Pin It
Oct
07

The Freak Out of the Post Modern Left

Get Brian Crowell’s perspective on the post modern left wing of American politics and its reaction to President Obama’s performance in the first presidential debate of 2012 against GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Brian Crowell is a self-described FDR Democrat, Educator, Union Site Rep, Historian, Husband and Father. You can follow Brian on Twitter at @CrowellBrian.

YouTube Preview Image

Comments

  1. dan plonsey says:

    Go Brian! I like the distinction you make between Ideology-driven Left vs. Economic Justice Left, though I think there is considerable overlap, and reasons why I want a hybrid Left. My mother, however, would be much more in agreement with you, though she would be asking about where the Anti-war Left fits in.

  2. Go Brian!

  3. Brian Crowell says:

    Thanks for posting..

    • Brian, i agree with your views on the right-wing media, and i also feel the same on the left -wing.

      • robert reich and cornell west have been extremely outspoken about the obama economic policies. they never supported the bai outs. what’s more, they actually use their media presence to talk about the very issues brian has brought up.

    • James O. Ogle [Free Parliamentary] says:

      Hon Defense Minister Brian Crowell [Info. Not Avail.], as the volunteer vote counter and web page designer, I’m pleased to announce that your name was elected Defense Minister by Honorable Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]:
      http://usparliament.org/defenseministry.php

      However, since I didn’t know what party/category so I categorized you with “Info. Not Avail.”. If you’d like a specific word by your name, please contact us at the 9th USA Parliament. You may also “stand down” altogether (no problemo) and your name will be eliminated, and the next highest name will be automatically elected in your stead.

      BTW, the 9th USA Parliament’s voting is based on actual ranked choice voting (RCV) ballots cast as proof. I’ve described the system below in case you or anyone is interested. This is what I base my own political principles on, and it works very well.

      Very truly yours,
      –James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
      Volunteer vote counter and web page designer
      * * *

      Two Ways to Do the Hagenbach-Bishoff Quota:
      * * *

      First Way:
      * * *

      One divided by (Total number of seats available plus one)

      1 / (1000 + 1) = 1/1001ths = .0999

      In a 1000 member district, that’s 1/1001ths or .0999

      Then, the number of votes cast, divided by this number (.0999), is the Hagenbach-Bishoff quota, and that awards so many seats.

      Any names that receive one or more votes/tics, more votes/tics than the Hagenbach-Bischoff quota are elected, the one with the most votes/tics is ranked highest in the results and lower rankings are listed below the top name, in consecutive order.

      In other words, five tics beats four tics. But two names that both garnered four tics, the lowest sum of the combined tics that went to each name breaks the tie. (If you have a tie, too bad) :)

      If any seats remain open after that, then an additional new quota may be needed, and the quota can be calibrated up or down to elect the last few seats. Something like that. From my experience, only one or two seats may need to be elected after adjusting the quota.
      * * *

      Second Way (FAR Easier too!):
      * * *

      Another Way to Do the Hagenbach-Bishoff Quota:

      What I usually do is make a spread sheet (usually a paper ballot, for easy transfer from other ballots and eballots) with all the names on the ballot (with write-in names too) and just mark their tics by the name as I go through the main stack of the total ballots/eballots that are not marked spoiled.

      The name with the most tics is #1, and all other names are ranked in order based on their tic totals. Any ties in the number of tics are broken, by adding up the sum of the tics.

      I usually use the second way, because it’s a lot easier to lay out all the tics on a spread sheet and look at them.
      * * *

      Commentary

      In sum, many programmer types want to just create a program that they can feed in the data, but I find that time consuming and virtually impossible.

      It’s a lot easier to go through all the ballots (and eballots) one by one, and transfer the data onto one master paper ballot.

      Then, as long as at least 1000 names get one or more tics, every name can be elected in consecutive order with few ties.

      Plus, by having all the eballots printed out by hand (or by a printer) you can combine the eballots with the paper ballots and have one single stack of paper ballots kept as proof which are also easily reproduced.

      My advice, is don’t get too bogged down with a program, at least until you’ve done this with actual paper ballots.

      Allso, “eballots” are very good.

      I suggest that you use eballots in the form of email, with verification procedures on each email (i.e. return email address, phone number, etc., and other means of verification if/when asked for). Because if you just let people vote on a program, you’d probably not be able to have each actual eballot for each individual printed out separately.

      In the past, I find computer programers want to create a program that they can just post on the Internet, Facebook or sell to others.

      But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, you really do need one final set of paper ballots in one stack as proof. That really helps, because you can then mail that stack to another vote counter, and they’d see each and every marked ballot/eballot, and they’d also come up with the same results.

      I have one such master ballot and stack of eballots for every election that I’ve ever counted for the USA Parliament since 1995.

      Usually from my experience, I start counting the paper ballots for about and hour or two. Mess up and start over. Then when I try again, the job gets finished the second time within a few hours.

      That’s the first vote count.

      Next time a vote count is made, some changes/improvements may occur. People “stand down” or die too. So sometimes a name gets eliminated, and it’s very easy to go to the master ballot and see who #1001 is, so when the name is eliminated, #1001 gets elected to the parliament and they then become #1000. Happens all the time too.