noworldsystem.com

Hello, Your site is great. Regards, Valintino Guxxi

Stop the NAU! Free Trade is the economic means to achieve a world system. Protectionism is the economic means to achieve a national system. Let’s repeal NAFTA and pass a new tariff act to protect our market, our sovereignty, and our nation. If the Tariff Act of 1789 was the “2nd declaration of independence”, let’s pass a 3rd one this year!

For more: http://www.americanprotectionist.com

I have viewed the political events of the past half century a little differently than most. In point of fact, I have taken the “New World Order” very seriously, even though most with whom I have spoken to about it haven’t. It is pleasing to see a few of you have caught up to me.

The primary difficulty most people have is their inability to believe in conspiracy. My point has been for a great part of those 50 years that life is a conspiracy and we’ve all partaken in one at one time or another. So what is their problem? Size! They seem to think that a conspiracy on such an enormous scale could never take place.

Oh really. If the conspirators control the news media, the White House, the Senate, Academia, the pulpit, the Federal Reserve, the major corporations than it isn’t a conspiracy now, is it? It’s just the way things are done.

This is a really good site, and right along the same line of thinking as my own. Thanks and keep it up!

Collin
http://www.rejectsociety.com

Lots of good information; lots of good ideas.

But is anyone actually DOING anything to improve matters?

I enjoy this sight and have been reading for a few years on all this, one thing for certain as a beginning is to spread the word that we have the most unfair voting system around, it is the worst of all voting systems. Those chosen, namely Bilderbergers, have always rigged the elec. college for their choice of president. read on:

Briefly summarizing the pros and cons of the various voting methods, let’s start with our current system.

Plurality voting is the simplest system possible because each person casts one vote for one candidate, so it’s very easy to count votes and so forth. The con, the one thing on which all the experts basically agree, is that plurality is the least fair of all the systems.

How about Borda?
The first modern system invented to try and better plurality voting was the Borda count, invented in 18th-century France by a guy named Jean-Charles de Borda. Unfortunately, it’s very easily manipulated. It’s used in sports a lot—for determining the Heisman Trophy, the most valuable player—where they basically take a poll or a ballot of sportswriters to find the best players. Unfortunately, if you have a player you like and rank him high, you might want to rank his rival at the very bottom of your list to penalize that rival. In fact, there’ve been scandals in sports where they do that. Borda basically said, “My system is intended for honest men,” and people weren’t entirely honest.

Condorcet?
Condorcet was Borda’s great rival. He had a system where you rank the candidates, but the idea is that whichever candidate can beat all the other candidates in two-way races should be the winner. The main problem is sometimes you don’t have a candidate who beats everyone else. You can actually have a very weird situation where candidate A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A. It is also possible to manipulate.

Is approval voting a good way to go?
It’s very simple. It basically uses the same ballot we have now except, if you want, you can vote for more than one candidate, and whichever one gets the most votes tends to win. I’m not sure there’s any real known disadvantage. Approval is actually used in the U.N. for voting on the secretary general, and it was used in Renaissance Venice for 500 years and apparently it worked pretty well there.

What about instant runoff?
The voters rank the candidates based on how much they like them. It works quite well as long as you have what we might call a typical American election, where there’s a Republican and a Democrat and you’re sure one of those two is going to win. The problem is when you have three or more strong candidates as you would in the race for a party’s nomination, then it’s subject to some of the same vote-splitting effects as the plurality vote.

The emerging system of range voting.
Range voting is the newest in the sense of people being aware of it and promoting it: If you’re rating a video on YouTube you give it one to five stars, and they take that information and show you the average score of all the people who bother to rate it. We use it with a report card. The valedictorian of a school is the winner of a range vote by the teachers for each of their classes. In the Olympics, they hold up those cards to rate someone’s performance—that’s another example. People are pretty familiar with the idea. Nobody has given a convincing argument that there’s anything seriously wrong with it—the one thing you sometimes hear is it’s complicated, but that’s about it.

In 2000, mathematician Warren Smith published a study where he ran simulations to determine which of the common voting methods gave the most satisfactory, or least regrettable, outcome for the greatest number of voters. He found that range voting was the most fair.
.
That one paper has convinced a lot of people that we ought to be taking range voting pretty seriously.

How did the other methods rank?
The second best was approval voting, which is the short-form version of range voting. Instead of rating someone on one to five stars, or one to ten, you basically have two ratings—thumbs down and thumbs up—and it’s almost as good. Next is the Borda count, although this particular simulation doesn’t factor in that there’s an incentive to manipulate the vote, so I wouldn’t rate that as too great an endorsement—Condorcet voting is a little better. Then you get into instant runoff and then plurality voting, which is the worst of all these systems.
What if we had adopted range voting in 2000 or 2004?
It’s pretty clear Gore would have won Florida and New Hampshire, so Gore would have been the president. Bush’s victory over Kerry in most of the states was less than the Nader effect, so you still would have had a Bush victory.
How might it have affected the congressional races?
Libertarian spoiler Stan Jones was basically responsible for Democrat Jon Tester winning the Senate seat in Montana. That was the 51st Senate seat, so you can say this Libertarian spoiler was responsible for giving Democrats control of the Senate in 2006.

If range voting is superior, why hasn’t it been used in a real election?
People didn’t really have the idea this is something we should be trying in elections until 2000 and Smith’s study. So it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.
Of the alternatives, instant-runoff voting has the most momentum, and yet it’s flawed. When they started, no one was talking about range voting.

.
Which method most benefits the small parties?
Anything that addresses the spoiler effect. The Greens and Libertarians would probably get many more first-place votes or high scores than they do now. I think that would have the effect of legitimizing them and making it a little easier for them to raise money. Once you legitimize them, there would start to be elections in some areas of the country where they would be able to win a few races.

We’re still in a situation where the people in politics really don’t understand the various systems—it would almost have to be that the public would start having an outcry saying we want this, that, or the other thing. And that’s where FairVote has made a very useful contribution to the conversation, because they’ve managed to get people in some cities quite interested in the spoiler effect and what we can do to change it.
Do you think America will ever scrap plurality for something better?
You’d think 2000 would have been the wellspring of such a movement.

“our fifth objective”?

What were the other four?

How many more are there?

somewhere on internet, there is a video where German doctors (nobel prize winners) explain why it was “acceptable” and right to eliminate all the people with some handicap… exactly what scientists say today to promote pre-implant analysis or euthanasia.
It should be very interesting to compare old nazist video and new video of modern scientists…