In an effort to get out the message concerning the failure that is Portland I have been providing links to this substack at various websites. Most recently I left the note below on Instapundit:
I am 66 and was raised in what was a small farming town outside of Portland. I moved back to Portland 30 years ago. I sold everything and fled 3 months ago.
You do not, you can not undrstand how bad things are there. Public education collapsed almost two decades ago.
Blmantifa is the paramilitary wing of the Democrat party in Multnomah county. The press hasn't touched on half of what has been enacted in the county and the city.
I advise everyone who has a real interest to go to the substack Portland Dissent.
The latest Portland Dissent piece is a bit tedious as it explains how the citizens are about get fkd with rank choice voting. But, start a couple of months back and work your way forward.
Pam Fitzsimmons and Richard Cheverton are the two mature professional journalists who are chronicling the debacle in the clearest and simplist terms.
If you wish I'll put up a list of the major political criminals and squalid electees much as in a playbill so that you might follow the never ending nightmare.
Sep 3, 2022·edited Sep 4, 2022Liked by Pamela Fitzsimmons
Really, all you can do is witness. The culture, the nation, hope is being dismantled brick by brick, atom by atom.
Often a whiff of the fecal is to be sniffed around Portlanders; a people lodged permanently, resolutely in an early stage of development. In the last century it would be observed that they'd grown past the oral stage of Frued's five stage hierarchy and at one time had achieved full adulthood. But, then shortly before the new century we scrambled backwards.
Of course ,Freud's long been exploded, but still there is that otherwise inexplicable aroma about our betters. Oh, wait. It might not, the poo in the air stench, have to do directly with Portland voter's regressing immaturity in the Fruedian sense but with this infantile externalization, displaced.
That's where filling your streets, parks, school border lands, and traffic gores,with lazy, shitting, stinking, dope shooting, thieving, insane parasita comes in. The shit doesn't have to be in your own or your loved one's trou, but in that of those with whom you've sorrounded yourself. They can play in it and you don't have to get your fingers quite so dirty. I'm really an anti-freudian so I'll have to imaginatively develop and mimic the analysis.
Anyway, my psuedo-scientific psychoanalytics are no less responsible nor incoherent than the programs of our city planners and DEI beasties. Wait! I almost said "assholes" which leads me down a confirmatory rabbit hole about dung in thought and reality.
These voting antics demonstrate how resourceful are those that frolic in their own stool. You'd think that creatures that small and cowardly and primitive would be easily defeated wouldn't you? Yet, they move from triumph to triumph. We'd better buckle our seatbelts because it is going to be a long winter. Pity it doesn't snow more around Portland. The people that are running things and that are directing our future often leave tell-tale evidence in the snow.
Something odd indeed happened, where a Dem candidate with only 10% of the vote in June somehow won a race, where the great majority of candidates and votes were cast for Republicans. Alaskans were not well-served by this election.
RCV is supposed to address the concern that sometimes the leaderboard winner of an election might have a minority of the votes, and so it leaves the electorate feeling disenfranchised. RCV is supposed to fix that by letting people express their ranked choices. But with RCV, if there is a need for a subsequent voting round, only the candidate at the bottom gets eliminated and that person's votes are redistributed based on their voters' ranked choice.
I don't think this is fair. Bottom loser candidate(s) tend to be those with fringe ideas, and they lose for good reason (one candidate in June was "Santa Claus"). The public might be well-served if votes from supporters of these candidates be taken out of the system completely. But instead, RCV allows their votes to be cast to their second choice candidate (if still in the game), etc. But for everyone else, nothing changes, and the computer recalculates. This is not fair, as many people might vote differently if they knew their candidate wasn't winning.
Instead, I would propose that EVERYONE be allowed to record two choices. The first choice is for your preferred candidate. The second choice is who you would support IF YOU KNEW THAT YOUR FIRST CHOICE WAS NOT THE WINNER and there was a need for another recalculation round. So for elections where a party is split amongst two or more candidates, you might think twice about voting for the less popular candidate of your party if you KNEW it would harmfully split the vote. As with RCV, when there is a need for a runoff, the losing candidate will still get removed, but the difference is that EVERYONE ELSE (except those who supported the leading candidate) would be able to cast their alternate selection, if their first choice wasn't the winner. The opportunity to give the vote to a different candidate wouldn't be given only to the losing fringe candidate voters. This is why socialists and progressives favor this system - even when they lose, their votes get recycled to stronger candidates.
Knowing that Palin won in June, a Begich voter might have thought twice if presented with the scenario of Begich not being in the lead. Might as well cast the vote for Palin in that case, else a Dem would get ahead.
In the recent runoff, however, another factor was in play. Peltola ended Round 1 with 75,799 votes. How the heck did that happen, when she was the clear loser in June? But 15,467 of Begich votes were sent to Peltola. If they went to Palin instead, that would have changed things, and at least a Republican would have won.
In an effort to get out the message concerning the failure that is Portland I have been providing links to this substack at various websites. Most recently I left the note below on Instapundit:
I am 66 and was raised in what was a small farming town outside of Portland. I moved back to Portland 30 years ago. I sold everything and fled 3 months ago.
You do not, you can not undrstand how bad things are there. Public education collapsed almost two decades ago.
Blmantifa is the paramilitary wing of the Democrat party in Multnomah county. The press hasn't touched on half of what has been enacted in the county and the city.
I advise everyone who has a real interest to go to the substack Portland Dissent.
https://portlanddissent.substack.com/
The latest Portland Dissent piece is a bit tedious as it explains how the citizens are about get fkd with rank choice voting. But, start a couple of months back and work your way forward.
Pam Fitzsimmons and Richard Cheverton are the two mature professional journalists who are chronicling the debacle in the clearest and simplist terms.
If you wish I'll put up a list of the major political criminals and squalid electees much as in a playbill so that you might follow the never ending nightmare.
Really, all you can do is witness. The culture, the nation, hope is being dismantled brick by brick, atom by atom.
Often a whiff of the fecal is to be sniffed around Portlanders; a people lodged permanently, resolutely in an early stage of development. In the last century it would be observed that they'd grown past the oral stage of Frued's five stage hierarchy and at one time had achieved full adulthood. But, then shortly before the new century we scrambled backwards.
Of course ,Freud's long been exploded, but still there is that otherwise inexplicable aroma about our betters. Oh, wait. It might not, the poo in the air stench, have to do directly with Portland voter's regressing immaturity in the Fruedian sense but with this infantile externalization, displaced.
That's where filling your streets, parks, school border lands, and traffic gores,with lazy, shitting, stinking, dope shooting, thieving, insane parasita comes in. The shit doesn't have to be in your own or your loved one's trou, but in that of those with whom you've sorrounded yourself. They can play in it and you don't have to get your fingers quite so dirty. I'm really an anti-freudian so I'll have to imaginatively develop and mimic the analysis.
Anyway, my psuedo-scientific psychoanalytics are no less responsible nor incoherent than the programs of our city planners and DEI beasties. Wait! I almost said "assholes" which leads me down a confirmatory rabbit hole about dung in thought and reality.
These voting antics demonstrate how resourceful are those that frolic in their own stool. You'd think that creatures that small and cowardly and primitive would be easily defeated wouldn't you? Yet, they move from triumph to triumph. We'd better buckle our seatbelts because it is going to be a long winter. Pity it doesn't snow more around Portland. The people that are running things and that are directing our future often leave tell-tale evidence in the snow.
Something odd indeed happened, where a Dem candidate with only 10% of the vote in June somehow won a race, where the great majority of candidates and votes were cast for Republicans. Alaskans were not well-served by this election.
RCV is supposed to address the concern that sometimes the leaderboard winner of an election might have a minority of the votes, and so it leaves the electorate feeling disenfranchised. RCV is supposed to fix that by letting people express their ranked choices. But with RCV, if there is a need for a subsequent voting round, only the candidate at the bottom gets eliminated and that person's votes are redistributed based on their voters' ranked choice.
I don't think this is fair. Bottom loser candidate(s) tend to be those with fringe ideas, and they lose for good reason (one candidate in June was "Santa Claus"). The public might be well-served if votes from supporters of these candidates be taken out of the system completely. But instead, RCV allows their votes to be cast to their second choice candidate (if still in the game), etc. But for everyone else, nothing changes, and the computer recalculates. This is not fair, as many people might vote differently if they knew their candidate wasn't winning.
Instead, I would propose that EVERYONE be allowed to record two choices. The first choice is for your preferred candidate. The second choice is who you would support IF YOU KNEW THAT YOUR FIRST CHOICE WAS NOT THE WINNER and there was a need for another recalculation round. So for elections where a party is split amongst two or more candidates, you might think twice about voting for the less popular candidate of your party if you KNEW it would harmfully split the vote. As with RCV, when there is a need for a runoff, the losing candidate will still get removed, but the difference is that EVERYONE ELSE (except those who supported the leading candidate) would be able to cast their alternate selection, if their first choice wasn't the winner. The opportunity to give the vote to a different candidate wouldn't be given only to the losing fringe candidate voters. This is why socialists and progressives favor this system - even when they lose, their votes get recycled to stronger candidates.
Knowing that Palin won in June, a Begich voter might have thought twice if presented with the scenario of Begich not being in the lead. Might as well cast the vote for Palin in that case, else a Dem would get ahead.
In the recent runoff, however, another factor was in play. Peltola ended Round 1 with 75,799 votes. How the heck did that happen, when she was the clear loser in June? But 15,467 of Begich votes were sent to Peltola. If they went to Palin instead, that would have changed things, and at least a Republican would have won.