Talking VotePact on "Watching the Hawks"

Talking about VotePact.org with Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha Wallace on RT's "Watching the Hawks" -- Feb 25. Great interview -- would have loved to learn more from Tyrel about the dynamics around his dad's -- Jesse Ventura's -- success at breaking out of the two party system. 


Tabetha Wallace: Gridlock is the name of the game in Washington and I don’t mean traffic. I mean congress. And if you’re a concerned citizen you may not take notice anymore. That’s because the process of moving through effective legislation didn’t come to a sudden screeching halt or a stumble with a deafening thud. Congress has been deadlocked for a decade or more, which for some people constitutes their entire young adult life. Enter from stage left and stage right the candidates for the Republican and Democratic parties and the race to the White House 2016. The GOP has been trying to push establishment candidates like Rubio and Bush but Cruz and of course Trump are dominating. The Dems thought that Hillary was a lock and then came Bernie with a successful message of social justice and an aggressive stance against Wall Street. The establishment just can’t seem to get it’s sway this time. But will that really matter in the end? Let’s say Hillary gets through against one of the GOP candidates. Are hardcore Republicans really going to vote for Hillary? Even if their only option is Trump? And will Bernie supporters really lead the fold to vote for a Trump, a Cruz or a Rubio? No, probably not. And thus: voter deadlock. So it there a solution? Well our next guest Sam Husseini seems to think so. His new organization VotePact has come up with an interesting strategy for Democrats or Republicans to team up and take votes away from the establishment by supporting third parties in pairs.

Welcome Sam.

Sam Husseini: Good to be with you 

Tyrel Ventura: Always a pleasure. Thank you for coming on today.

Sam: Great to be on the show.

Tyrel: Yeah so you know, we were just talking about the gridlock in our democracy. We see it in congress, we see it all over, even on the local level. You see this right-left gridlock. You know? What is the reason behind this and is there any reason to suspect that we are going to be able to move beyond this gridlock in congress, senate with this system of democracy and the way we vote as it is today?

Sam: It’s not a total gridlock you know, the establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans collude on a bunch of issues. They are trying to get their trade bills through, keep their wars going so on and so forth. So when it suits them they can (laughter).. But you’re right that by and large there are people that are basically boxed in to both parties. People leftist, you know, feel they have to keep voting for the Democrats no matter how establishment they become no matter how corporate they become no matter how corrupt they become. same thing on the other side, bunch of libertarians other folks who want to see another way out but can’t. You can vote for a third party but then you’re quote-unquote throwing your vote away. You’re afraid of doing that because you’re afraid you’ll help the guys you hate most.

Tabetha: Right.

Sam: So you become a prisoner. You gotta keep voting for the Republicans you gotta keep voting for the Democrats no matter if they stop listening to. Solution to VotePact. Team up. Find somebody in your life, ideally. Your brother, your wife, your brother-in-law who annoys you over the Thanksgiving day table. But you trust them as a person, you trust them with your kids they take care of your kids, whatever. Your debate partner, your coworker, whatever -- and say ‘Okay we’re both going to use our personal bond to vote for the third parties that we most want.' Now it can end up that they vote, you know, one votes for the Socialist or the Green and the other votes for Libertarian or Constitution party. That’s all well and good. But this could, conceivably be a path for literal electoral victory. If you can get a ticket that appeals to what I call 'radical center.’

Tyrel: Radical center, interesting term.

Tabetha: I like ‘radical center’ that seems like a good place to be, actually.

Sam: Against the Wall Street bailouts, corporate trade deals, for civil liberties --

Tyrel: Most of America I think if you look at the polls and stuff, most people are fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Generally by and large they are kind of in that middle area. We can pull ideas from …

Tabetha: Yeah, more people now as they are looking, the center is a little further left than it was

Sam: Certainly among young people

Tabetha: Yes, which is the biggest chunk of the voting block which they finally figured out which I’m very, very glad. I’m very glad that my slightly younger brothers and sisters have gone ‘Oh wait a minute, there’s a lot of us and we don’t like this and we can do something about it’ and that’s really powerful. But I wonder if part of what you’re seeing is this gridlock in democracy and part of the pushback against it, the fall out that we’re seeing … the two party system is from the gridlock  in Congress. Is it just that or I mean is that the main thing because it seems to me watching years of our legislative body just sit there and do nothing has had such an impact on us.

Sam: The repetition in terms of gridlock does two things it makes people fed up with the establishment as a whole but in a way by focusing in a few narrow issues it compels people to be more on their side digging in their heels and hating the other side more. So you see, focusing on issues likes refugees or immigration where there is a difference in left and right. What I think is really interesting about those issues is that they are in a way symptomatic of other issues. Refugees from Syria wouldn’t be coming over getting out of there in desperation if there weren’t a perpetual war policy. Immigration is largely a result of drug war and corporate trade policy. Now all those deeper issues are things that the left and the right, the principal left and right as we would call them, agree on. But they end up bickering over the symptomatic issues of refugees and immigration. Now those are real issues I’m not diminishing them but they are in effect a result of other things.

Tyrel: You gotta take a step back and look bigger and say what is the bigger policy we need to be looking at? That seems to get like as you said the earlier - that sails through - bigger policy that effects that trickle down of things like immigration and things like that sails through without a problem.

Tabetha Wallace- Emotional issues. People seem to have gotten very emotional. Millennial are always accused of being too emotional. Like have you seen Capitol Hill? It’s temper tantrums and crying and even without John Boehner it’s temper tantrums and everything’s very like ‘they don’t want to talk to me, oh what’s going on?.'

Tyrel: What’s interesting is that you talked about kind of corralling the disenfranchised voters saying hey go to your family member or your friend say how do we vote for a third party or something like that you know. Will that strategy work and with I mean do you believe you can create this powerful enough voting block to break the two party system.

Sam: I think it can. People have to work it out and dialogue it out and really be serious about it. They have to trust the person that they’re dealing with. And in a way, we have the politics of hatred. MSNBC is telling all the Democrats hate the Republicans and Fox does the other way around. So this is building a bridge so that people can talk to each other and get stuff on the table. And you see, I mean, even in this election it’s Sander and Trump and they agree on some stuff. In past elections it was Kucinich and Ron Paul. They agreed on stuff. I mean imagine if you had a ticket of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich saying we are gonna run on the stuff that we agree on and that’s what we’re gonna implement. And don’t talk too much about the other stuff that we don’t agree on. But that’s a hell of a lot. That’s a hell of a lot.

Tyrel: Other people could get behind that if we didn’t have that kind of left-right paradigmers. My dad called it, when he was running and he was in office he always   it’s like professional wrestling. On T.V. they fight with each other but behind the scenes they all get in favor of some people and are all hand-in-hand.

Tabetha: Of course.

Tyrel: Yeah it’s pretty interesting stuff. Especially when you get to third parties.

Tabetha: Yeah. And I think part of the thing about third parties that is so interesting is that you’re organization is trying to sway voters away from democrats and Republicans ultimately or the two big --

Sam: Well to at least, you know, not be prisoners. To vote their actual preferences instead of feeling like they have in effect been browbeaten into putting aside all their hopes, desires, their dreams because 'I just gotta vote against the other guys I don’t want.'

Tabetha: Right. So let me ask you a question because I think what I’ve seen and what you’ve seen in your personal experience is that the problem isn’t necessarily the party problem and getting a third candidate it’s that the media obsess over those two things and what happens is when you have a third party candidate, someone like you know Jill Stein, the green party Gary Johnson of the libertarian party, ugh some Ventura guy might have ran a while ago. (Laughter)  When you have those people they are not included in the polls. They’re not included in the conversation and they’re just left out. So how do you make that next step when the media has such a Trump-esque wall in front of you to keep you from even knowing about them?

Sam: The media is an absolute wall but I put a little bit of responsibility on the third parties themselves. They don’t have a strategy for breaking out of that saying they want to get into the debates. And then they have their alternative debates and they end up agreeing on a lot of stuff on their own. So I’m saying.. A lot of policy issues. Why not join together? But part of the strategy would be getting endorsements in pairs. So you imagine a ticket like this getting endorsements of the old union official and a small business man coming together. Over and over again people coming together in pairs to this campaign. The strategy implies a media strategy that I think would generate serious news stories.

Tyrel: I wanna bring up one thing, this is interesting we are talking about voting and all that. Look the electoral college in today’s day and age, is I believe, pretty unfair and out of date. Especially for third parties because if you look at like DC. Put it in a two-party perspective. DC primarily votes, has three electoral votes, primarily votes Democrat every time. So if you have a Republican in DC generally your vote is kinda of just disappears every presidential election because of the electoral college. How do we? Is it time to drop the electoral college and do a legit popular vote or develop a new system so that way people in red and blue states or states that predominantly go red or blue. Well we have about a minute lets try to sum that up.

Tabetha: So fixing it on a structural level.

Sam: Sure, there are all types of structural proposals that should happen. The electoral college, instill run-off voting, proportional representation all kinds of things. But you’re in effect asking the political establishment to please dismember itself.

Tabetha: Yes!

Sam: And they’re not going to do that. And the beauty of VotePact is saying we don’t need anything else. We can come together as people and using the votes that we have to implode the system as it is. So it doesn’t require their cooperation.

Tabetha: I get it. Thank you so much, thank you.

Tyrel: I like that, come together and change the system Sam Husseini thank you very much for joining us and educating us.

Sam: My pleasure.
10 responses
Voting systems that amplify the bandwagon effect result in two-party dominance. IRV proponents cannot prove that IRV doesn't so amplify. Score/Range and Approval, on the other hand, provably accord each voter the same amount of power over the outcome as to each other voter.
Thanks Jack. Is rank voting a neutral term?
Ranking causes a couple of problems, and *rating* solves both. In Range Voting (a. k. a. Score Voting) and in Approval Voting, the voter _rates_ each candidate independently of how that voter rates the other candidates. Consequently, for any vote that is possible in the system, there is another possible vote that would balance the first vote, so that the electoral outcome would not be changed by adding those two votes. From that balancing possibility, we can reason that all voters are accorded equal power. If there were a vote that couldn't be balanced, then the system would accord someone who wants to vote that way more power than someone in full disagreement with that voter's opinions.
http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ , under the heading "Shattered" and under headings farther below that heading, shows that IRV responds erratically to small movements of the center of public opinion.
Jack can make these claims about approval because it actually has never been put to the test in real election that matter. But its record isn't very good in other elections. Meanwhile, ranked choice voting is used in all kinds of elections and works!
"Is rank voting a neutral term?" -- Yes and no. "Ranking voting systems" denotes a category of voting systems. So "ranked voting" and "rank voting" would also have that meaning, referring to the whole category, not to just a single system. I judge that the use of the term is neutral when it's used to denote the category. However, some proponents of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), including Jill Stein, are misleadingly using the term "ranked-choice voting" as though it meant a particular system instead of a category of systems. I think that *that* use of the term is *not* neutral. If the advocates of a system would use the name for the specific system instead of the more general term, their readers/listeners would look up that system and would encounter the criticisms of it. By using the general term instead of the specific one, the advocates are using language that has the effect, whether intended or not, of hoodwinking the audience into not seeing the critiques. This is an unfair form of discourse, in my judgment. Therefore, in my opinion, the use of "rank voting" as though it indicated a specific voting system is not neutral. It is intellectually dishonest.
JB says: "Jack can make these claims about approval because it actually has never been put to the test in real election that matter. But its record isn't very good in other elections. "Meanwhile, ranked choice voting is used in all kinds of elections and works!" Jack Waugh responds: Not if "works" means "accords the voters equal political power over the outcome of the election", because you can't prove that IRV passes the balance test of equality. Also, not if "works" means "satisfies the voters", because Burlington, VT tried IRV and then went back to the choose-one-and-shut-up system because there was so much dissatisfaction with how their IRV elections turned out. Advocating for bad voting systems causes people to be turned off to all alternatives to US tradition and so closes their minds to the good systems that really work, the rating or grading systems rather than the ranking systems. If you think that equality doesn't matter, please explain your criteria for judging whether IRV "works" or the degree to which it "works". And if you think that the citizens shouldn't have equality of political power, please explain who, in your opinion, should be privileged with more power than other people have. Approval Voting has been used in elections that matter. The Green Party of Texas uses it, as does the Libertarian Party of Texas. "But its record isn't very good in other elections." -- what other elections, and according to what criteria for judging what is a good record? Cite please, what you are talking about. Jack Waugh
All ranking voting systems are subject to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. It does not apply to rating systems. The theorem matters because it shows that certain desirable properties cannot occur together in one ranking system.
I argue that a voter, in the exercise of her political power, has a right to rate or grade two or more candidates equally. There may be a couple of reasons to do this, from the viewpoint of the voter's values. One is that the voter may feel equal levels of approval for two or more candidates. Another may be that even if the voter would really value one of those candidacies over the other, she may think that there are good strategic reasons to equal-rate. I contend that in either event, it is her right if she so chooses. Strict ranking systems deny the voter this right. Score voting and Majority Judgment and the like honor this right. Score Voting of course includes Approval Voting as the special case where there are just two values in the range.
At https://1787regime.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/pro... I propose a four-valued Range Voting system. Based on fiddling with numbers, I think this system would accord third-party and independent voters leverage to resist two-party dominance (2PD). There is also a strategy available to resist it with Approval Voting, but I think the strategy required in Approval is harder to teach than a strategy that would suffice with the four-valued system. On the other hand, the four-valued system is more complex to explain how it works than Approval, and would take twice as long to tally by hand. A similarity between the four-valued system and the two-valued system is that in each case, how well a candidate does in the final totals is simply a sum over the ballots. So, up until but excluding the final ranking of candidates and fingering of the winner, all the arithmetic is linear. Linear math is well behaved and well understood. It does not have sharp corners and sudden changes of direction. It's nice and smooth.