a liberal, a centrist and a conservative - who are each the first choice of about one third of the voters, however the centrist has slightly less than the other two and is thus eliminated first, even though he or she would defeat both other candidates in separate two-way races by margins approaching two to one. So-called "Approval Voting" works better, and a combination of the two systems is the best possible method, imo.
The problem here isn't ranked choice voting - which is flawed and not the best single-winner-election voting system but is arguably better than the single-vote system - it's the "open primary" procedure which can lead to the kind of results you state. From my investigations the best system is a combination of Approval Voting and Ranked Choice Voting which I call Multichoice Elimination Voting - at MEVoting.com - although I'm in the process of preparing an update changing the "fine print" rules I had recommended with regard to the interplay of the two aspects of the system. I'm looking for someone to help, if anyone is interested.
Open the Books does important work, and I wanted to donate money to them. But when I asked whether they required their staff or volunteers to have been jabbed, they didn't respond. I don't voluntarily support jab-requiring organizations, so I donated to Truth in Accounting instead.
I agree. They want people to get jabbed with crap that doesn’t work. I don’t support those that force it and I wouldn’t work for someone that did either.
It's not wise to take so narrow a viewpoint that you miss the far more good they are doing. Back in early 2020 people were frightened and we hadn't yet learned to distrust the CDC, FDA, NIH, WHO. We thought vaccines WERE vaccines and gave sterilizing immunity.
I got the Pfizer shots (1 and 2) at the time and I felt they freed me. Little did I know. It was a year later before I learned how dangerous the shots are.
So, by a narrow minded standard we should exclude good organizations that fell for the lies put out by our, formerly, trusted health agencies? I don't buy it. It's time to be a bit more forgiving.
Should we stop subscribing and reading Dr. Malone because he also had the jab? Really?
I'm not doing litmus tests. I look at the bigger picture of character and purpose. You do you, and I'll do me.
You just hit on why my comment about no out of state funding in elections. On Social Security so only so much to spend on politics and my e-mail swamped with for pleas for money from pols from all over. And pol organizations. And....
I apologize for my vulgarity but, EFF Cheney. She is a dirtbag and so is Dick. I voted for Bush and Cheney but I have learned a lot since then and I think the Deep State is pretty real and these so-called Republicans are not. Liz sold out to the Democrats and should run as one. The people of a Wyoming have spoken. She should move to California and run there.
Liz Cheney seems unaware that a large portion of Americans view her father as the war criminal that he is. She may foolishly decide to run for the presidency, but will go down in flames like Hillary. It is far better for the United States if all the Cheneys simple fade into obscurity.
Her presidential aspirations are all about "Ross Perot-ing" Trump or DeSantis. I'll bet today she realizes she has zero chance of winning the presidency, but is more than ever looking for revenge against the GOP.
Amazingly, in only six years while in Congress, her listed net worth went from $7M to around $32M. Is she that astute as an investor? Why does she waste her time running for office?
Physicians have to pay for liability insurance which is a major chunk of their salary right up there with the tax bite! No wonder all these federal employees go with the Fauci protocol. Cushy job. Time to fire all of them and start over!
I personally would love to see legislation preventing all out of state money in all elections within the state. Too much emphasis on money and often persons win who were outrageously outspent. The internet has greatly changed the political environment hopefully lessening the amount needed in an intelligently run campaign.
thank you taxpayer. Ron Johnson is the only Republican I think I have ever contributed to. with this two-party system as it is, it's highly unlikely that your own Representatives or senators will represent your interests
Yes! And I would go further and extend the legislation to local elections. No one not eligible to vote in an election should be able to tip the scales with money.
Totally agree. Additionally, while there are limits from individual donations, it was astonishing to
Realize Zuckbucks broke all the rules by funneling through different pacs and entities that totaled into the million. Therefore, I’m guessing it’s not hard to cheat the donation game.
My husband and I were early members of Club for Growth, and liked the idea of making more of an impact with our donations by pooling them with other like-minded people. We interviewed a number of candidates as a group, and individually ranked them. But we found, after Sept. 11, that our foreign policy views differed dramatically from many of the candidates they were endorsing, and we had to part ways.
Take a deep dive into Biden Inc., you’ll never come up for air. Trump, whatever DSM -5 code you want to use is your business and I know he doesn’t like to pay his contractors in a timely fashion and is a shrewd businessman like it or not. However what we have , I pray, is a legitimate voting system that stands up to our constitutional rights and keeps Us free. End these mandates , executive orders and please we need term limits . Oh another thing… these alphabet soup government agencies must be dissolved and rebuilt with honest folks who love and care about mankind and one another.
I don't like ranked choice voting. It seems overly complicated and a perfect scenario for corruption. Most people have ONE candidate they want to vote for. Cheney is Neo-con war monger.
Cheney for President 🤣🤣🤣 There aren’t enough votes available to steal to make that fantasy possible.
That’s encouraging news about the Alaska election! I have been calling for instant runoff voting since Diebold stole the 2000 election for George W. A ranked voting system would herald the much-needed death knell for the two-party system.
Agree. So nice to hear someone say what I suspected about Diebold. With the two-party system you can't even hear dissenting opinions, since the two parties pushed the League of Women Voters out of the debate business. Just another example of women being canceled I guess, and all of us suffering for it.
Thank-you for the Link. Saw report today via news on radio in barn and thought it was an auditory hallucination. Then realized, this Agency has the distinguished privilege of being 'The Fall Guy' this time for the incompetent and corrupt sewer the Corporatist Cabal must cover in any attempt at regaining ANY credibility in any way. They haven't realized yet, 'The People' of the whole world ARE NOT BUYING ANYTHING they're selling. Must give the wealthy old boys in the Rothschild and Rockefeller Cabal credit...They are eminently hopeful in their ability to deceive.
Trump would be a fool not to collect information about the treason he witnessed and the bureaucracy would be fools for not trying to steal them. I don’t like Trump but I hate and fear our corrupt out of control criminal bureaucracy.
I agree Trump is better without Twitter so he can shoot himself in the foot less often. I like many of his policies but he’s an asshole to critics too often for me to like him. That said I think Joe is the biggest most corrupt idiot our system has produced to date and people should have known it but they hated Trump so much they never bothered to look at Joes 40 year record. I don’t have to like Trump to know he would be a better President than Brandon
You obviously don’t appreciate leadership. Your focus on a personality quirk that you don’t like in Donald Trump. Perhaps you’re a little bit jealous of his powerful manly attitude towards people who criticize him. A lot of people did not like George Patton but he won wars. I want a winner. The stake’s are too high to go for the winner of a personality contest. perhaps you prefer the smooth talking Communist Barack Obama? Obama seemed like a nice guy but don’t you realize a lot of what’s going on in our government has his fingerprints all over it?
Indeed, if one chooses to ignore the Big picture of success. He did make me embarrassed for him. However, the goals and achievements outweighs the occasional annoyance especially when he was right on most issues if not all.
You are no Thomas Paine, T. Paine! “Historian Gordon S. Wood described Common Sense as "the most incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era." Read the damn pamphlet...
Don't cry for Liz Cheney, she'll end up with a sweet media gig where she plays the 'respectable Republican' who parrots the establishment narrative without fail.
I would venture to say that Lincoln lost his early elections because nobody knew who he was and what he stood for. Liz Cheney lost her election because people know exactly who she is and what she stands for.
Ranked choice voting is an abomination, and exponentially increases the opportunities to commit and hide election fraud.
The other thing I’ll say, is:
“Congresswoman, I served with Abe Lincoln. I knew Abe Lincoln. Abe Lincoln was a friend of mine. Congresswoman, you’re no Abe Lincoln.”
if forced to RCV - quick question, if you only vote for 1 will it count?
My read is that a first-choice-only ballot will count until that candidate is excluded or wins. Since there is no second choice marked, that ballot will not be counted in any subsequent rounds after the candidate is eliminated.
IMO part of the problem created by RCV is people start gaming things out, when jnstead they should be picking their best possible choice first. With gamesmanship, it is not clear at all that the winner truly represents the majority will, as they may have won only because they showed up down the list as “not my actual choice”. This process manufactures a choice by applying an algorithm that does not necessarily correspond to the will of the people. (Wherever have we heard of algorithms going wrong?)
I can understand your point, but what is the answer to the problem people face when they won't vote for a Ron Paul because they assume (and are repeatedly told by the MSM) he can't win and they don't want to split the vote to give who they REALLY don't want to win a better chance at it?
What is the answer to the problem that Ron Paul might win if everyone who really wants him would actually vote for him?
It’s a hard enough decision when only one pick is allowed, imagine the dysfunction with multiple rounds of picks where votes get reassigned representing less and less actual desire.
I'm back to voting for a single candidate once, regardless of the format
'math reminds me a bit of the Monte Hall door question (which btw is a great example of very technically astute people becoming entrenched and not wanting to see reality)
It's a bit of a crock by Ms. Cheney to compare herself with Lincoln for losing elections when she won elections for her current seat as sole Congressional House Representative for the State of Wyoming at least twice. Why is she complaining? Isn't she thinking like an entitled Deep-stater? 'Because she thinks the right way, people be damned. What do those rubes in WY know anyway?' Get ready for Ross Perot, Part Three... But I would offer some hope, 'A tactic perceived is no tactic.' And you, Robert, and others might be correct in having perceived a tactic in this. Much appreciated.
"It's a bit of a crock by Ms. Cheney"
A bit?! There is NO "a bit" of a crook politician in Washington DC... full blown only!
Corrupt her old man connected to Hal Birton construction cart blanch no bidding C I A connected .
He and gave us the patriot act that laid the foundation for corrupt government.
No! She lost because she is a woman!
(I think :P).
I don't believe President Trump had a "private stash." Baloney. This is just an excuse for the abuse and misuse of the FBI.
Ranked choice voting is awful. It can be easily manipulated. The worst candidate can end up as the winner. Closed primaries are the best way to go. You get, in theory, two competing ways of approaching government. The conservative side chooses their candidate and the liberal side chooses theirs. Then there is a face off.
With ranked choice voting what happens is that the 2nd, 3rd or 4th tier candidates end up facing off. You get 2 Democrats running against each other so the choice becomes Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum and you end up with a California.
The Lefties are pushing ranked choice voting heavily because it is a way for them to win elections when otherwise they couldn't. Don't be fooled by it. Vote against it if it comes up on your ballot.
Trump has the ultimate authority over classification. He declassified Crossfire Hurricane documents before he left.
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-declassification-certain-materials-related-fbis-crossfire-hurricane-investigation/
This is contrived to give the DOJ/FBI cover. Interesting the head FBI guy in DC was also the one involved in the Whitmer kidnapping plot, and then Jan 6th. It was his crew he sent to Mar-A-Lago. Hmmm....Oh wait, nothing to see here. Move along.
Exactly
That gives me a little hope that only a slice of the establishment is hopelessly corrupt.
Heck, <grin> I wouldn't go that far. We know the DC people are questionable. How about the rank and file out there in the hinterlands? We just don't know.
I hope it's only a sliver but the rot could go deep. Starting in Bill Clinton's administration he gave head of the line to certain categories of people for hiring. Not good.
Jumpin Jack Flash....it's a gas. Rolling Stones
I was born in a cross-fire hurricane..... What a name for a secret document or what?
Agree
I hope you'll expound on ranked choice voting. You may have insights and opinions on it that I haven't thought about.
Think it has been pretty well covered. Too cumbersome and that right there makes it more expensive, doesn't it? And likelihood of being offered best of 2 pigs to lipstick not very appealing.
The main flaw in RCV is that it eliminates candidates based on first preference alone, which is only a small part of the picture. The example I give at MEVoting.com is an election with three candidates - a liberal, a centrist and a conservative - who are each the first choice of about one third of the voters, however the centrist has slightly less than the other two and is thus eliminated first, even though he or she would defeat both other candidates in separate two-way races by margins approaching two to one. So-called "Approval Voting" works better, and a combination of the two systems is the best possible method, imo.
The problem here isn't ranked choice voting - which is flawed and not the best single-winner-election voting system but is arguably better than the single-vote system - it's the "open primary" procedure which can lead to the kind of results you state. From my investigations the best system is a combination of Approval Voting and Ranked Choice Voting which I call Multichoice Elimination Voting - at MEVoting.com - although I'm in the process of preparing an update changing the "fine print" rules I had recommended with regard to the interplay of the two aspects of the system. I'm looking for someone to help, if anyone is interested.
Open the Books does important work, and I wanted to donate money to them. But when I asked whether they required their staff or volunteers to have been jabbed, they didn't respond. I don't voluntarily support jab-requiring organizations, so I donated to Truth in Accounting instead.
They do good work. Don't nit pick. Donate.
If they require jabs it really isn't nit-picking and it should not be supported. I'd want to know before sending a check too.
I agree. They want people to get jabbed with crap that doesn’t work. I don’t support those that force it and I wouldn’t work for someone that did either.
It's not wise to take so narrow a viewpoint that you miss the far more good they are doing. Back in early 2020 people were frightened and we hadn't yet learned to distrust the CDC, FDA, NIH, WHO. We thought vaccines WERE vaccines and gave sterilizing immunity.
I got the Pfizer shots (1 and 2) at the time and I felt they freed me. Little did I know. It was a year later before I learned how dangerous the shots are.
So, by a narrow minded standard we should exclude good organizations that fell for the lies put out by our, formerly, trusted health agencies? I don't buy it. It's time to be a bit more forgiving.
Should we stop subscribing and reading Dr. Malone because he also had the jab? Really?
I'm not doing litmus tests. I look at the bigger picture of character and purpose. You do you, and I'll do me.
currently require or have past required are two different things though -
Big difference between 2020 and now. So I'd ask about current status.
I subscribe - paid - to Robert Malone
I'm highly forgiving but I don't support anyone mandating my behavior.
And I never asked you to do anything. I just shared my opinion.
I also decide what I think is wise for me.
As I said, "You do you and I'll do me."
sure agree, it's a big complex frustrating thing we are all facing
Naomi well said !
Mandating jabs is hardly nit picking.
Unlike Brandon and friends, I don't have infinite funds, so I can donate only limited amounts. Truth in Accounting do good work, too.
You just hit on why my comment about no out of state funding in elections. On Social Security so only so much to spend on politics and my e-mail swamped with for pleas for money from pols from all over. And pol organizations. And....
I have limited funds as well. I look at what they are doing to further the cause of accountability and go by that.
I apologize for my vulgarity but, EFF Cheney. She is a dirtbag and so is Dick. I voted for Bush and Cheney but I have learned a lot since then and I think the Deep State is pretty real and these so-called Republicans are not. Liz sold out to the Democrats and should run as one. The people of a Wyoming have spoken. She should move to California and run there.
So VERY true.
Liz Cheney seems unaware that a large portion of Americans view her father as the war criminal that he is. She may foolishly decide to run for the presidency, but will go down in flames like Hillary. It is far better for the United States if all the Cheneys simple fade into obscurity.
Her presidential aspirations are all about "Ross Perot-ing" Trump or DeSantis. I'll bet today she realizes she has zero chance of winning the presidency, but is more than ever looking for revenge against the GOP.
Amazingly, in only six years while in Congress, her listed net worth went from $7M to around $32M. Is she that astute as an investor? Why does she waste her time running for office?
Exactly. She doesn't care about winning, she'll just be the "ORANGE MAN BAD" parrot that the media will fawn over.
Note to self - lose election “bigly” - then immediately decide to run for higher office.
How obtuse can you be - Trump didn’t vote against her - the entire state of Wyoming did.
Worse, bigger flames.
Physicians have to pay for liability insurance which is a major chunk of their salary right up there with the tax bite! No wonder all these federal employees go with the Fauci protocol. Cushy job. Time to fire all of them and start over!
I personally would love to see legislation preventing all out of state money in all elections within the state. Too much emphasis on money and often persons win who were outrageously outspent. The internet has greatly changed the political environment hopefully lessening the amount needed in an intelligently run campaign.
So then I couldn't support Ron Johnson, who surely represents me better than either of the Senators from the state where I live.
thank you taxpayer. Ron Johnson is the only Republican I think I have ever contributed to. with this two-party system as it is, it's highly unlikely that your own Representatives or senators will represent your interests
I would think in a properly run election you should not have to
Yes! And I would go further and extend the legislation to local elections. No one not eligible to vote in an election should be able to tip the scales with money.
Totally agree. Additionally, while there are limits from individual donations, it was astonishing to
Realize Zuckbucks broke all the rules by funneling through different pacs and entities that totaled into the million. Therefore, I’m guessing it’s not hard to cheat the donation game.
My husband and I were early members of Club for Growth, and liked the idea of making more of an impact with our donations by pooling them with other like-minded people. We interviewed a number of candidates as a group, and individually ranked them. But we found, after Sept. 11, that our foreign policy views differed dramatically from many of the candidates they were endorsing, and we had to part ways.
Take a deep dive into Biden Inc., you’ll never come up for air. Trump, whatever DSM -5 code you want to use is your business and I know he doesn’t like to pay his contractors in a timely fashion and is a shrewd businessman like it or not. However what we have , I pray, is a legitimate voting system that stands up to our constitutional rights and keeps Us free. End these mandates , executive orders and please we need term limits . Oh another thing… these alphabet soup government agencies must be dissolved and rebuilt with honest folks who love and care about mankind and one another.
May I add…. Reverse this Dreadful “Deficit Reduction Act”. ?
I don't like ranked choice voting. It seems overly complicated and a perfect scenario for corruption. Most people have ONE candidate they want to vote for. Cheney is Neo-con war monger.
Cheney for President 🤣🤣🤣 There aren’t enough votes available to steal to make that fantasy possible.
That’s encouraging news about the Alaska election! I have been calling for instant runoff voting since Diebold stole the 2000 election for George W. A ranked voting system would herald the much-needed death knell for the two-party system.
Agree. So nice to hear someone say what I suspected about Diebold. With the two-party system you can't even hear dissenting opinions, since the two parties pushed the League of Women Voters out of the debate business. Just another example of women being canceled I guess, and all of us suffering for it.
Let me congratulate you Dr. Malone!!!!!!!!
They knew you were coming……..
CDC announces a complete overhaul of operations.
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/cdc-announces-overhaul-after-botching-pandemic
Thank-you for the Link. Saw report today via news on radio in barn and thought it was an auditory hallucination. Then realized, this Agency has the distinguished privilege of being 'The Fall Guy' this time for the incompetent and corrupt sewer the Corporatist Cabal must cover in any attempt at regaining ANY credibility in any way. They haven't realized yet, 'The People' of the whole world ARE NOT BUYING ANYTHING they're selling. Must give the wealthy old boys in the Rothschild and Rockefeller Cabal credit...They are eminently hopeful in their ability to deceive.
ewww. I guess we called that one right. CNN on Cheney thinking about a run for President.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4noYHiFVpU
Have to run as a democrat as would be misnamed as a republican, independent or libertarian.
Numero Uno: Voter ID
traceable paper ballots with watermark
open visible count to any and all concerned
other than overseas military or necessitated by actual disability, vote is in person.
Fix it first. Verify then trust.
Cheney is just another cog in the CLUB wheel / useful tool.
Husband defending Hunter Biden.
Part of the Bushy clan of globalists.
7 million net worth start 47 million net worth after 6 years as a WY Rep?
Uses the SanFranNan investing model?
I'm at the 'dip our fingers in ink' stage of elections.
Trump would be a fool not to collect information about the treason he witnessed and the bureaucracy would be fools for not trying to steal them. I don’t like Trump but I hate and fear our corrupt out of control criminal bureaucracy.
I like him more now. He is obviously a threat to the establishment. Seriously, is Trump that much more crude than Biden? Biden is an idiot and a pawn.
I agree Trump is better without Twitter so he can shoot himself in the foot less often. I like many of his policies but he’s an asshole to critics too often for me to like him. That said I think Joe is the biggest most corrupt idiot our system has produced to date and people should have known it but they hated Trump so much they never bothered to look at Joes 40 year record. I don’t have to like Trump to know he would be a better President than Brandon
You obviously don’t appreciate leadership. Your focus on a personality quirk that you don’t like in Donald Trump. Perhaps you’re a little bit jealous of his powerful manly attitude towards people who criticize him. A lot of people did not like George Patton but he won wars. I want a winner. The stake’s are too high to go for the winner of a personality contest. perhaps you prefer the smooth talking Communist Barack Obama? Obama seemed like a nice guy but don’t you realize a lot of what’s going on in our government has his fingerprints all over it?
Being rude and ignorant is not a good strategy for civil dialog
Indeed, if one chooses to ignore the Big picture of success. He did make me embarrassed for him. However, the goals and achievements outweighs the occasional annoyance especially when he was right on most issues if not all.
Well put.
Yes, indeed we do.
You are no Thomas Paine, T. Paine! “Historian Gordon S. Wood described Common Sense as "the most incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era." Read the damn pamphlet...
Thank you for the correction
Don't cry for Liz Cheney, she'll end up with a sweet media gig where she plays the 'respectable Republican' who parrots the establishment narrative without fail.