October 22, 2011
– Comments (7)
Today Ron Paul won the Ohio Swing State Straw Poll with 53% of the vote. Herman Cain came in second with 25%.
Complete results here.
Right...but we'll never see that on any cable news, other than a blurb on Fox sandwiched between Cain winning Nevada and the endless Romney love.
Herman Cain explains why he didn't see the Housing Bubble coming, despite being a Fed insider:
The major news organizations keep making themselves more irrelevant when they don't report news like this, especially when it is commonly reported in blogs and through social media.
My first thought when President Obama announced the nearly total withdrawal of troops from Iraq by Christmas was that it was in part an attempt to defuse Ron Paul's multi-war criticism. I believe Obama would rather run against Romney who is more moderate, has religion as an issue (in the minds of some voters), and has a history of supporting public health care.
Obama vs. Romney may favor the incumbent with fewer distinguishing positions. Obama vs, Ron Paul is a real referendum on the direction of the country that I feel would not favor the incumbent.
Side note: since we are pulling out of Iraq under circumstances that, in part, look like the Soviet pull-out we said we would never repeat, I hope we take care of the resident translators and other local intelligence sources that already live in fear of retribution. We had promised them a trained police force and political system that would support the change they were helping to create. It does not appear like our vision and promises will be in place before the allied troops exit.
The real goal of The Occupiers is to show that they have enough votes to "throw the rascals out", and that's why the party line wishes it would go away.
Votes = Power.
These folks agree on a lot, they just aren't fluent. They will work their way through the new language and come up with a paragraph soon enough. When they do you can assume the core message will be: 'Enough is enough'.
The path to peacful revolution through voting is becoming more clear to me. The mechanic is the IRV and as soon as the mob figures out how to implement it some things will change. ; )
The IRV would have been very clumsy before the modern age, and so was not really an option until the computer age. Even then it needed tools to bring the awareness of options and 'the moment in time', and without social networking media we would not even be talking about this.In not more than a decade an option for a complete overhaul of the power structure has been unveiled to the masses. I seriously doubt they will overlook it long.
The problem is that they keep setting their sights too high. To change the power of the USA is to challange the largest and most powerful empire in the history of the world. A direct assault once every four years is childs play for the establishment to handle. They win no matter the outcome.
What the 99% should do is; sit down at every one of these meetings and elect a committee to promote the IRV in one small town at a time, in a county that they think they could take the following year. Then you have a chance of getting your Green Tea candidate elected.
In four years you attempt some smaller or more friendly states. Then you have a chance to change the constitution of the United States of America.
Ireland uses IRV to elects its president, Australia to elect its House of Representatives, London to elect its mayor, San Francisco to elect its major city offices such as mayor, Utah Republicans to nominate congressional nominees at its state convention, many major universities for their student government elections and the American Political Science Association to elect its president. Literally hundreds of jurisdictions, organizations and corporations use IRV to elect leaders.
Yeah, once these kids figure out how to occupy wall street, those encumbents are in trouble. And some of them are pretty smart.
In IRV, if you only rank say 2 out of 5 candidates, and those two get eliminated in the first 2 rounds, does your vote simply not count from round 3 onward? Do they include "No Quorum" as part of the system?
By nature someone loses the vote, and if your candidate loses, then he does not move forward. Losing in the first round is losing, if you know what i mean.
I've never heard of an example of not being able to find the winner, if that's what you mean by 'no quorum'.