User talk:GreenGov2010

NOTE: GreenGov2010 is now GreenIn2010 -- apparently the username needed to be changed according to policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenIn2010 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prop 14

Nice to see the election had brought some fair-weather editors. Perhaps you will see fit to continue after the campaign is over. I see that you are a Green, and the Greens have taken a strong stand against 14. Can we be reasonable about this? Obviously, we cannot list every jerk that got elected by a 50%+1 vote, so just as a pragmatic matter we aren't going to list Duke or anyone or anything else. Furthermore, from a logical perspective, the people who get elected using any particular elective system do not in fact support any conclusion pro or con about the elective system. The people vote, and if there is a racist population, it is not only reasonable to predict that a racist will be elected, but even more importantly: it is morally right that he should be elected because of respect for the will of the people. You may have convinced yourself that its the system that is to blame (and as a Green that is understandable), but not in fact reasonable.

I used to be a Green. I support their principles. However, as an advocate for those principles they are a failure. Unfortunately all the very talented, competent political operative types become either Ds or Rs (and that is also why they become competent -- they are the ones actually succeeding in getting an agenda brought to fruition.) So as a progressive populist type of person, having studied the mathematical logic of elective systems, having been a succeesssful campaign manager, and having been an author of election policies for two non-profits, it is my duty to inform you that the Green party, and the Ds and the Rs and even the Ls have all got it wrong. They got it wrong because they all decided to act in their own interest as corporations, rather than as individuals. Prop 14 establishes a simple majoritarian system requiring 50%+1. That's the way it should be. The idea that it "eliminates choice" is, in reality, an illusion. There is MORE choice under 14, and Green candidates are MORE likely to get elected under 14.

I would recommend that you take a look at Arrow's theorem. It explains mathematically why a mathematicall sound system has to boil down to two choices, otherwise we do not get a fair result. As a candidate for governor, you should be outraged that we do not elect the governor by a majority vote (due to prop 62). I find the whole situation fascinating. Even the ACLU wrongly came out against 14. I hope people figure it out someday.Greg Bard 20:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>>It explains mathematically why a mathematically sound system has to boil down to two choices, otherwise we do not get a fair result.

>>I used to be a Green. I support their principles. However, as an advocate for those principles they are a failure.

Sounds like you're a Prop 14 supporter yourself. Nuff said. GreenGov2010 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Nuff said?" Is that supposed to mean that you are able to characterize me by this position? That is hopelessly partisan of you. I think for myself, rather than do what any party tells me to do. You fail to understand me. I am sympathetic to the Greens and I think they should support it as it will increase their ability to break the two party system. From that analysis, my view is that the Greens have not only failed to correctly identify the morally right thing to do, but also what is in their own interest as a party. I am a Decline to State voter. If the Greens wanted to take a stand against corporate personhood and in favor of respecting individual civil rights, they should have supported 14. I couldn't have written the proposal better myself. Greg Bard 23:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>>I think for myself, rather than do what any party tells me to do.

This confirms that you have bought into the false claims of Prop 14 -- it will not eliminate the power of parties, but rather, will concentrate it into the party with the most money (Top Two). It will eliminate 4 of the 6 ballot qualified parties currently existing in California. It favors corporations, not individuals or parties. The backers include the massive healthcare corporations and millionaires, while the opponents include the ACLU, all the minor parties, the labor unions, etc. -- the current sincere representatives of the people. You don't seem to get it at all about this incredibly misrepresentative proposition. GreenGov2010 (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't understand. When I discovered that the ACLU had opposed it, I went to my local chapter's next meeting to bring it up. After I explained it to them, several of them changed their minds. I understand that you are supremely confident that you understand the measure. I have studied elective systems from the perspective of mathematical logic. There is no fair elective system in which there are three or more choices (Arrow's theorem). The system will not give a fair answer. This is a serious problem! Ordinarily when only logic and reason enter into the analysis this is all that one needs to know in order to reject our current system in favor of simple majoritarianism. However, as humans we are suseptible to all kinds of propaganda and rhetoric. You yourself have been adamant to include David Duke into the discussion! Very obviously rhetoric which has nothing to do with the merits and demerits of the proposal. Ordinarily, looking at the supporting organizations is a good way to get a sense of what is going on with a ballot initiative. However, when it is a matter within an area which I am expert, no organized group is going to convince me of what I can plainly see for myself.

Corporatism is the belief that the corporate group is the fundamental unit of society over the individual. If you are demanding that political parties have rights you are a corporatist. If you respect that each vote counts, if you respect the sacred will of the voters, you will join me in demanding majoritarian elections.

One more piece of advice: there isn't anything about the elective system that is preventing Greens from getting elected. You can't get elected from third place. Furthermore, you shouldn't be trying to get elected from third place via schemes like IRV, etcetera. If you don't have the support, YOU DON'T DESERVE TO GET ELECTED MORALLY. You need to be a populist and campaign. You need to garner the support. If you don't get it, don't blame the system. If your were a real leader, you would be leading the Green Party to a real victory. You know --actually being popular and demanding nothing less than a 50%+1 victory. That is progressive populism. Greg Bard 07:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at California Proposition 14 (2010)

A complaint about your edits has been filed at WP:AN3#User:GreenGov2010 reported by User:Gregbard (Result: ). It looks to me that you've made four reverts in 24 hours. There may still be a chance for you to avoid sanctions if you will undo your last revert and promise to wait for consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, GreenGov2010, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

Please choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. However, do not create a new account if you wish to credit your existing contributions to a new name through a username change. To request a username change:

Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to edit this talk page even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a list of names that have already been taken. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.