US Parliament Open Thread

This thread is for all of those who wish to discuss the US Parliament proposal which has frequented IPR comments recently. All comments pertaining to that proposal should be kept within this thread. Comments which deviate from this standard will be removed from the website.

Commenters who consistently post upon a single topic in a variety of threads will face limitations in their ability to post at IPR.

414 thoughts on “US Parliament Open Thread

  1. Gary Odom

    You can remove things from the website, if you care to? Hmmm. That’s interesting. That is very interesting. Good to know.

  2. At last!

    Commentators … “who consistently post upon a single topic in a variety of threads will face limitations in their ability to post at IPR.”

    Finally! It’s about time.

    Thank you.

    (Can I spam this thread about a thousand times just for revenge?)

  3. RedPhillips

    IPR Drama Junkie, Gary finds it interesting because he wanted some of the offending trash relating to Chelene Nightingale removed and was told there was pretty much a blanket policy of no censorship.

    Gary, these two threads came up as a result of an e-mail conversation among the contributors. In general I agree with a general policy of free exchange of ideas but no thread hijacking or hobby horse riding. I think these two exceptions are consistent with the ideal of the free exchange of ideas and don’t punish a perspective per se while maintaining a healthy debate atmosphere where people want to contribute.

    I think you will find that some of the rougher stuff posted in the Nightingale threads was removed. Part of the issue with that was how to police all the comments. No one person wants to be responsible for doing so.

  4. wolfefan

    If/when James Ogle joins us here, I do have a question that I haven’t wanted to ask in previous threads since it would have been off-topic.

    What I’m wondering is how you propose to get from here to there. What it looks like to me is that you have a kind of “fantasy-league” parliament where folks work together in electing each other to jobs. I guess theoretically they could work together to pass position statements or something, but that doesn’t seem to be happening much.

    Anyway, how does your system help these people move from a rotisserie league to the big leagues? You keep mentioning Nott, whoever that is, as a presidential candidate. If everyone who reads IPR joined your parliament and participated fully and in good faith, how would that move Nott (or anyone else’s) policies forward at all in the real world?

  5. Daniel Penisten (DAN 1)

    As near as I can tell right now, “US Parliament” is mostly about practicing and playing at a unique electoral voting style. It is game like, but could be of value oneday. I’m sure the intention is to help Us ALL. (Most of Us anyway.)

    The “picnic” MP James Ogle is talking about, could be a hands on opportunty for Independents and Third Party Representatives to get together…and even introduce themselves to The People in real life. Might be rewarding and fun.

    This is my first post here and I would like to take the opportunity to compliment this site’s designers and functionaries for the work that has been accomplished. It is rewarding, to me, to see all the Third Party Groups here, sharing this beautifully rendered space.

    “Independent Political Report” has done what I failed to do in Third Parties Coalition. WELL DONE! I think the formatting that allows each unique group to be present, in their own right, has a lot to do with this success.

    Now…if only We can build on this success in co-operation for the American People.

    I’m sorry to see that it is for sale. Wonder how much it would cost to buy it? Wonder if We All could co-operate to buy it?

  6. Catholic Trotskyist

    I am disappointed at this decision. I am glad i haven’t been posting as often, or I would be exiled to one thread too, probably.
    A constructive suggestion; you should make sure that these threads are somehow accessable from the homepage at all times, as George Phillies indicated. Maybe make a separate category for these threads, such as “IPR Commenters Open Threads” just like you have categories for “Greens”, “Libertarians” etc. That’s the best way for us all to get along, as much as possible in this world.

    The USA Parliament, as Daniel says, is very valuable and can be a great opportunity for people of like minds but different ideas to come together.

  7. Robert Milnes

    George, unfortunately I agree with CT & disagreewith you here. This is not awisedecision.
    Ifanyone posts toooften, exile. Like CT. He at one time postedVERY often getting on nerves. His postings slacked off,timely inavoiding this exile policy. This creates unnecessary anomalies , like you mention about dialups. & CT mentions about extra categories etc.
    & who is johnny come lately Surman topush this?Another Rootlackey? I noticed he reactionaries-dems& reps-with nebulous connections to third party/independents.I’ve beenaround since the beginning & before that on TPW.
    &howoftendoes any thread meander off topic? VERY.
    &notehow Starr-Rootlackey- posts whatRoot saidona rightwing radiostation. So the govt/GOp backsRootto getonrightist radio &Starrimmediately plugsiton IPR with total OK & impunity.
    Bad decision.IPR must bein theprocessof rightist takeover/TPW style. Right in front of the clueless radicals.

  8. Robert Milnes

    BTW,I’ve been preoccupied fighting depression &trying to straighten out my affairs. I’ve got somanyproblems it is difficult to even getstarted. Computer problems,bad electric,plumbing,vans needrepairs,healthproblems, etc. SoI haven’t beenposting much & justfound out about this latest nonsense.
    So Ihaven’t kept up about Nolan. Any investigation? Was he cremated?
    You radicals are really clueless.
    How is Duensing doing?Does he realize how close he cameto getting shotto death?
    Oh, thisstuff is off topic! Gee,I guessIshouldexpect consequences.
    I’d better shut up.

  9. Daniel Surman

    Off-topic comments are not banned in and of themselves. What is banned are those off-topic comments which consistently say the same things. For example, if you always jump onto a thread and drop 3 posts all talking about PLAS and how great it is, it is simply taking advantage of an article to push an agenda rather than participating in a discussion. Similarly, when Mr. Ogle posts about his US Parliament idea in every article he is detracting from the conversation rather than contributing anything marginally relevant.

    Creating threads for these topics allows for discussion of the idea being pushed for to flourish. For example, you will notice Mr. Milnes that lots of people other than yourself are legitimately discussing the merits of your idea in the PLAS thread. It is an open opportunity to contribute. Similarly, people here can discuss the US Parliament with far greater focus than they ever would have in threads about the Texas Libertarios or which third parties performed best in 2010.

    As for myself, I was commenting on IPR before I started writing here, if not always under the same name. I report on whatever seems newsworthy to those following third party politics. I am not actually a member of a third party, but I do find them extremely interesting. I

  10. Idea guy

    I like CT’s suggestion @11 for a category for the open threads. Currently there are three, the two that have just been posted and one about petitioners from last year.

    Are there any other subjects that should be similarly quarantined? Nightingale drama comes to mind, although at least now most of it is in threads about Nightingale. Any others?

  11. Robert Milnes

    What about Root? Seems to me he gets a lot of gratuitouspublicity here. Just because heis plugged into rightwingmedia? I don’t think youwill see leftists orradicals getonFox or Beck etc. IPR REWARDSRoot for towing the rightist line.
    Let’s have aspecial threadfor Rooting forRoot.

  12. Robert Milnes

    Every time a Root article is posted there are dozens of comments. By far mostly criticism or grousing of some sort.
    Root abuses IPR far morethan PLAS or US Parliament,.
    As far as I’m concerned everything about Root & rightist crap is WORTHLESS.

  13. Be Rational

    @17 There seem to be very few posts on IPR that are made by Wayne Root himself. He only seems to be popular here as a target. How can Root be abusing IPR if he isn’t the one posting. But, if he starts spamming personally and repeatedly on some topic then you can demand that topic be isolated on some open thread.

    BTW, why are you no longer advocating for your own personal obsession when you now have the oportunity to do so on your own personal open thread where others are now actually discussing it?

  14. Catholic Trotskyist

    Thane at 14, thanks for your kind comment.

    The USA Parliament has been taking off in good directions the past couple days. I have been elected as Communications minister of the Central California mini-state parliament, and ambassador to IPR. Along with other members of the Catholic Trotskyist Party, I am headed for possible national office in teh USA Parliament as well.

    It looks like there is a possible coalition developing between the American Independent, Libertarian, Free Parliamentary, Defender of the Republic, and Catholic Trotskyist parties. An unlikely coalition, some would say, and all the details are not concluded yet, but we will keep everyone updated.

  15. Lex Luthor

    Bubba, I’m not kinky like you.

    But seriously….inquiring minds want to know.

    Each thread says “All comments pertaining to that proposal should be kept within this thread. ” So logically, comments about PLAS on this thread will be removed, since they are not on the PLAS thread…correct?

  16. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    To: Prime Minister Charles Bruce Stewart [Green Libertarian]
    Cc: GoNott Search Team
    From: MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Subject: GoNott Search Team (12/16/2010)

    http://www.usparliament.org/ss11-6.php
    MMP=member of mini-state parliament

    –James
    joogle@GoNott.com

    1. Members Elected
    2. MSPs Self Appointed
    3. We Are Being Decimated, Many Dead in Water
    4. Welcome New List Members

    1. Members Elected

    Elected to the National USA Parliament Executive and Cabinet;

    Prime Minister* Charles Stewart [Green Libertarian] Elected
    Secretary Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist] Elected
    Communications Minister Zachary Scott Gordon [American Libertarian] Elected
    Deputy Communications Minister Vanessa Morley [Defender of the Republic]
    Elected
    Deputy Communications Minister Alex Plewniak [Libertarian] Elected Deputy
    Communications Minister Markham Burton [Democratic] Elected Deputy
    Communications Minister Michael A. Cluley [America First] Elected

    *Due to one Prime Minister “standing down”, the ballots cast as proof were
    recounted, and the next highest name was elected in their stead.
    http://www.usparliament.org

    Elected to the California Super-state Parliament;

    MSP Doug Scribner* [Libertarian] Elected
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss11.php

    *Due to one MSP “standing down”, the ballot cast as proof were
    recounted, and the next highest name was elected in their stead.
    MSP=member of super-state parliament

    Elected to the Central California Mini-state Parliament;

    Economics Minister David Henderson [Libertarian]
    Communications Minister Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist] Elected
    http://www.usparliament.org/exec-ss11-6.php

    2. MSPs Self Appointed

    MSPs Self Appointed Mid-West Super-state Parliament (ss8)
    MSP Josh D. Ondich [Coffee] Self Appointed
    MSP David L Wetzell [LT Party Movement] Self Appointed
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss8.php

    MSPs Self Appointed South Super-state Parliament (ss8

    Parker G. Ward [Constitution]
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss6.php

    3. We Are Being Decimated, Many Dead in Water

    Other than the American Independent, Constitution,
    Free Parliamentary, Libertarian, Boston Tea, Democratic,
    Catholic Trotskyist and Free Parliamentary Parties electing
    Executives and Cabinet in Central California;

    http://www.usparliament.org/exec-ss11-6.php

    Things are not good for The USA Parliament’s muti-party
    coalition for 2012.

    If our progress were compared in an analogy to
    the D-Day landing of Allied forces on June 6th, 1944,
    the time would be 0600 am, and we’d yet to suffer the
    2500 casualties because so few are “on the beach”.

    At current pace, Battle of the Bulge is 175,000 years
    in the future.

    Many bodies are “dead in the water” which is red with
    our blood, and green with our uniforms. Those alive
    on the beach are pinned down, and we are missing limbs.
    Some are blinded by the explosions, most are shell-shocked.

    I myself have no legs but we are in communication.

    We are in disarray and confusion, and the road blocks
    are all around the “all party system” and independents,
    as we try to find a way off the beach, and past the
    concrete bunkers.

    Entire squads have been obliterated, and by next summer,
    since one minute here is like one month in real life,
    it will be six minutes of hell, instead of six months
    of winter and spring.

    We must coordinate and work together to find a way
    past the two-party system which is annihilating the
    all party system, independents and non voters.

    Hit The Beach

    “Hit the Beach”, at The USA Parliament’s July 4th Picnic!

    Come volunteer at the 2011 Central California
    Mini-state Parliament Election in Monterey
    which is now being coordinated.

    We are in process of electing a new national Cabinet,
    and all names are welcomed.

    Please keep an eye on the following two web pages
    as we rotate in fresh battle hardened spiritual
    warriors, to push forward from the center, the left
    and the right.

    The Current Elected National Cabinet;
    http://www.usparliament.org/cabinet2.htm

    The Evolving National Cabinet, Votes Yet to be Received;
    http://www.usparliament.org/exec-1.php

    If you or anyone wishes to volunteer for our picnic
    on the beach, please go to the sign up page, and your name
    will be entered as the top ranked name to approach the
    “concrete bunker”.

    The results will be announced on 1/1/2011 in the US
    Parliament’s Monthly Bulletin.

    All names are welcomed, and you may create or lead
    the full Ministry of your choice.

    Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

    Very Truly Yours,
    –James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Secretary

    4. Welcome New List Members

    Welcome Secretary Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist]

    Ad for GoNott Search!
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html

  17. Daniel Surman

    @23/30, yes that is correct. The offending comments were removed. Other discussion was left alone where possible, including other comments made by those breaking the policy, in order to allow freedom of discussion to proceed in the most uninhibited fashion permissible.

  18. Robert Milnes

    Bullshit. Your whole premise is bullshit. “…in order to allow freedom of discussion to proceed in the most uninhibited fashion permissible.” Bullshit.
    I must say, the radicals sure are a pathetic group.
    Lex Luthor, what is your agenda, freedomof speech?

  19. Catholic Trotskyist

    While the USA Parliament is not yet a lawmaking body at this point, we are interested in the possibility of investigating coalitions between various political parties; especially for voting in elections for national cabinet and Central California mini-state parliament. One possibility is a center-right coalition consisting of the Libertarian, Constitution, pro-Constitution American Independent faction, Free Parliamentary, Democratic Republican, Defender of the Republic, Boston Tea, American Libertarian/American Centrist, and Catholic Trotskyist parties. Another possibility is a PLAS coalition, including the Green, Peace and Freedom, Libertarian, Boston Tea, Socialist, United Socialism, Free Parliamentary, Environmentalist, Democratic Republican, Pot, Marijuana, and Catholic Trotskyist Parties. this is all personal speculation; I haven’t heard from most of these parties. I do know that the Catholic Trotskyist Party does not wish to work with the Keyes faction of the American Independent Party, the Republican Party (since the Ron Paul Republicans can now go to the Libertarian or Constitution or other parties), and most likely not the Democratic Party, though we still mostly endorse them in real nonproportional national elections that we are stuck with now.

  20. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    @36 Yes I see the PLAS arrangement in a prez/vp coalition. With #s 3 to 100 among Ps or Ls, or being others.

    However, there is no guarantee that #1 or #2 is either a Libertarian or progressive (or visa versa) under pure proportional representation, and I’m open to, and supportive of whatever the final combination may be.

  21. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    The California Libertarian State Party is not in good coordination or timing with The USA Parliament.

    It’s reported that the state convention will be located in Nevada, on April 8-11, 2011.

    Not only is the location peculiar, being out of state, but the date also falls during the time period, the 20 days when the ballot is being prepared.

    That’s between the ending date of the Central California Parliament Election of 2011′s nominations on March 31st, and when the ballot is released on April 20th – ten days after the convention.

  22. Robert Milnes

    OOO, ooo, ooo.
    IPR gestapo. Look.Look.
    Catholic Troskyist posted a comment 36 on the
    US Parliament dedicated threadthat mentions PLAS!
    OMG!
    Et tu?
    Kiss, he’s in here! He’s in HERE!

  23. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    We’re going too slow! The USA Parliament is trying to build a coordinated effort, and every day is like a minute on Normandy Beach.

    I will be monitoring this thread, as I believe there is potential here.

    We are interested in electing new Cabinet members by 1/1/2011. Of particular interest is Economics and Communications Ministers.

    I just received a phone call from MP Virgil Hales [Green-Pot-Christ], and he is working diligently to connect with Honorable Willie Nelson [Teapot] through the Internet.

    We wish to integrate better with the Libertarian, Constitution and American Independent Parties by 1/1/2011.

    Secretary Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist], Prime Minister Charles Bruce Stewart [Green Libertarian], and myself, James Ogle [Free Parliamentary] are in agreement.

    We need to improve the rules that allow us to elect MP Don Grundmann [Constitution] for US Senate in our “Coalition of Three”; Prez/VP & US Senate in every state. A way which is fair and in agreement with MP Darryl Perry [Boston Tea].

    Our rules need to be improved, and so we need to enlarge the ruling coalition very fast. Those MPs who approve our rules

    http://www.usparliament.org/rules.php

  24. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    @42 Things are not good.

    It’s like a comedy of errors on Normandy Beach and we’re rapidly running out of ammo.

    I am sure that Honorable Willie Nelson [Teapot] wants to work with us, he had emailed former Prime Minister Lynnette Shaw [Democratic], but she stood down and is no longer in communication.

    I am friends with her former web page designer, and he told me Willie Nelson [Teapot] had contacted her when he was employed by her, within the past few years, and more than six months ago.

    Now, Virgil Hales [Green-Pot-Christ] doesn’t do email or the Internet. He delegated the task of contacting the Teapot Party to a programmer, who is currently ill.

    On the bright side, our email subscriber list grew by one member today – a politically active teacher, who is friends with someone else trying to start a new political party.

    I figure we have about four weeks to get off the ground…in time for 2012 presidential elections.

  25. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    The reason why we have such little time, is because so few people are self-nominating to help coordinate our picnic on July 4th, 2011.

    We don’t have a full Cabinet, only two of the twelve posts have been elected in ss11-6, and we’ve lost contact with most of the members.

  26. wolfefan

    What do the various ministers actually do? What would be the responsibility of the Economics Minister be?

  27. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    @45 Economics Minister is in name only.

    For example, you’d be competing for votes with other Central California Parliament Economics Minister nominees, such as Professor David Henderson [Libertarian] an economics professor at the Naval Post Graduate School, as well as two others. Henderson is a Libertarian Party darling.

    The executives (three prime ministers and two secretaries) are the only ones with any real responsibilities. They are asked to rank the nominees for Cabinet, such as the Economics Ministers.

    And we just picked up a new nominee for the Cabinet, Spectrum Minister Nathan Sorenson [Christian Independent]. He is chair of the California American Independent Party.

  28. wolfefan

    I see – thanks for explaining! But how does this get any of it’s participants any closer to electoral success in the existing system? Or is it more of a networking opportunity for people to perhaps build bridges with one another that may hopefully translate to cooperation outside of the Parliament?

  29. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    It accomplishes several things;

    1) Approx. 10% of the voters register to vote for the first time, or update their current registration form on the federal voter registration form we provide with each ballot.

    2)It helps build the Environmentalist Party, and all other splinter parties trying to grow.

    3)It elects a president and vice president who are initial contacts for a ruling coalition, and diminishes their power because they are but two of 100 consecutively ranked names.

    4) It elects a democratically legitimate pure proportional representation parliament that includes all parties and independents and non voters (they aren’t required to register to vote, we work with non voters too)

    5)It help show who the team players are, and who are not team players.

    6)It provides an ongoing decision making system, just like a real government.

    7)It helps organize politically in population balanced super-states and mini-states.

    8)It elects “leaders”, the top vote getter within each party/category, votes cast as proof…

    There’s eight things that it does…thank you very much for your interest!

  30. Catholic Trotskyist

    While most of the discussion on this site is fighting over some Libertarian Party building in DC, the USA Parliament continues to make progress; not as quickly as it should, but we are getting new people interested every day. The executives, including myself, are also working on ranking names for the cabinet. Coalitions are being negotiated as we speak, though the details are inconclusive.

  31. Catholic Trotskyist

    Yes Wolfefan, you should try it. I personally wouldn’t recommend using “Info: Not Avail”, that doesn’t exactly convey strength and confidence in your message. Join a political party, or start your own. You are welcome to join the Catholic Trotskyist Party.

  32. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    @47 “…Or is it more of a networking opportunity for people to perhaps build bridges with one another that may hopefully translate to cooperation outside of the Parliament?”

    I didn’t think about that, that’s a good idea too. Thank you for the mind awakening idea, Wolfefan.

    And thank you Catholic Trotskyist, I’m sure we will gain more members for you. If not Wolfefan, perhaps someone else.

  33. wolfefan

    Thanks to both of you for your thoughts and responses. I’ll think for a bit, but it is beginning to make more sense to me.

  34. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Things do not look good for all parties and independents working in coordination in 2012 at current pace.

    The All Party System is going too slow, “Battle of the Bulge” is more than 175,000 years in the future.

    Our Central California Parliament has only three elected Full Ministers, and we’ve lost communication with many of our participants.

    The good news, is that the communication does travel at the speed of light over vast distances.
    But the companies Facebook and Google are not on our side, and they are supplying the two-party system with plenty of ammo.

    There is potential to change things, but our last signup was several days ago, and we are facing tremendous firepower from those above us on the beach. They are well protected within concrete bunkers, as they spray us with lead.

    At this rate, it’ll be about 10,000 years just to get up the cliffs a very small distance, when compared with the D-Day analogy.

  35. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    The USA Parliament is interested in having your name as national Prime Minister or Cabinet member.

    Just sign in, as we plan to install all new interested names, and you have the liberty to self categorize with the party or category of your choice on all three levels; national, super-state and mini-state.

    MP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Secretary

  36. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Everyone, it’s our time for a laugh, and we need one, too. I hope you’ll understand, and maybe get a brain smile at minimum.

    http://cavlanforcongress.org/

    Everyone, please do see Michael Calvan RN’s [Independent Socialist] web page, who over in the article _Hugh Giordano to Philadelphia union leaders: ‘It’s time to put an end to the two party system_’ thread, he wrote;

    “[...]If they cannot chill and control themselves, then boot them the fuck off of this site.[...]

    …and back to the comedy of errors on “Normandy Beach” as we see our fellow Allies stepping on mines and walking into traps…everyone get ready for some laughs (or some apologies, one). The body parts will be soon flying! There goes some now!

    BTW Michale, don’t forget to click on my name in the header, in case you want to read our members’ names in your area. You’ll have to click on the Navigation-bar….check out our Socialist allies…former Naval Captains and chairmen of several baoot qualified state parties…

    Hey Robert Milnes, he’s an “Independent Progressive”…how about IPLAS? Maybe he’s your leader, after all he was endorsed by MP Nader [Independent] and Cynthia McKinney [Green].

    Now if he comes through and actually looks into what we were talking about…the top ranked male and top ranked female (or visa versa).
    A Progressive Libertarian Alliance Strategy, or PLAS.

    I sure he’ll soon make a good team member.

    What the heck, we’re all pushing towards the bunker, just because he wants to push ahead faster solo, so let him! Let him step into the line of fire!

    We’ll be right there covering him!
    (aside) That is, if he doesn’t get us kicked off for promoting our tool for team work, the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system.

    Considering Michael Calvan RN “garnered 1% of the votes for Congress in MN”, you’d think he’d be interested in reading about a voting system…a team, which elects 100 names with .99% (or 1/101ths) plus one vote of the total votes, ballots kept as proof.

    I’m writing about a one person/one ballot system.

    Well I talked to him on the phone today, he said he’d try to look at the web page. In other words, he’s ready to label this as a football team, but of course he never bothered to actually take the time to legitimately consider…that we’re not the Ds and the Rs pushing back and forth every year after year as he painted us.

    Had he actually taken the time to read what I posted, that we insist we’re being decimated, and he’s actually being decimated too. That those in the bunker get 50/50 and we get 0%.

    How can he call that a football team? With that level of smarts… a Congresscritter candidate!?

    He must think the MN voters NEED a meanie man like him.

    Meanwhile I sure hope his lawsuit against the League of Women voters goes well…I’m sure those who support his try, to sue his way to success, will give him that support he needs. Particularly women.

    I guess our recent MN appointees from ss8 of the LT Party Movement and the Coffee Party, are clowns too, eh? But he doesn’t need our clowns’ votes? After all, who cares about their votes? Why next year, since he’s so-much-more-legit, I sure he’ll attain more than 1% in 2012 without the All Party System.

    Unless he sees the light, and joins.

    I could go on…hey Hugh, ask him his opinion about the Green Party. After all, once us “nut jobs” get kicked off for posting information about the All Party System in the sacred Green Party subject thread, he’ll be there with you. You can count on him as a team player, to help you somehow I’m sure.

    And I’m sure IPR will really benefit financially from that, isn’t it after all about the money? I’ll bet their contributors support that agenda, like MP Aaron Starr [Libertarian] …who, after all, has a track record for opposing multi-winner districts and pure proportional representation.

    Heaven forbid lest we write about these detrimental ideas in a Green Party post, of which title was “End the Two-party System”.

    We were so off-topic!

    I can see it now… the LP chair of CA supported by MP Starr saying “Gee, I guess maybe we should’ve located the state convention WITHIN the state for convenience?”

    I really do think this is all so funny…I’m sure while the All Party System is going at such a slow pace, at a pace where “Battle of the Bulge” is estimated to be in 175,000 years, everyone out there will get a kick out of this.

    We may as well get a good laugh while we’re about to be die anyway, eh?

    I mean wasn’t it funny, all that ammo spent on being mean to those trying to build a democratically legitimately elected team, the All Party System?

    But seriously folks…I’ve talked to some of the team players and the All Party System is working on some really good things (small, but good) that we’ll be announcing on 1/1/2011. I figure we still have a few weeks to work on 2012…til it’s too late and we start the next cycle in 2014…so we’re still trying to coordinate with team players every day.

    Of course, access will be somewhat limited… due to all the restrictions as Mr. “Free Speech kind of guy” and those opposed to the All Party System team have called for here.

    And with MP Aaron Starr [Libertarian] on IPR’s side on this “censorship” issue, the kinds of free speech IPR supports has been clearly demonstrated.

    The free speech of those trying to work together using the tool called pure proportional representation and The USA Parliament, is not favored here.

    But vulgar curse words, demeaning comments towards President Obama, and and links with degrading photos towards women politicians … well, that’s OK.

    Of course it won’t settle well with those who were objects of such attacks.

    And signatures with things like “Join the Frees, Opposite gender #1″, or ***, now THAT will mess them newsreaders up.

    Hey Michael Calvan [Independent Socialist] and IPR, all is forgiven…

    The All Party System still welcomes you to join the “army”. We just have one little question as we’re been getting chewed up by the weapons located in the concrete bunkers above us when you get onshore…”what took you so long?” Har har har! You still haven’t learned how to “pull the trigger”!

    That’s coming up in 2011…provided we’re still alive on this bloody beach.

  37. Madeleine Albright

    Why am I not being considered for membership in this proposed parliament? Surely I represent an important and powerful constituency of influence peddlers that would earn a place at the table. Zbigniew Brzezinski and I are forming a block of Éminence grises and subverting your flawed paradigm.

  38. Daniel Surman

    Mr. Ogle, you can generally make anything about the US Parliament indirectly related to a given article. The problem is that you go on every article and talk about this distinct idea. People come on here wanting to discuss things; this may include the US Parliament, but when it is in every single thread it begins to detract from discussion of other issues. It is because of this it is confined to this thread.

  39. Daniel Surman

    So to be clear, if you want to comment in other threads that is encouraged. However, your posts cannot all just be a soapbox for why the US Parliament is awesome. If you find the need to mention the US Parliament, then fine. But don’t make it really the point of the post outside of this thread.

  40. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    I agree, the US Parliament does relate to every thread. As the name of this site is “Independent Political Report”.

    But you are incorrect, I did not go on every article.

    Furthermore, as pure proportional representation has something to do with voting and politics in every state, it is not me who is off subject.

    There is no problem there.

    The problem is that because people complain about my posts, when their own post has no content about politics or voting while mine does (remember IPR=independent political report)…the fact is, that is is the complainers posts who are less relevant.

    Instead of commenting about the article as I am doing, they are complaining about my rights to post there, and offering no content about the article.

    And they are posting under anonymous names, and speaking from uninformed positions. I laid out that example in my previous post; when I called Michael Calvan RN on the phone from his Calvan for Congress Facebook page, he admitted that he didn’t look at my site and had no idea what I was talking about.

    PR takes a little discussion, what’s the big fuss about debating the math equation 1/101ths plus one vote gives you one of the 100 seats?

    It relates to just about every post here, except those in charge of shutting down exchange of information, who have a “more important” duty.

    I’m not trying to shut anyone down myself, I’m just talking about a math equation and relating to different scenarios. As you know, Google derived from my logo Joogle…maybe they were themselves affected by this algorithm?

  41. The Last Conservative

    The Feudalist Party is also interested in joining the USA Parliamen t.We are interested in the long run in establishing a system of midieval feudalism, including a near-absolute monarchy with some power also in the hands of the Catholic Church and noble dynasties. While we hope to end democracy in the long run, we think that participation in US Parliament will benefit us for now, so we will pursue that option.

  42. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    The USA Parliament’s US Presidential Team 2012, The “Coalition of Three”, Prez/VP/US Senate.

    In electing a US President, Vice President and U.S. Senate Candidates in 50 States, the current rules approved by the ruling coalition must be improved.
    http://www.usparliament.org/rules.php

    The largest majority of voting MPs, must improve the rules to not only elect 100 consecutively ranked names, with #1 being president and #2 being vice president, but we must adopt a new rule to elect U.S. Senate candidates in every state.

    For example, in 2008, MP Ron Paul [Republican] was elected at #1, and MP Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian] was elected #2.

    It was a Republican/Libertarian Coalition.

    And in 2010, the 8th California Parliament elected a president and vice president; myself James Ogle [Free Parliamentary] and Starchild [Libertarian].

    But not only that. In conjunction with U.S. Senate candidate Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian], we as a state parliament, approved a set of rules electing the slate of seven candidates for partisan office, “The Coalition of Seven”;
    http://www.usparliament.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=71

    And through those rules as guidelines, we elected the “Coalition of Seven” with the following eballots cast by the 42 candidates (of those who voted) in the 3rd tie breaker election;
    http://www.usparliament.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=44

    We knew the “real” state elections were electing seven at-large state offices; Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Insurance Commissioner, Treasurer, Attorney General and Controller.

    And we knew there were six ballot qualified parties, for a total of 42 names after the primary.

    We created ranked a eballot with the 42 names ;
    http://www.usparliament.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=51

    And we cont6acted all those candidates we could both before the primary and after in order to build the coalition of candidates from multiple parties.
    + + +

    But now, we are finding we must expand our rules, so voting will elect not only a president and a vice president, but a US Senate candidate for every state.

    Here is the proposed rule, please feel free to comment on it or offer ideas for improvements. This is a rough first draft.

    Proposed rule for electing one US Senate candidate from every state in the All Party System;

    Once the president and vice president are elected, a list of all ballot qualified US Senate candidates from every state will be prepared, and the president and vice president will each rank all the names with consecutive numbers beginning with the number one.

    From their two ranked ballots, the 50 US Senate candidates, one from every state, will be elected, and the top 50 names under the single transferable v0te (STV) system as a single winner district will be determined and recognized as the USA Parliament’s “Coalition of Three” for every state.
    +++

    OK, that’s the proposed rule, but it will be expanded and refined to allow for dynamics. For example, the ballots may change depending on whether the president and vice president change their vote during the campaign season.

    If there are any MPs out there, I’d appreciate some feed back on whether you like this idea.

    Thanks in advance!
    –James

  43. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    CALIFORNIA: Peace and Freedom chair and member of state parliament (MSP) CT Weber [Peace and Freedom] said he doesn’t want to participate with the Central California Parliament’s 2011 picnic.

    He said that he’s only interested in doing his duty as chair, until the next P&F convention in August of 2012.

    MSP CT Weber did mention that Irv Sutley [Peace and Freedom] of the Sonoma County central committee was working with party leader MP Jan Tucker [Peace and Freedom] on some sort of political campaign in the Los Angeles area.

    Neither MP Jan Tucker nor Irv Sutley could be reached for comment.

  44. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    We are going too slow. While the internet travels at the speed of light, people working together under the All Party System is as such a slow pace, “Battle of the Bulge” isn’t expected for 1750,000 years.

    Here we have the chair of the State American Independent Party, chair of the State Peace and Freedom Party and the chair of the Monterey County Libertarian Party working together within the All Party System, but it hasn’t been of interest to others.

    At this rate, we are not expected to suceed in 2012.

  45. Catholic Trotskyist

    There’s another thread picking up a lot of comments here about Jimmy McMillan, of the Rent is Too Damn High Party. Has anyone contacted him? He has potential I think, if he is interested in joining the team.

  46. MP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    …I did email his contact address, but I don’t have much hope…he appears way too arrogant. We’re not like that, we’re “under sell, over perform”, and the second half is difficult if not impossible.

    And what’s up with the PLAS Minister, openly insulting a Wilder [Green] female? I thought he wanted to work with Greens? Maybe we ought to make her PLAS Minister?

  47. Catholic Trotskyist

    The new cabinet is soon to be finalized, with many new members and lots of returning ones. Many here will be interested to learn that Libertarian Jim Burns is set to become economics minister, and a member of the Catholic Trotskyist Party (but not me) is to become education minister. The Libertarians, Greens and Democrats appear to be the strongest parties in cabinet, but with much representation from new parties such as the Christian Independents, Balanced movement, and Catholic Trotskyists. Rankings at this point;

    http://www.usparliament.org/exec-1.php

  48. Catholic Trotskyist

    US Parliament January Bulletin by James Ogle

    1. 2011 Schedule for Central California Election Parliament of 2011
    2. New Members Elected
    3. New Self Appointed Members
    4. We Are Being Decimated, Many Dead in Water
    * * *

    1. 2011 Schedule for Central California Election Parliament of 2011
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss11-6.php

    2/1/2011 – Call for nominations

    3/31/2011 – Nominations end

    4/20/2011 – Ballot released, voting begins

    7/4/2011 – July 4th picnic http://www.usparliament.org/picnic2011.php

    8/5/2011 – Voting ends

    8/6/2011 – Results of first vote count are announced
    * * *

  49. Catholic Trotskyist

    Continued

    2. New Members Elected

    Executives:
    Prime Minister* Charles Stewart [Green Libertarian] Elected
    Secretary Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist] Elected

    Full Cabinet Ministers:
    Economics Minister Jim Burns [Libertarian] Elected
    http://www.jimburnsforpresident.com
    Education Minister Daniel David Gentry [Catholic Trotskyist] Elected
    States Rights Minister Rene Sauvedde [Free Parliamentary] Elected
    Communications Minister Tony De Renzo [Teapot] Elected
    http://www.pottalktv.org
    http://www.meetup.com/TeapotParty/
    Spectrum Minister Nathan Sorenson [Christian Independent] Elected
    http://www.aipca.org
    Defense Minister Chelene Nightingale [Constitution] Elected
    http://www.constitutionparty.com
    PLAS Minister Robert Milnes [Libertarian] Elected
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.robertmilnes.net/
    Foreign Minister Orion Karl Daley [Balanced] Elected

    Deputy Cabinet Ministers:
    Deputy Communications Minister Jim Doyle [Republican] Elected
    Deputy Communications Minister Zachary Scott Gordon* [American
    Libertarian] Elected
    Deputy Communications Minister Vanessa Morely [Defender of the Republic]
    Elected
    Deputy Communications Minister Alex Plewniak [Libertarian] Elected
    Deputy Communications Minister Markham Burton [Democratic] Elected
    Deputy Communications Minister Michael A. Cluley [America First] Elected

    *Due to one Prime Minister “standing down”, the ballots cast as proof were
    recounted, and the next highest name was elected in their stead.
    http://www.usparliament.org/c-v-1.php
    * * *

    Elected to the California Super-state Parliament
    MSP=member of super-state parliament
    MSP Doug Scribner* [Libertarian] Elected
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss11.php

    *Due to one MSP “standing down”, the ballot cast as proof were
    recounted, and the next highest name was elected in their stead.
    MSP=member of super-state parliament
    * * *

    Elected to the Central California Mini-state Parliament
    Economics Minister David Henderson [Libertarian] Elected
    Communications Minister Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist] Elected
    http://www.usparliament.org/exec-ss11-6.php
    * * *

  50. Catholic Trotskyist

    Continued

    3. New Self Appointed Member

    MSPs Self Appointed Mid-West Super-state Parliament (ss8)
    MSP=member of super-state parliament
    MSP Josh D. Ondich [Coffee] Self Appointed
    MSP David L Wetzell [LT Party Movement] Self Appointed
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss8.php

    MSP Self Appointed South Super-state Parliament (ss6)
    MSP Parker G. Ward [Constitution] Self Appointed
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss6.php

    MMP Self Appointed to East Bay Mini-state Parliament (ss11-3)
    MMP=member of mini-state parliament
    MMP Chad Brake [Info. Not Avail.] Self Appointed
    MMP Chris Wuest [Peace and Freedom] Self Appointed
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss11-3.php

    International Contact Self Appointed
    Jafar Nezam [Democrate] – Egypt Self Appointed
    http://www.usparliament.org/foreignministry.php
    * * *

    4. We Are Being Decimated, Many Dead in Water

    Commentary by James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Things are not good for The USA Parliament’s multi-party
    coalition’s picnic on the beach in 2011.

    If our progress were compared in the analogy of
    the D-Day landing of Allied forces on June 6th, 1944,
    the time would be 0600 am, and we’d yet to suffer the
    2500 casualties because so few are on the beach.

    At current pace, Battle of the Bulge is 175,000 years
    in the future.

    Many bodies are dead in the water, which is red with
    our blood and green with our uniforms. Those alive
    on the beach are pinned down and we are missing limbs.
    Some are blinded by the explosions, most are shell-shocked.

    I myself have no legs but we are in communication.

    We are in disarray and confusion and the road blocks
    are all around the all party system (and independents).

    We’re trying to find a way off the beach and past the
    concrete bunkers above, known as the two-party system.

    Entire squads have been obliterated, and by next summer
    since one minute here is like one month in real life,
    it will be six minutes of hell, instead of six months
    of winter and spring.

    We must coordinate and work together to find a way
    past guns decimating our numbers, annihilating the
    all party system, independents and non voters.

    Hit The Beach

  51. Catholic Trotskyist

    Continued

    “Hit the Beach”, at The USA Parliament’s July 4th Picnic!

    Come volunteer at the 2011 Central California
    Mini-state Parliament’s Election in Monterey
    which is now being coordinated.

    We are in the process of electing a new national Cabinet,
    and all names are welcomed.

    Please follow the following web page
    as we rotate in fresh battle hardened spiritual
    warriors, to push forward from the center, the left
    and the right:
    http://www.usparliament.org/exec-1.php
    * * *

    If you or anyone wishes to volunteer for our picnic
    on the beach please go to the sign up page.
    http://www.usparliament.org/picnic2011.php

    All names are welcomed, and you may create or lead
    the full Ministry of your choice.

    Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

    Very Truly Yours,
    –James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Secretary
    * * *

  52. Catholic Trotskyist

    Trying Part 2 again with some links taken out

    2. New Members Elected

    Executives:
    Prime Minister* Charles Stewart [Green Libertarian] Elected
    Secretary Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist] Elected

    Full Cabinet Ministers:
    Economics Minister Jim Burns [Libertarian] Elected
    Education Minister Daniel David Gentry [Catholic Trotskyist] Elected
    States Rights Minister Rene Sauvedde [Free Parliamentary] Elected
    Communications Minister Tony De Renzo [Teapot] Elected
    Spectrum Minister Nathan Sorenson [Christian Independent] Elected
    Defense Minister Chelene Nightingale [Constitution] Elected
    PLAS Minister Robert Milnes [Libertarian] Elected
    Foreign Minister Orion Karl Daley [Balanced] Elected

    Deputy Cabinet Ministers:
    Deputy Communications Minister Jim Doyle [Republican] Elected
    Deputy Communications Minister Zachary Scott Gordon* [American
    Libertarian] Elected
    Deputy Communications Minister Vanessa Morely [Defender of the Republic]
    Elected
    Deputy Communications Minister Alex Plewniak [Libertarian] Elected
    Deputy Communications Minister Markham Burton [Democratic] Elected
    Deputy Communications Minister Michael A. Cluley [America First] Elected

    *Due to one Prime Minister “standing down”, the ballots cast as proof were
    recounted, and the next highest name was elected in their stead.
    http://www.usparliament.org/c-v-1.php
    * * *

    Elected to the California Super-state Parliament
    MSP=member of super-state parliament
    MSP Doug Scribner* [Libertarian] Elected
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss11.php

    *Due to one MSP “standing down”, the ballot cast as proof were
    recounted, and the next highest name was elected in their stead.
    MSP=member of super-state parliament
    * * *

    Elected to the Central California Mini-state Parliament
    Economics Minister David Henderson [Libertarian] Elected
    Communications Minister Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist] Elected
    http://www.usparliament.org/exec-ss11-6.php
    * * *

  53. Catholic Trotskyist

    US Parliament growing every day; over a dozen political parties involved, and numerous interesting coalitions forming. 2011 will be a great year, but there is much struggle left.

  54. Catholic Trotskyist

    This week, the US Parliament has imrpoved the cabinet, with Nathan Johsnon (American Independent) as Transportation minister, and Angela Keaton (Libertarian) is also interested in joining, possibly as Labor Minister.

  55. Catholic Trotskyist

    I see that the main challenge of the US Parliament, is is getting more people to vote. Ranking the names is very easy; sure it takes some analysis and research, but it took me only an hour at most. Millions of people could easily be doing this, if they udnerstood it as an important priority. Right now, the US Parliament has only the executives voting. This is pretty similar to the Guardians system outlined in Plato’s Republic. It’s working well for the time being, but we have different goals than that.

  56. Catholic Trotskyist

    The US Parliament project has been improving the last couple weeks, with many new cabinet members, as you will see on the Cabinet page of the US Parliament website.
    James Ogle is either banned or has been having technical difficulties with IPR; however, be assured that the US Parliament is continuing to gain the support of various IPR readers, and others from a wide variety of political persuasions; including constitutionalists, libertarians, greens, Catholic Trotskyists, and even Democrats and Republicans.

  57. Pizda Tebe

    He’s not having any technical difficulties either. The problem he is having is that he wants to post his spam all over every other thread except this one, and it is not being allowed (smart move!)

    If he has posted anything to this thread and it didn’t come through, all he has to do is bring it to the attention of the moderators and they will pull it out of the spam filter for him.

  58. Greatest Parliamentary Fights

    The tea parties were started by US President Ronald Reagan [Republican], MP Clint Eastwood [Info. Not Avail.] and their campaign advisor Sue Hutchinson [Info. Not Avail.] in 1986, in order to counter balance the propaganda of the Environmentalist Party.

  59. FYI! [More Don Lake]

    Jan Tucker to California Secretary of State

    Phil Sawyer

    Longish, Detailed missive from Mister Jan Tucker

    View Contact: Irv Sutley ; Jan Tucker ; Ct Weber ; Daniel Frederick ; Darcy Richardson ; Richard Winger ; donlake@ymail.com

    Philippe L. Sawyer, Member:

    Sacramento County Central Committee,
    Peace and Freedom Party of California

    >
    > Honorable Secretary of State Bowen:
    >
    > First, this letter is to formally protest the application of time deadlines and signature requirements for candidates in the 28th and 17th State Senate District Special Elections who chose to attempt to solicit signatures in lieu of the filing fee. As applied, the State of California and the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters as directed by the Secretary of State was plainly in violation of Lubin vs. Panish, (1974) 415 US 709. For the record, I was the primary litigant in 1974 inTucker vs. Brown which resulted in an injunction being issued against the enforcement of the filing fee law then in effect by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, while the Lubin case was under consideration by the United States Supreme Court.
    >
    > Incidentally, the decision in Lubin was 9-0 (6 for main judgment by Chief Justice Burger, 2 for concurrence of Rehnquist and Powell, 1 concurrence by Douglas ). Leonard Panish was the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters.
    >
    > Second, this letter is to request that you disclose to me the following information:
    > 1 The names, districts, and candidates in 1974 for State Legislature, Congress, and Statewide offices who paid filing fees and how much they paid;
    > 2 The names, districts and candidates in 1974 for the same offices who paid no filing fees under the injunctions in Choate vs. Brown, Tucker vs. Brown, and the ruling in Lubin vs. Panish.
    > 3 The names, districts, and candidates for all subsequent elections for the same offices who paid filing fees and how much they paid, and as well as the number of signatures that were credited for any candidates who submitted petitions in lieu of filing fees.
    >
    > If for any reason you decline to provide me with this information, then please consider this to be a request under the California Public Records Act, Section 6250 et seq, Government Code, for the right to inspect any and all writings that provide the information contained in the above three (3) delineated categories.
    >
    > This request is made pursuant to the California Public Records Act and the decisions in KNSD Channels 7/39 v. Superior Court (Vasquez)(1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1200, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 595 [No. D029949. Fourth Dist., Div. One. May 13, 1998.], Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court(M.P.R.) (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 367, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 69 [No. D029986. Fourth Dist., Div. One. Apr 20, 1998.], and Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court ( Adams ) (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 106, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 [No. D016546. Fourth Dist., Div. One. May 7, 1992.] which govern the common law and constitutional right to public access to government and judicial records. As to any judicial records I am seeking, the legislature enacted Section 77206(f) of the Government Code to require judicial rules must “ensur[e] [120 Cal.App.4th 293] that, upon written request, the trial courts provide, in a timely manner, information relating to the administration of the courts, including financial information and other information that affects the wages, hours, and working conditions of trial court employees.” (§ 77206, subd. (f).) as held in Orange County Employees Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 287, 15 CR 3rd 201.
    >
    > These laws and decisions preceded the enactment of SCA 1 (Proposition 59) which was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in November 2004. SCA 1 amended Article I, Section 3 of the California Constitution by providing that “The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny” and that
    >
    > ”A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.”
    >
    > In the case of Sutter’s Place Inc. v. Superior Court (City of San Jose ) (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1370, 75 CR 3rd 9, the court held that “”Implicit in the democratic process is the notion that government should be accountable for its actions. In order to verify accountability, individuals must have access to government files. Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy in the political process” (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 651.) and that:
    >
    > The California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.), enacted by the Legislature in 1968, provides for this access via a scheme to inspect public records maintained by state and local agencies. (Gilbert v. City of San Jose (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 606, 610.) The CPRA replaced a hodgepodge of statutes and court decisions relating to disclosure of public records and was conceived broadly to require full agency disclosure unless information is statutorily exempted. ( Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court(2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 759, 765 ( Los Angeles Unified).)
    >
    > “With the passage of Proposition 59 effective November 3, 2004, the people’s right of access to information in public settings now has state constitutional stature, grounding the presumption of openness in civil court proceedings with state constitutional roots.” (Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 597 (Savaglio); see also Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training v. Superior Court (2007) 2007 DJDAR 13089, 13090 [ "As a result of an initiative measure adopted by the voters in 2004, this principle now is enshrined in the state Constitution"] (Commission); International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers v. Superior Court (2007) 2007 DJDAR 13105, 13106 [same] (International Federation); BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 750 [Proposition 59 "enshrined in our state Constitution the public's right to access records of public agencies"] (BRV); Los Angeles Unified, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 765 [same].)
    >
    > Previously Confidential Records May Become Public
    >
    > Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 781, 152 Cal.Rptr. 846 held after initial periods of confidentiality, some records ultimately become public records:
    >
    > “The filing of a document imports that it is thereby placed in the custody of a public official to be preserved by him for public use. Because for a season its value is best conserved by maintaining its confidential character by excluding public gaze, it becomes no less a public record. (People v. Tomalty, 14 Cal.App. 224, 232 [111 P. 513];Cox v. Tyrone Power Enterprises, Inc., 49 Cal.App.2d 383, 395 [121 P.2d 829].) (People v. Pearson (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 9, 30 [244 P.2d 35].)
    >
    > Therefore, if you contend that any record I am seeking is temporarily but not permanently unavailable, please identify the precise or approximate date when you believe that this record will or may become publicly available and/or the circumstances which must exist for it to become publicly available.
    >
    > Litigation or Potential Litigation Irrelevant
    >
    > In the event that you intend to object to release of these records because you believe that the request is somehow related to litigation, unless the records requested were expressly prepared for counsel, attorney-client privilege does not apply. Additionally, the fact that litigation exists or might come into play is fundamentally irrelevant to the California Public Records Act. See City of Hemet v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise Co.) (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1411, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 532.
    >
    > Time for Compliance & Requirement of Written Justification for Refusal
    >
    > Under Section 6253 of the Government Code you have ten (10) days to comply with this request.
    >
    > If you believe that I am not entitled to the records I am requesting, you must justify your refusal within (ten) 10 days in writing under Section 6255 of the Government Code. You may only refuse to give me these records if there is an express law prohibiting you from giving them to me. In the case of California State University , Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court (McClatchy Co.) (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 810, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 870 [No. F037383. Fifth Dist. Jul. 16, 2001.] the court held that “The burden of proof is on the proponent of nondisclosure, who must demonstrate a ‘clear overbalance’ on the side of confidentiality. [Citations.] The purpose of the requesting party in seeking disclosure cannot be considered…. It is also irrelevant that the requesting party is a newspaper or other form of media, because it is well established that the media has no greater right of access to public records than the general public….”
    >
    > If you fail to comply with this request, I have a legal right to bring suit to force you to comply under Section 6259 of the Government Code and if I prevail, it is mandatory that the court award me reasonable attorney fees and costs.
    >
    > Respectfully yours, Jan B. Tucker

  60. Greatest Parliamentary Fights

    @ 94, Honorable CA-PAR Prime Minister Don Lake [American Independent]:

    Thank you you for posting news about the USA Parliament’s Senate Minister Jan Tucker [Peace and Freedom].

    Hororable moderator Paulie, thank you for your volunteer work IPR, PM Lake was very helpful in posting such information in this thread.

  61. Member of Micro-state Parliament

    Roseannearchists, all readers, and Honorable Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]:

    I thank you very much for the vote of confidence: the “OK”. We really should start coordinating more, the Green Tea, Roseannarchist, Free Parliamentary, Libertarian and Green Tea Parties, to name but a few.

    In fact, I have a idea on how to work together more…if someone could go to the Boston Tea Party web site and second the name Roseanne Barr for US President, and all names nominated for both US President and Vice President, it would really help. Under our system of ranking, it helps to keep getting more and more names nominated and ranked.

    Here is the URL, and my nomination (comment #16) where we need the seconding of Roseanne Barr, please:

    http://www.bostontea.us/node/963

    16 joogle:
    I nominate Roseanne Barr for president

    01/24/2011 – 16:53
    * * *

    I am on a mission to figure out how to help the All Party System, and I plan to nominate all Roseannarchists for president and vice president with the Boston Tea Party, have our Foreign Minister write a policy statement on the current events in Egypt, and also to ask all the males at the Libertarian web site and convention to vote for the opposite gender #1, a female for president.

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/12/us-parliament-open-thread/

    Meanwhile, I plan to try to improve the USA Parliament’s rules to enlarge the number of Full Cabinet Ministries from twelve to (unlimited?) so we can elect more Roseannarchists to the Cabinet.

    If anyone has time to second Roseanne’s name with the Boston Tea Party, it would really be helpful. Please click on their link above, or go to http://www.bostontea.us ASAP, so we can start expand the coalition by making them bigger in time for the national Libertarian Party convention in May of 2012.

    The Boston Teas and the Libertarians like Roseannearchists and Anarchists in general, but we are in a struggle with the Reagan Libertarians and Gingrich Libertarians who occupy national USA chair and state vice chair of the Nevada Libertarian Party. The chairs are not for a female as both chair and president.

    Males actually greatly outnumber females at their conventions, so the “opposite gender #1″ system (that I support) will need help to get more females elected.

    This can also be used in Egypt, in case Foreign Minister Jane Violet [Roseannarchist] reads this, we could use a statement promoting the USA Parliament’s rules for Egypt.

    I will post this message on: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/12/us-parliament-open-thread/

    All parties mentioned above, are not for ranked voting which when combined with opposite gender #1, with alternating genders thereafter, would elect gender balance, and we need to convert them if possible.

    Of course, people may still vote male #1 and #2, but we’re only asking that they try to find the top candidate of the opposite gender, not forcing them. Their vote is still secret.

    One more thing, this would be good for enhancing political and economic freedom in the USA and all foreign countries too.

    I will be promoting the idea myself, but if anyone else likes it, I would appreciate some help nominating and seconding names, and promoting the concept, as quickly as possible.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    –James

  62. paulie

    James, it was the automated thing this time. I fished it out.

    You are welcome to post messages like that on this thread.

    If you let us know when the automated filter does that to you, and you are posting on this thread, we can get to it quicker and more reliably.

  63. Member of Micro-state Parliament

    Me above: “[...]I will post this message on: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/12/us-parliament-open-thread/…]”

    Me here: I tried to post a comment on the USA Parliament open thread, but I am being censored there. This is not the first time that the “bunker” has been shooting hot metal against our team on Normandy Beach from the cliffs above.

    Everyone, we need open-ended nominations now, to make this work. This is the USA Parliament’s nomination period to test-market new names and ideas, to build our numbers…please go to the USA Parliament’s “Vote Here” page, and nominate three new names for the Central California Parliament Election of 2011.

    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

    Need not be a resident of Central California to participate. If we can’t nominate new names to our team now, we probably can’t even organize a picnic on the beach! This is the time to plant seeds for Spring!

    –James O. Ogle

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”, “Look what they’ve done to my NAME, ma!”
    (Google’s owners derived their name from my logo in October of 1997 when I had been promoting this operation online since 1992 in Usenet, and consequently they misspelled googol, the actual spelling of the number.

    The Free Parliamentary Party: “Opposite gender #1, with consecutively alternating genders thereafter!”

    “Barr/Ogle for president…(visa versa for females, Did you GoOgle/Barr?). Barr, a female for president!”

    Please, we need nominations in all areas to expand. Think of this as Egypt, where we wish to help them, by informing them that they need to nominate 50 to 165 female names for president of Egypt. (along with 50 to 165 males).

  64. paulie

    I tried to post a comment on the USA Parliament open thread, but I am being censored there.

    No, you are not. See immediately above your comment at # 99.

    #98 Was what you posted last night.

    Again, it’s an automated spam filter and it sometimes makes mistakes.

    A-U-T-O-M-A-T-E-D.

    Again, again:

    It would work better if you alerted us that this was happening, rather than once again assuming incorrectly (even after it has already been explained to you) that you are being censored.

    This is a different issue than posting US parliament stuff on unrelated thread.

    You can post it all you want on this thread.

    If you get caught by the automated (that’s automated) spam filter while posting to this thread, you can let us know about it.

    Got it?

  65. Central California Parliament

    If anyone wants to work as a 100-member team with votes cast as proof, I have the system and it’s been set up since 1995, and I’m trying to work with those interested everyday.

    Clearly, the direction of IPR, Free and Equal Foundation, BAN, Boston Tea, Libertarian and Green Parties, etc. are bent on power grabbing single winner districts on all levels of elections, and so this do not bode well for a national at-large coalition of 100, based on votes cast as proof.

    But, if you as an individual would like to give this a try, please feel free to nominate up to three names during the months of February and March 2011, by clicking on:
    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

    It’s my opinion, that third parties and independents can’t win in single winner districts, especially when information of how to cooperate is suppressed.

    But I believe in what I’m doing enough to try to keep it going through 2012, even though I can see that close to 100% of all third parties and independents have already lost.

  66. Boston Tea Party Bylaws Are Self Defeating

    To Boston Tea Party Chair:

    I suggest you personally find someone to second all the names for president and vice president to get us on a fast track to expansion.

    All names nominated for one of the two offices, be nominated for both offices, to reduce roadblocks.

    And I suggest you make that the standard M.O. for all future nominees until the bylaws can be improved.

    We need someone who knows the BTP’s bylaws and has time, to review the bylaws and compare them to the 33 USA Parliament’s rules so we can synchronize.

    Each set of rules should dovetail, as the USA Parliament’s annual cycles have been refined over a period of 27 years when the Environmentalist Party was founded in 1983, and became the All Party System in 1995.

    As I stated before, we’ve cut out all the fat, and we have a very efficient state of the art set of rules, to use as a guide for the BTP and open up the system.

    We’ll be able to get a lot more people cooperating under my plans, by starting to take down the bogus roadblocks and puffy chested foo-foo rhetoric.

    I’m tired of seeing people who may want to help, but may have differing priorities than you and/or your bylaws, and they will be, or are being turned away.

    To me, it looks like the BTP’s bylaws REALLY need to be streamlined.

    If your bylaws allow an unlimited number of nominees, then we throttle, and make the lists as long as possible.

    Make the list for nominations of president and vice president identical, so that if one voter prefers a female for president and a male for vice president (or visa versa), their names will appear on both lists.

    And please make the lists ASAP. The bylaws are so pompous and filled with rococo, they are hampering us and slowing everyone down. And you haven’t even elected #1 and #2 yet.

    If you try to do that and the timing with the convention keeps your hands tied behind your back, you may as well be walking the plank rather than running for president!

    But I can see the arrogance and chauvinisms built into the bylaws. Rules that don’t guarantee the highest satisfaction level possible.

    I will be writing about how we can raise the satisfaction level higher and higher. We’ll want the highest level of votes to count that’s possible.

    We can easily raise the level to the 99% plus 100 votes level. Currently, with approval voting, it does not appear that the level is even guaranteed a majority: 50% plus one vote.

    For example, a small faction of say 20% could put tics on both president and vice president, and elect them against the will of the 80% of the other voters, who might split their votes among five other names who are different in philosophy from the 20% minority.

    Fortunately there appears to be many gaping loopholes in the bylaws, so maybe we can work around the imperfections and the roadblocks, if we try very hard.

  67. Boston Tea Party Bylaws Are Self Defeating

    I wrote: “[...] Make the list for nominations of president and vice president identical [snip, snip]”

    I would like to say, I don’t support have two ballots, one for president and one for vice president, under approval voting.

    A single parliamentary ballot with ranked voting would solve the BTP problem of having potentially one name winning both seats, as well as the potential for any ties between two or more names.

    Finally, the consecutively alternating gender scheme can be used with ranked voting, but not with approval voting.

    But I don’t see the chair making any movement towards opening up the ballot to all nominees. In fact, what we do under ranked voting, is allow those elected the same level of free speech.

    In that case, when they “stand down” and the next highest ranked name is automatically elected.

    The current BTP bylaws are not in the spirit of the original Boston Tea Party, and can’t be improved while the current chair has his stranglehold on their operation. It really smells of the same male, thick-headed egocentric mentality of the British Monarchs.

  68. Boston Tea Party Bylaws Are Self Defeating

    Deputy PLAS Minister Robert Milnes [Green] wrote: “[...]If you would like to give PLAS a fair try, join the effort asap. NOW would be nice.”

    Honorable Deputy PLAS Minister Milnes [Green]…I have joined PLAS, and our central Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] has elected Dashus Christ [Roseannarchist] as PLAS Minister.

    I am trying to contact you to help your campaign, but I don’t have your email address or phone number.

    If you could second your name, PLAS Minister Christ, and all other names nominated for president and vice president on the Boston Tea Party site, that would really help.

    I’ve done a lot on this end for your campaign for PLAS, but we need some reciprocal cooperation. Your name isn’t going to go anywhere, if you don’t at least second your own nomination.

    Best,
    –James

  69. Thomas L. Knapp

    @104,

    You write:

    “The current BTP bylaws are not in the spirit of the original Boston Tea Party, and can’t be improved while the current chair has his stranglehold on their operation.”

    The BTP’s bylaws can only be “improved” by the party’s convention participants, and per article 11i of those bylaws, any two members (one to move, one to second) can put their “improvements” up for a vote.

    So, if you want the BTP to modify its bylaws so that it ceases to be a political party and becomes instead a branch of your boring, complicated role-playing game, all you have to do is find one more supporter in the party and make your proposals when they count.

  70. Darryl W. Perry

    the BTP problem of having potentially one name winning both seats, as well as the potential for any ties between two or more names.
    This is a non-problem imagined by you.
    As for the potential of having “one name winning both seats” – it is encouraged that people nominated for both offices, seek only one of the two. Additionally common sense states that one person cannot be both the Presidential AND Vice Presidential nominee; so they would then refuse one of the two nominations (assuming they sought & won both), thus vacating the position which would require another vote.
    Additionally, the bylaws call for run-off voting to ensure a winner that receives a majority of the vote.

  71. Alaska Constitution Party

    Honorable Thomas L. Knapp wrote:
    “The BTP’s bylaws can only be “improved” by the party’s convention participants, and per article 11i of those bylaws, any two members (one to move, one to second) can put their “improvements” up for a vote.

    So, if you want the BTP to modify its bylaws so that it ceases to be a political party and becomes instead a branch of your boring, complicated role-playing game, all you have to do is find one more supporter in the party and make your proposals when they count.”

    …and I thank you for the invitation, and I reciprocate the offer. If you’d like to learn about our team, you’re welcome to sign. We have the 100-member Central California Parliament election and we’re planning a picnic on July 4th, and we welcome your interest. As secretary, you’d be able to rotate ministers in and out at will throughout the length of your term.

    I will make proposals to the BTP, and I plan to attend the convention. Ranked voting in a 100-member district, is actually quite similar to the BTP, and the ruling coalition (largest number of voting members) is probably a lot like your system.

    Thank you Tom, I look forward to working with you.

    And the Central California Parliament certainly welcomes BTP members, if any of them wish to work on a multi-party team, where each of the 100 elected members has the liberty to self-categorize with any party/category they wish, regardless of how they are actually registered to vote with their state.

    We use population balanced areas, so every voter is on the same playing ground in terms of mathematical even representation, no matter which state they reside.

    A very good system, set up by MSP Charles Bruce “Chuck” Stewart [Green Libertarian] who owns http://constitutionalgov.us/ and who resides in the PacificNW, which is grouped with Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii, in our system with twelve super-states.

    In fact, Chuck recently did all the population balancing calculations from the recent census, so he’s really an asset to our operation.

    If you can understand the concept of twelve population super-states, states and groups of states that are similar in population without breaching any state boundries, then you can begin to understand how this boring complicated role-playing game known as http://www.usparliament.org works.

    –James

  72. Alaska Constitution Party

    Honorable Darryl Perry [Boston Tea] wrote:
    “…Additionally, the bylaws call for run-off voting to ensure a winner that receives a majority of the vote.”

    Me: Can you post the specific writing here? It would take a long time to dig through the BTP’s mini-book set of rules to locate that rule’s actual writing.

    Thanks in advance,
    –James

  73. paulie

    James @107 and 109

    We have another person on this site who is actually with the Alaska Constitution Party who uses that screen name. Please use a different one that is not easily confused with someone else who actually comments at IPR or could reasonably be expected to do so.

    Also:

    Feel free to repost @ 105 on the PLAS thread.

  74. Thomas L. Knapp

    James,

    Thanks for the invitation, but I’m an anarchist. If I want to hold political office in a game, I’ll break out the 1959 edition of Risk that I bought for three bucks at a thrift store the other day.

  75. Christ Elected PLAS Minister

    Honorable Thomas Knapp [anarchist]:

    Actaully, we’d categorize you with what ever party/category you proclaim today, under the approved US Parliament rules. (just wanted to be clear about the USA Parliament’s system, which is cool)

  76. LibertarianGirl

    TK_ I’ll break out the 1959 edition of Risk that I bought for three bucks at a thrift store the other day.

    me_ LUCKY!!!!!!! I love that game , i have mne from the early 80′s…. if you come to the 2012 conv( offer to stay at my house still open ) we’ll get our game on , im a frickin Risk playin freak:)

  77. Thomas L. Knapp

    LG,

    If I’m there, you’re on!

    Pretty sweet game. I thought I might have a real rarity that I could turn some big bucks on, but it turns out they go for ~$25 on eBay, so I’m going to keep this one unless I find a home for it with someone who really has a thing for collecting games.

    The individual armies in this old edition are wooden cubes. Ovals for larger numbers. I haven’t counted to see if it has all the pieces, but it has all the cards, the rules sheet, etc. Fair shape (two corners of the box cover have broken loose, etc., but no huge damage that I noticed). I think it was $2.82 that I paid for it.

  78. Catholic Trotskyist

    The US Parliament has a great potential for widely differing groups to work together. The Roseannarchists, Libertarians and Catholic Trotskyists, while disagreeing on many political issues, are making progress on our efforts to increase attention of the all-party system. Greens and Constitutionalists are making a good effort also.

  79. Christ Elected PLAS Minister

    Deputy Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist]:
    Correction noted and page updated.
    * * *

    “Elect a female President, Vice President and Prime Minister in Egypt today! Opposite gender #1, with consecutively alternating genders thereafter!”
    –James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Candidate for Vice President with the
    Boston Tea Party

    Please second the nomination of James Ogle for Vice President now:
    http://www.bostontea.us

    (Because he can really use an actual paying job, and we can really reduce the size of government under the Ogle plan, which will defer decisions to the 3/5ths vote of the five-member executive, elected by the 100-member team.
    One of whom may be you.)

    “Your name #1, and Nott #2!
    Your name is invited to the party,
    the Programmer Minister of the 6th California Parliament is Nott.
    Nott the Libertarian.”

    Free Ireland!

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

  80. Christ Elected PLAS Minister

    Deputy Economics Minister Wetzell [LT Party Movement] wrote:

    I wanted to share with you all a blog-entry where I give a numerical illustration of why we need to revamp, not replace, the Electoral College so we have a two-staged presidential election with the second stage in the Electoral College and the “general election” would be a
    winner-doesn’t-take-all election that would be less cut-throat competitive and yet very effective at keeping any Sarah Palin’s from getting elected.

    http://anewkindofparty.blogspot.com/2011/02/simplified-illustration-of-how-we-ought.html

    dlw

  81. The Promise of Democracy

    When you receive 1/101ths (or .99%) plus one vote of the votes cast, you are elected as one of the 100 members.

    By ranking every tic with consecutive numbers beginning with the number one, the voters elect a #1 as president and a #2 as vice president.

    But #s 3 to 100 are also elected, and they deminish the importance of #1 and #2 because the #s 2-98 are the majority of 98 to two.

    Do you have a better plan?

    It’s the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system, it’s the most mathematically perfect system for electing an assembly.

    It’s actually a lot easier to do than you think!

  82. Christ Elected PLAS Minister

    Let’s Change the Rules

    The rules are in place for 2012 for the third parties to lose. They will elect one chair and one US Presidential candidate when the conventions convene, then what?

    They all go home and wait for the first Tuesday in November to amass maybe 1% of the votes for each party/presidential candidate.

    Here’s My Plan

    We change the the rules of third parties to elect 100 consecutively ranked names, with plenty of consecutively ranked names as back-ups.

    #1 and #2 are both chair/vice chair and prez/vice prez.

    Then, the 100 elected members, having been elected from the US Parliament’s ballot, are all invited to cast their “MPs’ vote” to elect three prime ministers, two secretaries and one set of rules.

    The executives are then in charge, not the prez/vice prez, chair/vice chair.

    The three prime ministers are like the figureheads: PM Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian], PM Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] and PM Chelene Nightingale [Constitution].

    Meanwhile, the prez/vice prez elected as in the scenario above, each rank a ballot of US Senate candidates, combing their two ballots to elect a coalition of 50 US Senate candidates, one from each state.

    There we have a national coalition: a prez/vp from perhaps two differing parties and 50 US senate candidates, 25 elected by the prez, and 25 elected by the vice prez. Because when their ballots are combined, they’d each elect their top 25 names to the coalition. And it’s dynamic, they may change their rankings at anytime.

    I await your comment.

    –James

  83. DLW

    Hi, I recently wrote up a numerical illustration for an idea of how to reboot the electoral college system in the US to something closer to what the writers of the US Constitution intended. It makes our general election an “open primary” where everyone picks their favorite three out of seven finalists and then the three candidates with the most approval votes go to the Electoral college where 1305 electors chosen at the congressional district level using the same rule, would use IRV to choose the next president.

    This guarantees the election of a moderate Republican/Democrat and that Sarah Palin or someone similar could never become president.

    http://anewkindofparty.blogspot.com/2011/02/simplified-illustration-of-how-we-ought.html

    I’m hoping to get feedback on this idea. I believe that there’s no clear evolutionary path from the US’s existing system to a parliamentary system, but that there are plenty of ways to push for a better balance in the use of both winner-take-all(single-seated) and winner-doesn’t-take-all(multi-seated) elections. The two-stage approach to the presidential election would fit this prescription since the first stage would be multi-seated, while the second stage would be single-seated.

    dlw

  84. Thomas L. Knapp

    James @125,

    You write:

    “I await your comment.”

    My comment is this:

    You propose to “change the rules” by playing your game.

    The problem is, playing your game doesn’t change any rules.

    You can play-elect as much as you want, but the people who move into the White House and the Naval Observatory and the Rayburn building will be the people elected via the process that your game rejects.

    How do you propose to move from fiddlefucking around with your 100-person-ranked-slate brainstorm as a role-playing game, to actually implementing it in the real world?

  85. The Promise of Democracy

    Honorable Thomas L. Knapp [anarchist]:

    Thank you for your interest, and I will happily answer your question.

    The rules of the Libertarian Party can be changed, if there were the support to change them. I don’t know the exact percent at the convention…maybe 2/3rds vote.

    Next, we change the rules to give all delegate the liberty to self-categorize however they wish, regardless of their state’s actual registration reconds.

    We allow all interested delegate to speak, instead of a few prez candidates, to allow them to explain what party/category they’d be categorized with should their name be written in on the ballot with tics.

    The ballot actually doubles as a voter registration drive and can be reproduced, so all delegates could take the paper ballots home to campaign for more tics, or vote online.

    This process is replicated at the Constitution and Green Party conventions, as they both need all-party registration drives too.

    Are you starting to get the piucture?

    –James

  86. Thomas L. Knapp

    James,

    You write:

    “Are you starting to get the picture?”

    I’m getting a picture, but it’s not a picture of this scheme accomplishing anything, even within the narrow confines of electoral politics.

  87. The Promise of Democracy

    Playing my game, the most mathematically perfect system for voting known as the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system, involves voting on a stack of ballots cast as proof, just as all third parties do at their conventions.

    Rules for the parties’ conventions can be changed, were there enough support for implementing a better system which allows cooperation and working together.

    Each single parliamentary ballot ballot also sports a federal voter registration form, and can be taken around the country over a 100-day cycle. So the system registers more voters and reaches out to more voters too.

    And it’s free.

    Whereas the conventional convention, every voter must travel to the convention, thus limiting participation, and is actually quite costly for casting a vote for a single winner (or two) for a prez candidate (and vp).

    By having 100 winners who are elected as a team, you’d have a much bigger team that votes as a team and thinks as a team. Instead of one presidential candidate who is supposed to do everything and have all the answers.

    Plus, the five-member executive is potentially from five differing parties/categories, and they’d make decisions too, and they’d be accountable to the 100-member body and could be rotated in and out like five basketball players whenever the 100-member body changes their votes, or rankings.

    When the team makes decisions, it’s 100 people thinking and ranking multiple alternatives, before the decision is made.

    When the executives make decisions, it’s a 3/5th vote minimum.

    The publicity of multiple parties working together instead of fighting will be much more powerful, than several groups split and not coordinating, so you’d get more good PR.

    I think the Libertarians Party might like this, as it gives every individual more liberty to self-categorize to refine their own position…like Gingrich Libertarians and Reagan Libertarians, for example. They would be grouped together with all Libertarians. And the Left Anarchists and Anarchists, would be groups too, to allow the voters to see a more clear and exact picture of whom they’re voting for.

    Even one word of communication on the ballot as the party name is more helpful, when electing a 100-member team.

    Imagine when things stay the same, only two parties, or maybe six parties are permitted, when there could be 100 possibilities in this system, including independents and decline to states who would be working on the team for more liberty.

  88. Porn Again Christian

    Personally, I find the chick snorting jizz @ 118 waaaaaaaaaaaaay more interesting than the rest of this thread. Unfortunately, it’s not my jizz.

    I think most people in the Constipation, Green Recycled Food, and Libergordianknotarian parties pretty much agree, which means that you won’t be changing their rules, either.

    And even if you did, none of them would still be moving into the White House and the Naval Observatory and the Rayburn building any more than they are now. Quite the opposite: they would be even less credible with the general public at that point than they are now, as hard as that may seem to believe.

    However, I think you may well form a strategic alliance with the Psycho-Lunatic Asylum Strategy and the Mormon Maoist Shining Path to create a better veterans mental health clinic in or around Barstow, California, governed by a 100-candidate patient-selected and ranked system. That sounds like a totally achievable goal, actually.

  89. dlw

    Well, I take it as datum that the executive function requires a clear-cut hierarchy with someone on top. One might manage with five in a context that bears less responsibility but if a country were at war then it’d suck if one of the five top leaders were compromised into helping the enemy by passing along sensitive information or subtly holding up key decisions.

    It’d be nice if that sort of situation were not possible, but it’s not likely and, as such, 5-person team of equals in an executive office doesn’t promise to be feasible at any time in the near future..

    so what do folks think of my idea to revamp the electoral college?

  90. The Promise of Democracy

    David wrote:

    “so what do folks think of my idea to revamp the electoral college?

    David, I like your proposed system for revamping the electorl system. I think we should try to keep the LT Party Movement involved over the long range.

    Not many people appear to be interested, but eventually we’ll hook up with those who are interested.

    It looks like you already have a small network of frineds judging by your web page and I’d say the long term prospects of your ideas are very good.

    I am on the Boston Tea national ballot access group, and I look forward to when we’ll get the participation of mathematicians like yourself, and the ideas you promote working effectively as a team.

    For example, people like Secretary Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist], and other political science enthusiasts.

    However, I still disagree with you regarding the “single leader” theory you support. To me, a 3/5ths majority is five times smarter.

  91. Fun K. Chicken

    “I am on the Boston Tea national ballot access group, and I look forward to when we’ll get the participation of mathematicians like yourself, and the ideas you promote working effectively as a team.”

    Excellent news!

    50-state ballot access for the BTP can’t be far off.

  92. The Promise of Democracy

    @135 Re: “50-state ballot access for the BTP can’t be far off.”

    You never know, do you? With positive reinforcement, maybe we’ll suddenly gain the “star power” to access the national establishment media to open up free speech?

    But not from the status quo chairs and other activist of the third parties who advocate “their party, or the highway”.

    I’m for the liberty for all to self categorize for all individuals, and not just the Boston Tea. The LT Party Movement, the Free Parliamentary, etc., etc.

    I don’t see too many promoting the idea, but maybe it’ll catch on since we have the tool in place to work together through votes cast as proof?

    It’s those in the “bunker” spraying their rounds on us, the all-party system and independents on the beach, those inside the concrete bunkers while we are being decimated, who perpeuate the single winner districts and control over these free speech liberties who are hindering these efforts.

    They’re fakes, greed heads, power mongers and control freaks, who think in terms of one party/category, who are encrusted in an Egyptian-style dictatorship, which is actually a teeny bit more fair than our own in the USA!

    For example, women have about 6% of the US Senate, while in Egypt, there’s close to 12% female representation (in both assemblies).

    The same oppressive laws in Egypt which prohibit political free speech there, are applied in the USA by similarly well intentioned do-gooders who are afraid of the friendly competition of ideas of new party names.

  93. The Promise of Democracy

    To Honorable Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist]:

    I apologize for nominating your name for PLAS Minister, and then Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] elected Dashus Christ [Roseannearchist] as PLAS Minister, thus making your name lower ranked and Deputy PLAS Minister.

    It’s no problemo if you want your name removed. I tried contacting you but I couldn’t get in touch.

    Just let me know, your name will be removed and the next highest names will automatically be elected in your stead.

    Peace,
    –James

    PS I put you as Left Anarchist, and if you wish to stay on I can make your name categorized with a more exact party/category that you wish.

  94. dlw

    Hi POD.

    I’m both a mathematician and a political-economist with a PHD in Economics.

    I call myself a Communitarian, inasmuch as I’m not quite Libertarian and not quite Liberal but do very much believe in the wide-ranging applicability of Lord Acton’s dictum that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, there is a need to balance what is sometimes referred to as the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of socialization. Albeit, the non-competitive nature of most local elections due to their single-seated nature and de facto segregation has made us distrust more local government and centralize too much decision-making. This is why I focus much of my electoral reform advocacy in pushing for the use of 3-seated Hare Largest Remainder for state assembly and city council elections in combination with winner-take-all/single-seated elections.

    I tend to think that balancing the two basic types of elections are what matter most and the specific sorts of options (rankings or approval votes or FPTP) given to voters and how they get aggregated are of secondary import. This is what I call Strategic Election Reform, a position in the electoral debate.

    I predict that if either Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann come close to being nominated as the Republican candidate for President or Vice President that it’ll attract attention to my idea. Plus, the ugliness of the presidential election would help it, because a National Popular Vote isn’t going to end the ugliness or the possibility of an extremist of either a rightist persuasion gaming the primaries to become the President. (I don’t think the Democrats cd nominate a leftist extremist due to their use of proportional representation in their state primary elections.)

    So vi vill see!

    I personally think that it’d be for the best if political outsiders like us let go of fantasizing about getting one of “our people” into power at the top and focused more on contesting local winnable elections and voting strategically together as a minor part of our MLKjr/Gandhi-like activism to move the political center.

  95. The Promise of Democracy

    dlw wrote: “[...] I personally think that it’d be for the best if political outsiders like us let go of fantasizing about getting one of “our people” into power at the top and [...]”

    Ok, Ok, and judging by your web page you’re probably not even 35 years or older anyway, so I can see why you’re not interested in fantasizing about power at the “top”.

    Just think of this as a chance to access free speech. It doesn’t matter that you’re not 35, take it as far as you can anyway! So what if you actually get elected as president (or vice president) and have to stand down?

    Maybe you’re 25? What about US Senate?

    At least you’d been able to speak and write about your issues. People don’t realize, the issue here is free speech.

    Why do you think people are protesting in Egypt? It’s because party names aren’t being licensed, like here in the US.

    They won’t let you have a LT Party Movement nor will they allow me a Free Parliamentary Party. That’s what unites us.

    Look, we can still work together but we need to build a team.

    What we need to do is second all the names for US President and Vice President, over on the Boston Tea Party site, so we can get everyone interested in working as a team.
    http://www.bostontea.us

    Then next, we try taking over a larger party.

    We keep picking up the splinters on our side one by one starting today.

    If anyone reads this, I have already nominated about 40 or so names for US President and US Vice President of the Boston Tea Party.

    I know what I’m doing, and I did it.

    So now we’re bogged down, because everyone is sitting around expecting their names to suddenly get nominated and elected on their own at the Boston Tea Party site.

    People aren’t even seconding the names…and we need blanket seconding of ALL names.

    Even the four voting members of the Boston Tea Party aren’t nominating and seconding names, as though…they’re suspicious. They’re afraid under their system of maybe one chair, one co-chair, and five at-large members…that having 60 to 125 names nominated for their party will hurt their ability as controllers.

    They’re not interested in growing they want to stay as small as possible.

    Anyone who isn’t for opposite gender #1 is against ranked voting. Ranked voting allows for gender balance.

    The Boston Tea is like the national Libertarian Party. They’ll have maybe three to seven presidential candidates on the ballot, preferably super rich only, and they want to be chairs so they can sit with that stranglehold on the party.

    They can’t deal with 125 to 165 candidates for president, their little minds are too small.

    So even though you may not BE for trying to elect one of us to the “top”, could you at least get us on the ballot with the Boston Tea Party?

    We’re trying to build a big team.

    How many times do I need to ask people before someone finally acts? Eventually it will happen, but we need more people working together a lot faster, that’s for sure!

    All these political enthusiasts around here, you think they’d understand the urgency of the next 24 to 48 hours and how we need to act fast.

    At current pace, sixteen years is sixteen minutes on Normandy Beach, and Battle of the Bulge is 175,000 years in the future!

  96. Maybe It's Time for the Boston Tea Chair Must to Go

    After doing some research on the type of government Egypt has, it comes to my attention that it is much like that of the USA’s.

    The election rules are set up in Egypt so that new parties are required to get licensed before they may access the ballot. (Much like the USA, where the Boston Tea Party can’t access the ballot without overcoming huge hurdles).

    Only those who vow support for the current regime are permitted to access the ballot. (Much like the BTP regime).

    Other than that, they do have a strong presidential system too. But their bicameral government is largely a multi-party system under proportional representation.

    So as you can see, I have a much closer plan of self government to the Egyptian people than the current regime at the Boston Tea Party. I am not for a strong single-winner presidency, I’m for a multi-party five member executive.

    The issue is also free speech.

    The Muslim Brotherhood is banned in Egypt. But what about the Muslim Sisterhood?

    You can have a proportional representation system in place, but if you don’t allow individuals to self categorize as they wish, you have a system like Egypt’s.

    It’s time for the BTP to rise above the silly limits on free speech, to join the James Ogle for vice president campaign (opposite gender #1!), and allow all individuals to self-categorize as they wish when accessing the ballot.

    Including the dictatorial Boston Tea Party regime.

  97. Darryl W. Perry

    James,

    Constantly bitching about the BTP bylaws won’t make them change. Tom Knapp & myself have told you time and again that they can only be changed DURING convention!

    I’m curious what you mean by Only those who vow support for the current regime are permitted to access the ballot. (Much like the BTP regime).
    What “regime” in the BTP?
    Also,
    Also, how do you believe it benefits the BTP to have people nominate for consideration people that do not affirm support for the BTP platform and/or willingness to possibly be the BTP nominee?

  98. paulie

    Darryl,

    Makes you feel like a collorectal surgeon sometimes, doesn’t it?

    PS: Good job on YBS radio this morning. I hope you are using these media appearances to leverage more and bigger media appearances.

  99. paulie

    What I would recommend is that you do a press release about each media appearance (or multiple appearances when they become frequent enough) and keep them all archived in one place. Link that archive every time you send something out. Then call them, ask if they had a chance to listen/watch/read and if they would have you on as well.

  100. Maybe It's Time for the Boston Tea Chair Must to Go

    “I’m curious what you mean by Only those who vow support for the current regime are permitted to access the ballot. (Much like the BTP regime). What “regime” in the BTP?”

    The bylaws were written and implemented by you and Thomas Knapp, from what I gather. They’re you bylaws, a reflection of your work. Just as Paulie’s work is a reflection of him.

    Inflexible, rigid and stuffy, are three adjectives that come to mind.

    I was making the comparison to your work at the BTP, with that of Mubarak, president of Egypt.

    I wrote:
    “[...] allow all individuals to self-categorize as they wish when accessing the ballot.”

    What is it that you don’t understand? Your bylaws create roadblocks and are exclusionary of membership.

    I’m for taking down roadblocks. Your bylaws make roadblocks. Do you need more explanation?

    I’m for increasing liberties, and you’re for taking them away.

    I wrote:
    “[...] allow all individuals to self-categorize as they wish when accessing the ballot.”

  101. paulie

    Is this the joker?

    No, it’s the Penguin.

    BTW, Darryl did not write the BTP bylaws.

    ABTW, on the PLAS thread, Milnes asked his name be removed from the USP websites and also said he never wanted it included in the first place, and disagrees with a process where someone’s name gets added without their consent and then they have to ask to have it removed after the fact.

    And I said I agree with him on that.

  102. Maybe It's Time for the Boston Tea Chair to Go?

    I wrote:
    “The issue is also free speech.

    The Muslim Brotherhood is banned in Egypt. But what about the Muslim Sisterhood?

    You can have a proportional representation system in place, but if you don’t allow individuals to self categorize as they wish, you have a system like Egypt’s.”

    Darryl, the BTP bylaws require that one accepts the current content of the party’s platform, to be able to access the ballot.

    Furthermore, the requirement of a seconding, is also a hindrance to accessing the BTP ballot.

    I have plenty of friends who will probably second my name (since you won’t), but this is simply another roadblock to nominees.

    That’s just my personal experience on nominations. Why create more roadblocks to people, especially if you look at the supply/demand of people interested in participating?

  103. Maybe It's Time for the Boston Tea Chair to Go?

    Milnes wrote:
    “[...] I must say I do not appreciate a process where one is involved without consent then must proactively request to be removed.”

    Well, maybe he’d better contact the BTP site, and have his name removed from there too?

    I’m all for helping people do what they want done.

    If he doesn’t want a vote or nomination from me, then so be it. I’d already voted for him in two places.

  104. The Promise of Democracy

    I nominated his name in three places, if you count nominating his name publicly on IPR.

    I apologize to Milnes.

    I guess he doesn’t like that.

    I thought when someone proclaims to run for US President as he does, that his offer to run for public office was an open invitation to nominating and voting for his name.

    I can’t control how he thinks.

    I’m different. People MAY nominate my name in places since I’m running for US Vice President (I’d accept president too).

    But then, maybe you don’t like my proposed rules?

    “Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!”

    GoOgle for Vice President [Free Parliamentary]

  105. NewFederalist

    Gosh oh golly gee, Batman… perhaps it’s The Riddler. It is so obtuse and strange and pointless.

  106. The Promise of Democracy

    I wrote:
    “But then, maybe you don’t like my proposed rules?”

    “Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!”

    Just wanted to make it clear, I’m not proposing opposite gender as #1 a one of the proposed rules, I’m proposing ranked voting in multi-member districts.

    You may vote any gender you wish, I’m just *suggesting* people vote opposite gender #1, to mathematically guarantee gender balance when 2/3rds of the voters rank alternating genders as #1 and #2 under the rules I propose.

    (Note: Ranked voting isn’t used under BTP’s bylaws, but their bylaws weren’t written by the current chair, either.)

  107. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The bylaws were written and implemented by you and Thomas Knapp, from what I gather.”

    I wrote the original bylaws for use in the BTP’s initial organizational convention in 2006. At that convention, they were subject to ratification or rejection by the membership, and to amendment by the membership.

    They were also subject to amendment by the membership at the party’s 2008 and 2010 conventions.

    They can only be amended by the party’s membership. The party isn’t the chair’s personal toy.

    If you want the bylaws amended to allow for whatever it is you want to do, you ought to consider drafting an amendment that accomplishes that, and putting it before the membership.

    I do, however, suggest that you draft any such amendment in English instead of the impenetrable jargon you’ve been using here. It can’t be implemented if it can’t be understood, nor is it likely to pass if the members’ reaction is “what the fuck is that guy babbling about?”

  108. The Promise of Democracy

    @157: NewFederalist // Feb 7, 2011 at 5:59 pm
    “Gosh oh golly gee, Batman… perhaps it’s The Riddler. It is so obtuse and strange and pointless.”

    OK, let me explain a little better. Ranked voting guarantees that gender balance is attained (one male and one female or visa versa) if 2/3rds of the voters alternate genders when they rank names with consecutive numbers beginning with the number one.

    Two thirds, or 66.66%, is a much higher satisfaction level that, and that level is guaranteed under ranked voting.

    Maybe you’re for the old way, plurality voting?

    What’s the satisfaction level there?

    You don’t know.

    It might be 20%, when a male president picks a male running mate, and the 80% of the “losers” votes are split between five female names, when they may have preferred a female over a male.

    So what would the majority like best, 66.66% satisfaction level guaranteed, or unknown satisfaction level guaranteed?

    Which does “New Federalist” support?

    I may not be the best writer, but I know I am correct, and I know you’re incorrect and have no basis to criticize my position.

    I’m for majority rule, and I can easily raise the guaranteed level of satisfaction to 99% plus 100 votes, by electing 100 names.

    I made my point, so what’s yours?

    You’ve said my writing is pointless. But some people actually care about majority rule.

  109. We're Running on All Three Cylinders

    Roseannarchists and Honorable Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]:

    It’s such a pleasure to follow the Cabinet and future participants here, and make constructive on-topic comments (and slightly off-topic ones too) like about how “our Prime Minister and Abe Vigoda have the personalities”.

    I deleted my post about the Kabbalah, the Torah and the Talmud, three of my top books. I am a big fan of the the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit, and I LOVE that when Roseanne writes Hebrew and quotes from the Kabbalah.

    BTW, I AM a JOO, and those ARE my initials.

    I am such a poor writer, so I’ll make it brief.

    Deputy Health Minister in waiting Robert S. [Pot] of Chico, CA (same town as home boy Aaron Rogers, who is friends with 9th USA Parliament Prime Minister Cantu) is back online, after a small computer fire and hard drive failure causing a month’s delay. He is working on the parliament’s new web site “FarmersWithPatients.com”.

    We’re running on all three cylinders.

    Plus, I was seconded for US Vice President, but Speaker Minister Argent [Roseanarchist] nor any other of my 40+ nominees were seconded as of yet for the BTP site, http://www.BotsonTea.us. The BTP is very similar to the GTP (Green Tea Party), but they (the BTP) don’t use ranked voting, and the GTP does.

    The women who seconded my name is a writer, and she wrote,
    hnegota:
    “I second James Ogle for Vice President of the United States of America to reconstruct the balance of power, annihilate the current one-takes-all system, and expand the intelligence of American people through rubbing off from this exceptional man.”
    * * *

    Everyone, we have so much potential now, but we need to start working as a team, by voting as a team and thinking as a team. Please do everything possible to go to the interactive news sites on the USA Parliament’s forum (of which this site is one) and write favorable propaganda for the potential Barr nomination!

    Things are actually not good, but I wanted to paint things here in a favorable picture to help build team spirit.

    Maybe if if we could get someone like Dana Carvey to join the Roseannarchist Party, we could turn things around?

    Or someone like Aaron Rogers to do a Pot Party commercial for the web site, maybe in alliance with Palin to get him to sign? Then we post a link on the parliament’s ad program (which is back up and running, BTW).

    I don’t know, just trying to come up with ideas to get new nominations.

    If anyone else has any ideas on how to move forward and get more nominations, I will monitor this thread in case new names get nominated. And you don’t even have to rank the names, until the voting begins on 4/20.

  110. We're Running on All Three Cylinders

    Honorable Thomas Knapp, thank you very much for the continued interest.

    The answer to your question “Whose Satisfaction?” is:

    The satisfaction of all people (the voters) who cast a ranked ballot.
    * * *

    It’s a mathematical equation, that guarantees 99%, plus 100 votes, of the top tics on every ballot cast, elects at least one person.

    So, if the BTP candidates garnered 5% (technically that’s 4.94% plus five votes) of the tics, they win five of the 100 seats in the parliament.

    They may not win 100% of the seats all the time, but with 5%, when they propose an iten for the parliament to vote on, and the majority likes the item, then they can have the item approved.

    Then, when people see what a good job they are doing in working as a team, in the next election cycle, they may garner 6% (rounded off) of the votes, or tics, cast by the voters.

    So in effect, more voters are satisfied, because even the minor faction group, the BTP, wins about 6% of the seats when they garner 6% of the votes. Everyone is satisfied, or happy, with the results of the election, down to the last 1%, minus 100 votes.

    I am not actually a mathematician myself, but I will be happy to try to explain how it works if you still don’t understand..

    I love talking about elections under pure proportional representation, and the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system in particular.

    Again, thank you very much for your interest.

  111. Darryl W. Perry

    James,

    I’ve asked this question no less than 4 times; please answer:
    how do you believe it benefits the BTP to have people nominate for consideration people that do not affirm support for the BTP platform and/or willingness to possibly be the BTP nominee?

  112. Thomas L. Knapp

    James @ 164,

    So, the people who are “satisfied” by this activity are the ones who take part in it.

    That’s all good and well, but the end of the day you have a simulated/role-play “parliament” whose players are happy with it

    … while in the meantime one person moves into the White House, one person moves into the vice-presidential residence at the Naval Observatory, and 535 congresscritters move into their offices — all on the basis of single-seat, first-past-the-post, plurality vote districting.

    Why should the BTP participate in your simulation/role-play rather than in the real contest? What makes you think that tbe BTP’s members will be more “satisfied” with simulated outcomes than real ones, even if they find the simulated ones more ideologically appealing?

  113. We're Running on All Three Cylinders

    Honorable MP Darryl Perry [Boston Tea], thank you very much for you very good question.

    I apologize if my answers have not been on target and exactly to the point, so I will try to hit the bull’s eye.

    It’s sort of like a test with a trick question.

    Because you’re asking me about people who don’t support the BTP’s platform, and I don’t know of any of them, so it’s difficult for me to answer for people I don’t know.

    However, I’ve said I will try to answer the question, as tricky as it appears.

    I do think it will help the BTP to nominate people who “do not affirm support for the BTP platform and/or willingness to possibly be the BTP nominee”, because of several obvious reasons, which I will list here. Do let me know if you need me to expound.

    1) It gives more choice.
    2) It creates a debate atmosphere for both sides.
    3) It draws attention to the issues.
    4) It could bring in more members.
    5) It gives more exposure to the potential nominee, when opposites are compared.
    6) It annihilates the appearance the the BTP is inflexible to new alternative ideas.
    7) It helps educate people about the potential new answers.
    8) More exposure to the words Boston Tea Party.
    9) It breaks down the appearance that the current regime is so self righteous, that they and their issues/ideas are better than everyone else’s', and that they wish to exclude others from using the words Boston Tea Party by their name, as though they (the founders, the chair and the at-large representatives) have some bogus pre-ownership of the words “Boston Tea Party”.
    10) Prevents the current regime of volunteers of the BTP from being unchallenged dictators.
    11) Did I mention “diversity”.
    12) What about those “not in communication”? Their names should be treated as equals, not unequals.

    Again, I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t support the concept of limiting the size, scope and power of the US government, although MP Captain David Frey [Populist Socialist] would certainly be one of those candidates, so I will use him as an example candidate.

    However, even his ideas should be welcomed, and considered as a viable option in the discussion.

    But he does not do email, and does not own a computer.

    So in order to have him participate in the debate, to bring the twelve attributes as I’ve mentioned above, we’d simply have his name nominated so it can appear on the ballot.

    The words “Populist Socialist” could be by his name, and then other BTP voters would have a little better idea about why he seeks the nomination.

    And as a Harvard graduate, retired Naval Ship Captain and friend of Doyle’s, Olkkola’s, many other politicians, like MP Jerry Brown [Democratic], MP Barbara Boxer [Democratic], and others, his ideas and connections might somehow be helpful.

    In fact, he has been trying to contact the current Governor of California Jerry Brown with his ideas, and Brown is currently trying to reduce the California debt at this very moment.

    So the point is, the BTP shouldn’t be so arrogant and pin-headed, in placing roadblocks, judging people, and excluding them on the pretense that they don’t support the “sacred” BTP platform.

    The best tactic of the BTP would be to remain open to all people, allow free speech and ballot access, and let the voters decide on who #1 and #2 will be, based on the ballots cast.

    Having a Mubarak-like dictator, excluding all possible ideas and alternatives proposed before the BTP, snuffing out new ideas from the get-go, is wrong, narrow-minded and mean spirited.

    A very poor way to convey initial impressions, in an political atmosphere which is too often devisive. And which is probably a primary reason for low participation.

    Every voter has a right to participate in the BTP, regardless of their opinions on what their solutions to any problem will be. To attain ballot access, we must fight for everyone’s liberty, because we would hope that everyone will reciprocate and help the fight for ours.

    I think 100 people are smarter than one person. So I’m not going to go around revoking peoples’ rights to participate, so I can dictate and control the debate to fewer and fewer people.

    The counting of the ballots of all people, is much more important than excluding people.

    Then, when a ruling coalition is achieved, under the most mathematically perfect, and all-inclusive voting system know, such as the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution, then decisions can be made.

    But not before there has been a legitimate election.

    That would cause all the twelve points I made in this reply “dead at the gate”, DOA.

    Think of it as two armies of ideas. One with a Hitler like dictator, who abolished the German parliament. Verses a team of 100 generals, each with differing opinions and ideas, who elect a five member executive who are like basketball players that can be rotated in and out at will.

    Obviously, the dictator who is trying to run a war as a controller, is going to be less dynamic and responsive to the needs of day-to-day operations, which are highly unpredictable.

    While the opposition within the group 100 generals, smaller groups with differing tactics, you might have one socialist, and maybe a few democrats, undeclared, independents, and liberals with alternative ideas and that aren’t totally within the realm of what the 100 generals had in mind…well maybe with that diversity of thought, there might be an area which is opposite to the wish of the executives, but that is actually helpful.

    In other words, homogenization is wrong.

    By having the diversity, they would gain new ideas on strategy, which would have been otherwise not considered.

    And that is the case with MP David Frey [Populist Socialist].

    With his vast knowledge and military experience, even though he would NEVER be considered by the current BTP chair as a likely participant…time and time again he is helpful, with many good ideas, to me and the 8th USA Parliament. There are too many to post here quickly.

    For example, he brought to my attention about Sword Beach, an operation that was successful on D-Day, so I could review how to apply those attributes to a winning startegy.

    He suggested we contact Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea].

    And he regularly makes inquiries into other avenues, not previously considered by you and me.

    Because of PM Barr [Green Tea] we’ve attracted several good libertarian female participants. And not just a few, but great numbers, numbers which are always growing. That’s all new people to be exposed to the BTP’s current platform.

    In sum, I’d say “chill out”, and quit trying to put people into a tiny little match-box sized compartments.

    Open up your mind, and the BTP, to everyone, elect a democratically legitimate BoD, and then give the diverse group the tools to make decisions as a team.

    I will help you to learn how to do that. Thank you for your interest.

  114. We're Running on All Three Cylinders

    @166 Honorable Thomas Knapp wrote: “[…] while in the meantime one person moves into the White House, one person moves into the vice-presidential residence at the Naval Observatory, and 535 congresscritters move into their offices — all on the basis of single-seat, first-past-the-post, plurality vote districting.

    Why should the BTP participate in your simulation/role-play rather than in the real contest?”

    Me: Many reasons, as stated just above in answer to Darryl. But I did not say “instead of”, those are your words.

    What I envision is both – can you pat your head and rub your stomach at the same time?

    Well, then why not organize under the correct tool instead of the inferior one?

    D-Day was not successful, by landing at one spot, in a rate which would take a month. It was done as a coordinated landing, on multiple beaches all timed together. There were even parachuting behind the bunkers.

    That’s what I’m talking about. With the Sainte-Lague system, the BTP could be in coordination with say the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, as well as friendly Democratic and Republicans.

    By limiting itself to coordinating with only pluralists, there is no chance.

    But by adopting the correct military strategy, a coordinated maneuver involving many different landing sites, the chance for success is improved.

    Granted we are not at that level, and I have never stated we are, I’ve written that compared to D-Day as a time line, we’re going at such a slow pace, that “Battle of the Bulge” is more than 175,000 years in the future.

    Nothing has changed, we’re still bogged down, and moving at a snail’s pace.

    While the allies landed more than 160,000 soldiers on June 6th, 1944, we’ve landed (the 8th USA Parliament) about four 100-member teams, and maybe 5000 individuals.

    As casualties were at about 2500 on day one, it does not appear that we’ve made much headway.

    But the BTP alone has probably had much less progress.

    In the underdog philosophy, it’s damaging to make be making great proclamations and statements of progress, as the chair of the BTP continues to do.

    That strategy is actually harmful, as it is the wrong information to by posting.

    Our team needs to know the truth. We are losing. We are small. We are slow. We are insignificant.

    And: We need to work with all people. How can we plug in with others? How can we make things fair for us and all others? How can we work with others? What kind of voting system will help us work with others? Is this the best system?

    We need to practice, to have repetitions of plays, to know who the team players are, as we use the proper tool for team play.

    You can’t get out on a basketball court and throw the ball around to people who won’t bother to lift their hands to catch the ball! It’s best when you play team sports to get those who have a team first philosophy, not a “me first” philosophy.

    For the BTP to be continually coming out with proclamations is great, but is that really where the energy should be spent?

    Is that a team oriented philosophy? No!

    Shouldn’t the energy be spent more effectively build a coordinated effort?

    The Allies lost many battles before a coordinated effort was established. And the BTP will lose all battles, unless they suddenly become an army of 160,000.

    Right now, the BTP is well…green. They don’t have much experience on how to grow, how to work as a team with others with similar needs for proportional representation.

    Where are their leaders, who are supposed to guide them? Where is the winning plan, the winning game plan and the correct system to implement?

    If the BTP were a small percent of a larger group striving to gain PR for all, built on the tool which guaranteed their proper representation (along with ALL voters), then at least they’d have a seat, or a few seats, at the table on V-Day, the day of victory (after Battle of the Bulge).

    They could also elect the best players and be dynamic and able to address the multiple unpredictable situations which happen during campaigns that normally cause dysfunctions and public displays of incompetence.

    Scenes like all the other parties go though year after year would be avoided, because the tool for working together would be in place, a the team would be well-practiced at working together, making decisions as a team, voting as a team or an army, and practising the correct free speech proclamations, within the underdog team philosophy.

    Like teamwork, and working as coordinated and disciplined team players, for the good of the all.

    You can have the fatelistic attitude…”we can’t win, they’ve got it locked up…” that’s actually the correct line of thought.

    Meanwhile, you keep moving your landing craft towards shore and meet your fate. Even if you’re the first one out the gate to bloody the water red as the piles of human bodies start to pile up on shore at 0600 am, June 6th, 1944.

    At least we’re heading in, one by one, even though it is at a hopelessly slow pace.

  115. NewFederalist

    Look at me! Look at Me! I just got elected! Whoopy wow oh boy! I elected myself against token opposition but I won! Now if I could only find the office…

  116. Moore of the Same Thing!

    10,000 signatures!?!? Who comes up with these ridiculously high numbers!!!?? There is no coordination with the BTP! That’s ludicrous, absurd, and just plain STUpid.

    This is nothing like what we need. What we need is free speech for individuals. These people are insane! People want a word by their name, but requiring 10,000 signatures is for millionaires!

    They’re SO out of touch with reality. They don’t want ballot access, they’re putting the requirements way out of reach for the average person. Is that really needed? Can’t anyone SEE what single winner districts are doing to democracy? Those EGOTISTICAL power grabbing greed heads…they won’t bother to work for multiple winner districts, they’re just perpetuating the same old single winner district system.

    I’m not for that!

    Paulie wrote:
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    NC bill would lower election barriers for third parties, unaffiliated candidates

    CHARLOTTE (Feb. 7) – A bill to dramatically reduce the ballot access restrictions for new political parties and unaffiliated candidates was introduced in the N.C. General Assembly Feb. 3. House Bill 32, The Electoral Freedom Act of 2011, would set at 10,000 the number of signatures a new party must collect to be listed on the ballot.[...] etc., etc.

  117. Moore of the Same Thing!

    @169 “Look at me! Look at Me! I just got elected! Whoopy wow oh boy! I elected myself against token opposition but I won! Now if I could only find the office…”

    Very funny. We are a voter registration drive, and we’ve registered hundreds of voters as one of our accomplishments.

    And the tool of the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system as the system, elected our three prime ministers, three women working together from three different political parties: Constitution, Libertarian and Green Tea.

    What do you do besides whine anonymously?

  118. NewFederalist

    “What do you do besides whine anonymously?”

    Oh, I do a lot of productive things. I play with my toys. I register thousands of imaginary people to vote in imaginary elections that save the world. You know, the standard stuff.

  119. Moore of the Same Thing!

    New Federalist, you live such an imaginary life.

    But you’re certainly welcomed to join with those doing the things you can only imagine. Soon as you’re ready, give us a buzz! You may be self-categorized with any party/category you wish.

    The New Federalists are always welcomed to join the Frees.

  120. Thomas L. Knapp

    James,

    One important thing to remember is that goals matter.

    It does the BTP no good whatsoever to run or endorse candidates who don’t agree with its platform, because the BTP’s goal is to implement its platform.

    That’s what the BTP is about.

    Running/endorsing candidates who don’t agree with the BTP’s platform is like ordering pizza when you want sweet and sour chicken.

    It’s like driving northwest from St. Louis if your destination is Miami.

    And, in the case of US Parliament, it is to all appearances like ordering that pizza with the phone unplugged and nobody actually on the other end of the line, or like sitting on my kid’s Big Wheel pretending I’m driving northwest in order to get southeast.

  121. The Promise of Democracy

    @173 Yeah, that’s us…a comedy of errors, always going the wrong way…as we’re being decimated on Normandy Beach.

    We certainly never, ever, get what we want.

    But we know what the alternative is, and it’s no good.

  122. The Promise of Democracy

    @ 173: “…Running/endorsing candidates who don’t agree with the BTP’s …”

    Thomas, the USA Parliament doesn’t endorse names/candidates. We only elect them, based on votes cast as proof, and register new voters.

    But we don’t try to control which party they register, nor do we control who may access our ballot for president and vice president.

    I will be happy to send you a copy of the stack of ballots if you like, after our election ends on 8/6/2011. The costs of copies are minimal.

    Approximately 10% of the registrants also register to vote, and we give every voter the liberty to declare any party/category they wish for free.

    We’re pretty much opposite of the establishment Boston Tea, Libertarian, and all others too. We’d welcome everyone’s participation.

    Probably our biggest party is the Pot and Marijuana Parties.

    If you don’t feel like you and your Boston Tea can be elected simultaneously with those free to self categorize, then that’s your loss. I can’t control you.

    Our cycle’s schedule is different and yet we can change it too, as the ruling coalition’s ballots change the rules whenever their votes change.

    We aren’t set in concrete, and we remain dynamic that way. It’s the cat’s meow.
    * * *

    “Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!”

  123. Thomas L. Knapp

    James @ 177,

    Clarification: It’s not “my” Boston Tea Party. I founded it, but I’m no longer active in it (or in electoral politics).

    I can’t be elected “simultaneously with those free to self categorize” because I’m unwilling to be elected at all.

    I’m still not getting exactly what you’re advocating, and that strikes me as a problem for you, for two reasons:

    1) I’ve spent considerable time trying to figure your scheme out. Most people don’t have the attention span that I do for politics.

    2) While I’m not going to try to sell myself to you as a genius, standard IQ testing says that I’m at least slightly above average in intelligence. If I can’t understand what you’re getting at, most other people probably can’t either.

    It seems to me that at least half the population, and probably far more than half, either can’t understand your plan in the way you’re explaining it, or won’t give you time to explain it the way you’re explaining it, or both. Hard to get 99% satisfaction when you’re looking at at least 50.x% non-participation.

  124. The Promise of Democracy

    @178 Honorable Thomas Knapp, again, thank you very much for your interest.

    If you can’t understand, a 100-member elected BoD, in twelve regions of states (super-states), and/or counties (mini-states), which are grouped for population balancing purposes… where each of the 100-member BoDs are free to self categorize as they wish, and where they are elected by a stack of ballots kept as proof, where the voters are required to rank their choice(s) in preference (#1, #2, #3, #4, etc., etc., the more the better)…and if you’re still interested…

    I’d say look at the site and the 33 rules in particular.
    http://www.usparliament.org

    I will be glad to answer any questions you post here too.

    I am but one person trying to popularize this operation, and there are limits as to how much communication one person can create, in a country of more than 150 million voters.

    It’s pretty simple to look at any elected board and ask: “Is that political board elected under a system which is the most mathematically fair system known, where the most people can be fairly represented, proportional to the number of votes cast?”

    Then you look at the 8th USA Parliament’s BoD, and the stack of ballots cast, and you’d have to agree. Every person receiving 1/101ths (or .99%) of the votes cast, did indeed get elected to one of the 100 “seats”.

    And there you have it. A fair ultra-conservative voting system, where no votes are liberally thrown away and wasted. Pure proportional representation, or PR.

    Perfectly competitive free elections, in a free-market of ideas and free speech.

    Any questions?

  125. wolfefan

    How specifically are the three female PM’s from three different parties working together, and on what specific projects that will move their respective agendas forward in the non-Parliament world? Why would the Constitution party PM want to help the Green party PM advance her agenda, and vice-versa?

    I grant that the electoral system you use to choose members of your Parliament is a fine system – that’s why many countries use it. But exactly how does all this activity change things in the winner-take-all system in which real parties and real candidates must compete for votes?

  126. The Promise of Democracy

    @181 Thanks for the interest, Wolefan.

    To see how the three prime ministers are working together, you’d have to look at the web page listing their voting records:
    http://www.usparliament.org/exec-1.php

    Now, the majority 3/5ths on the executives, overlap in different ways, depending on whether it’s part one) election of Cabinet, or part two) decisions.

    First part two) where the parliamentary go-ahead was approved by a 3/5ths vote, which included PM Lightfoot [Libertarian], Secretary Covich [Catholic Trotskyist] and myself James Ogle [Free Parliamentary].

    That was done on schedule, before the 60-day dormancy period that started the nominations on 2/1/2011.

    Next, as the parliamentary go-ahead was approved, that allowed all new Cabinet nominees to automatically get a #1 ranking to become the top-ranked full Cabinet Minister.

    That too was accomplished before 2/1/2011.

    PM Roseanne Barr [Green Tea], being new to ranked voting, gave the nod to the ranking of three names of friends of hers that I suggested she nominate, after she asked that I show her how. Next, she nominated four more names for a total of seven. So she elected six full Ministers and one Deputy Minister. The Deputy Minister was elected, because the second Speaker Minister she nominated, took the #1 slot (Speaker Minister John Argent [Roseannearchist]), and the former Speaker Minister she had originally nominated (Deputy Speaker Minister Tina [Roseannarchist]) was thus knocked down to the top ranked Deputy Minister.

    Once all this had happened, she approved the results by stating “OK”. It was very flattering to be recognized by her, a highly successful actress, teacher and Goddess/grandmother.

    So that’s where we are now. But since we’re in the nomination period, no more votes of confidence or elections of Cabinet Ministers can take place through 3/31/2011, as per rule #23, the dormancy during nominations rule.

    So there you have it. A small effort, but the groundwork has been laid.

    The true majority on the executives is probably with the Lightfoot/Covich/Ogle 3/5ths vote, but with Barr and Nightingale having used the system, they are educated on how it works.

    Nightingale rank voted all Cabinet members and decisions on the Central California Parliament, and has since sort of been incognito since being elected national prime minister. I guess there’s always a possibility she may “stand down”.

    But you have a lot of other things always playing out, in so far as cooperation, communication and things just plain happening.

    Like the fact that 9th Prime Minister Cantu [Democratic] is a acquaintance with Aaron Rogers [Info. Not Avail.] who just won MVP in the Super-Bowl. Little things.

    And the “standing down” of Deputy PLAS Minister Milnes [Left Anarchist].

    And the current participation of the many new ministers, and all those observing.

    For example, PLAS Minister Dashus Christ [Roseannarchist] being elected, and her expressing such pleasure being in the Cabinet.

    You never know when a friend of a friend will have some sort of impact, a member will switch parties, drop out or die.

    There’s always something going on, some sort of dynamism that creates interest.

    Like when Deputy Health Minister in waiting Robert S. [Pot] suddenly got back online after a month of mysterious disappearance, or Deputy Defense Minister in waiting David Frey [Populist Socialist] taking new initiatives, or Agriculture Minister in waiting Mike Bogatirev [Environmentalist] securing a room for a meeting of US Senate candidates on July 4th in Monterey, or US Senate candidate and Deputy Economics Minister Lawrence Samuels [Libertarian] securing a free speech permit for the July 4th picnic.

    It goes on and on, a lot of people doing tiny little things, sort of in coordination, and a small comedy of errors.

    Cool, eh?

    And every day, new people join in. It might be a seconding of a nomination, a coincidental trip to Austin TX by the Free and Equal Party, you never know.

    But it’s not about excluding people, for any reason. There may be disagreements, or differing ideas, but in general it’s all about working together to build the army bigger and bigger, and on multiple regional levels, slowly but surely.

    D-Day started with one person’s first step on the beach, and we know more and more steps will follow. All we need to do is pick up the pace.

    Regardless of the sacrifices, more and more are coming ashore, one by one.

  127. The Promise of Democracy

    Darryl,
    Do you mean like the USA’s national Democratic and Republican Parties?

    That’s what you must mean that I don’t understand, since they pretty much occupy 100% of the government.

    Can you please clarify?

  128. The Promise of Democracy

    @181 Wolfefan wrote:
    “…how does all this activity change things in the winner-take-all system in which real parties and real candidates must compete for votes?”

    Me: Once upon a time there was a little red hen. She lived with a pig, a duck and a cat….

  129. Darryl W. Perry

    James @184

    You keep insisting on the BTP consider endorsing candidates that do not affirm support for the party platform. Even claiming that having a platform is “pin-headed”… which leads me to believe that you do not understand the purpose of a political party, specifically the BTP, having a platform.

  130. Catholic Trotskyist

    Yes, NewFederalist should join the US Parliament. How about a NewFederalist/Catholic Trotskyist presidential ticket for 2012?

    Sorry James that I haven’t been in touch. My computer was almost destroyed by a virus; I am not sure if it was put on on purpose by my enemies, but it is definitely a possibility. I understand the US Parliament system and still completely support it, but I’m not sure that taking voer the Boston Tea Party is the right strategy. It was a political party founded on a specific platform of reducing government. Since that’s not our direct agenda, it seems better to work with them in some other way besides using them to try to nominate candidates who disagree with them. They don’t have much ballot access yet anyway; so let’s try to found our own party for ballot access and then get other parties to change their bylaws so their members can run together on our new party’s ticket.

  131. Darryl W. Perry

    I did! I’m not talking about the GOP or DNC – I’m talking about the BTP & your insistence that the BTP not mandate that potential nominees affirm support for the party platform!

  132. The Promise of Democracy

    DWP wrote:
    “it appears you don’t understand the concept of a political [the BTP] party OR the purpose of such party having a platform.”

    I understand the concept of the BTP having a platform.

    My point is, that when there is a platform, it should not be used as a prerequisite, to add or remove names from the ballot.

    It comes off like a control freak. For example, when I showed someone the site last night, for some reason when they read the platform they said “I can’t second a name for them I don’t support that agenda.”

    Now I don’t know anything about that person, but they seemed like a very good person with similar points of view to mine in many areas.

    They are a new age thinker.

    If you forcefully state that names will be physically removed from consideration unless they “blah, blah, blah”, you drive people away.

    That should really be changed, as you don’t want to drive people away as I have witnessed last night (after this conversation started, coincidentally).

    If comes across as arrogant…and dictatorial. Much in the same way as the current regime in Egypt has controlled their power. They simply don’t allow any opposition to the ruling powers from the get-go.

    A party can have a platform, I don’t have a problem with that. But to create inappropriate roadblocks, with an appearance that differing opinions are unacceptable by requiring the pubic confirmation of the platform, does appear pin headed.

    It sort of smacks of an inflexible intolerance of creative thinking, and predisposes improvements in the wording of the platform.

  133. The Promise of Democracy

    [...]My computer was almost destroyed by a virus;[...]

    Jacob, good to hear from you.

    My computer too, I’ve been picking up a lot of unwanted cookies and viruses lately. My laptop keeps getting slower and slower.

    BTW, I just posted a link to fellow Free Parliamentary Party member and States Rights Minister, Rene’ Jean of Tennessee, to the Cabinet web page, if you have time to check it out:

    http://www.usparliament.org/rene'jean.php

  134. Darryl W. Perry

    Ensuring potential candidates affirm support for the party platform is NOT an “inappropriate roadblock”. It doesn’t make sense to have a potential nominee expressing views contrary to the party platform.
    The BTP has passed resolutions supporting abolishing the drug war & bringing home the American military. It would be unwise for the party to have a potential nominee stating support FOR the drug war and/or increasing military action.

  135. The Promise of Democracy

    @ 192 Darryl wrote:
    “It would be unwise for the party to have a potential nominee stating support FOR the drug war and/or increasing military action.”

    Darryl, if the BTP wants to create a litmus test for candidates, so be it.

    However, I would vote to take those barriers down, were I given the opportunity to do so.

  136. Darryl W. Perry

    You’ve been told numerous times that the bylaws can be changed at the next national convention in 2012.
    If you wish to make such a proposal, you can do so at the convention; until then bitching about the bylaws won’t make them change.

  137. paulie

    Do any of you people that are having conversations with James Ogle on this thread expect to learn something new or convince him of something?

    Please don’t answer that on here, email me if you have a reply. And no, this is not a question for James.

  138. The Promise of Democracy

    Reposted from Green Party Watch

    Single winner districts are the detriment of all third parties and independents, and that’s exactly what this [Green Party Watch] poll is reinforcing.

    The psychology of single winner districts, which discourage participation, and encourages a kind of litmus test, whether written in concrete or abstract, and the act of putting candidates under the magnifying glass. Everyone has a right to access free speech as a candidate, and everyone is beautiful in their own way.

    I must caution everyone about the use of click the dot polls, and the idea that participation on both levels, presidential and state, be controlled and consticted, because it’s only one winner in a single winner district.

    From my experience, all participation should be encouraged, but let’s look at the national level in particular.

    There are two seats being elected on the national level, president and vice president.

    Two seats for more than 150 million voters. That is not a very big number, and the more limits on the numbers in a district, the lower the threshold for success.

    And the seats are elected as two single-winner districts. The US Presidency is elected as a one-member district, where usually the candidate “selects” the vice presidential candidate.

    There isn’t much of a chance for a gender balanced team, one male and one female, working as a team in single members districts. Nor for like genders.

    For example, under ranked voting, the threshold for a single winner district is 50% plus one vote, to guarantee a majority, but a two-members district is 66.66% plus two votes.

    The threshold for two seats under ranked voting is 33.33% plus one vote, so for two seats you’d attain a satisfaction level of 66.66% plus two votes when using the single transferable vote system.

    Three seats, will be 25% plus one vote, for a total of 75%, plus three votes, satisfaction level.
    It’s the closest you can come to a four-way tie, with one vote breaking the tie of three candidates consecutively.

    Four seats, 20% each, so a 80% plus four votes.

    Five seats, 16% threshold 16.66% plus five votes.

    Six seats, 14.4% plus six votes. A satisfaction level of 86.4% plus six votes. In other words, the votes of 86.4% of the people, plus six more votes, counted to elect six names.

    When you reach 100 seats, the satisfaction level is 99% plus 100 seats.

    Now I don’t know if these figures actually mean anything to anyone, but the point here is that in multi-member districts, the more the better, the more exact the representation. And with more seats available, there’s more of an acceptance of more diverse people, with more diversified points of view. Less rejection of causes.

    That’s why, even though I’m a passive solar architectural designer and I have many opinions about a full range of Green issues, my primary interest is in seeing ranked voting and finding ways to work with all people in accomplishing this.

    Now, if I haven’t lost you yet, and you agree with what I’m saying, then please consider allowing me to point you in the direction again of a project that has been continuing for 16 years to bring this “one issue” to the forefront. Google actually derived from my email address in 1997, before they had a name for the program, and my name sparked the idea for theirs. They misspelled the number googol, because of me.

    Here’s the project, which is pretty much being censored by the press, just as it was by Google for over ten years:

    The 8th USA Parliament http://www.usparliament.org

    Right now is the time to plant the seeds for 2012. I’m working with the Constitution, Libertarian, Green Tea and many flavors of parties and independents. But this system is a mathematical system, that allows Socialists, independents, Pot, Free Marijuana, new names, Conservatives, and all kinds of alternatives.

    There is a certain amount of inclusion and tolerance required, and at the same time team spirit is also a requirement, where the team members of of a wide array – up to 100 possible varieties will be elected with 100 seats.

    This really changes everything. If you like the concept of bringing this closer to fruition, then please look into the web page, and encourage the participants to cooperate.

    We’ve had the team set up for 16 years, but the biggest problem is people can’t invest energy and time in a stack of ballots under ranked voting, they need other kinds of litmus tests.

    I say, go with the stacks of ballots and build on them Participate. Look into this, and support the three national prime ministers and help build on the work done, which is based on votes cast as proof.

    Thank you for your consideration. I am really tired of people trying to snuff out this concept, which requires free speech, so I thank Green Party Watch in particular. Even though I am critical of their “click the black dot poll”, I still appreciate the platform for free speech, by being able to at least present the concept/idea.

    Best,
    –James Ogle

  139. The Promise of Democracy

    James Ogle says:
    February 9, 2011 at 4:53 pm
    Single winner districts are the detriment of all third parties and independents, and that’s exactly what this poll is reinforcing.

    The psychology of single winner districts, which discourage participation, and encourages a kind of litmus test, whether written in concrete or abstract, and the act of putting candidates under the magnifying glass. Everyone has a right to access free speech as a candidate, and everyone is beautiful in their own way.

    I must caution everyone about the use of click the dot polls, and the idea that participation on both levels, presidential and state, be controlled and consticted, because it’s only one winner in a single winner district.

    From my experience, all participation should be encouraged, but let’s look at the national level in particular.

    There are two seats being elected on the national level, president and vice president.

    Two seats for more than 150 million voters. That is not a very big number, and the more limits on the numbers in a district, the lower the threshold for success.

    And the seats are elected as two single-winner districts. The US Presidency is elected as a one-member district, where usually the candidate “selects” the vice presidential candidate.

    There isn’t much of a chance for a gender balanced team, one male and one female, working as a team in single members districts. Nor for like genders.

    For example, under ranked voting, the threshold for a single winner district is 50% plus one vote, to guarantee a majority, but a two-members district is 66.66% plus two votes.

    The threshold for two seats under ranked voting is 33.33% plus one vote, so for two seats you’d attain a satisfaction level of 66.66% plus two votes when using the single transferable vote system.

    Three seats, will be 25% plus one vote, for a total of 75%, plus three votes, satisfaction level.
    It’s the closest you can come to a four-way tie, with one vote breaking the tie of three candidates consecutively.

    Four seats, 20% each, so a 80% plus four votes.

    Five seats, 16% threshold 16.66% plus five votes.

    Six seats, 14.4% plus six votes. A satisfaction level of 86.4% plus six votes. In other words, the votes of 86.4% of the people, plus six more votes, counted to elect six names.

    When you reach 100 seats, the satisfaction level is 99% plus 100 seats.

    Now I don’t know if these figures actually mean anything to anyone, but the point here is that in multi-member districts, the more the better, the more exact the representation. And with more seats available, there’s more of an acceptance of more diverse people, with more diversified points of view. Less rejection of causes.

    That’s why, even though I’m a passive solar architectural designer and I have many opinions about a full range of Green issues, my primary interest is in seeing ranked voting and finding ways to work with all people in accomplishing this.

    Now, if I haven’t lost you yet, and you agree with what I’m saying, then please consider allowing me to point you in the direction again of a project that has been continuing for 16 years to bring this “one issue” to the forefront. Google actually derived from my email address in 1997, before they had a name for the program, and my name sparked the idea for theirs. They misspelled the number googol, because of me.

    Here’s the project, which is pretty much being censored by the press, just as it was by Google for over ten years:

    The 8th USA Parliament http://www.usparliament.org

    Right now is the time to plant the seeds for 2012. I’m working with the Constitution, Libertarian, Green Tea and many flavors of parties and independents. But this system is a mathematical system, that allows Socialists, independents, Pot, Free Marijuana, new names, Conservatives, and all kinds of alternatives.

    There is a certain amount of inclusion and tolerance required, and at the same time team spirit is also a requirement, where the team members of of a wide array – up to 100 possible varieties will be elected with 100 seats.

    This really changes everything. If you like the concept of bringing this closer to fruition, then please look into the web page, and encourage the participants to cooperate.

    We’ve had the team set up for 16 years, but the biggest problem is people can’t invest energy and time in a stack of ballots under ranked voting, they need other kinds of litmus tests.

    I say, go with the stacks of ballots and build on them Participate. Look into this, and support the three national prime ministers and help build on the work done, which is based on votes cast as proof.

    Thank you for your consideration. I am really tired of people trying to snuff out this concept, which requires free speech, so I thank Green Party Watch in particular. Even though I am critical of their “click the black dot poll”, I still appreciate the platform for free speech, by being able to at least present the concept/idea.

    Best,
    –James Ogle

  140. The Promise of Democracy

    Posted in Green Party Watch
    Version 1.2

    James Ogle says:
    February 9, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    Single winner districts are the detriment of third parties and independents, and that’s exactly what this Green Party Watch’s “click the black dot poll” is reinforcing.

    The psychology of single winner districts discourages participation, and encourages a kind of litmus test, whether written in concrete or abstract, by putting candidates under the magnifying glass.

    Everyone has a right to access free speech as a candidate and everyone is beautiful in their own way.

    I must caution everyone about the use of click the dot polls (plurality voting), as opposed to ranked voting (i.e. #1, #2, #3, etc., the more the better).

    Single winner districts create the psychological idea that participation on both partisan levels, presidential and state, be more controlled and constricted, because there’s only one winner in a single winner district, and therefore only one type of a candidate can be elected.

    But really, the assemply at-large, to be representing the country at-large, should be more of a diverse self-portrait of the diversity of the people. The larger the number of representatives (100 or 1000?), the more mathematically exact the portrait of the people under at-large ranked voting (STV) multi-member districts.

    From my experience all participation should be encouraged, but let’s look at the national level in particular.

    Currently, there are only two at-large seats elected on the national level, president and vice president.

    Two seats for more than 150 million voters.

    That is not a very big number, two.

    The two seats are actually elected as two single-winner districts. The US Presidency is elected as a one-member district, and usually the presidential candidate picks the vice presidential candidate.

    There isn’t much of a guarantee for a gender balanced team, one male and one female, or visa versa, working as a team in single members districts. Nor for like genders, in a single winner district one person is expected to be better than everyone else.

    Under ranked voting (ranking name #1, #2, #3, etc.), the threshold for a single winner district is 50% plus one vote.

    STV (single transferable vote) guarantees a majority.

    In a two-members district with ranked voting (STV), a total satisfaction level of 66.66% plus two votes is attained. If 66.66% plus two votes are cast for a gender balanced team, then it is mathematically guaranteed that the results will be as 2/3rds of the voters had voted. If 2/3rds voted for alternating genders, then both genders are guaranteed to be elected.

    The threshold for two seats under ranked voting is 33.33% plus one vote, for the first seat.

    Then the second name to receive 33.33% plus one vote is elected to the second seat.

    In a three-member district, three seats will be elected with 25% each, plus one vote each, with a total of 75%, plus three votes, as the satisfaction level.

    It’s the closest you can come to a four-way tie, with one vote breaking the tie of three candidates consecutively.

    Four seats, 20% each (plus one vote), so a 80% plus four votes satisfaction level.

    Five seats, 16.66% threshold (plus one vote), and the total satisfaction level for electing five names in a five-member district is 83.3% plus five votes.

    Six seats, 14.4% plus one vote each. A satisfaction level of 86.4% plus six votes. In other words, the votes of 86.4% of the people, plus six more votes, counted to elect six names.

    When you reach 100 seats, the satisfaction level is 99% plus 100 seats.

    Now I don’t know if these figures actually mean anything to anyone, but the point here is that in multi-member districts, the more the seats the better, and the more exact the representation.

    And with more seats available, there’s more room for acceptance of more diverse people, with more diversified points of view. There’s less off-the-cuff rejection, and more working together because people want to be the voters 2nd, 3rd, 4th or more choice, and so the candidates don’t want to insult the other candidates publicly as much, they want to appear to want to work together more to get the consecutive rankings.

    Even though I’m a passive solar architectural designer and I have many opinions about a full range of Green issues, my primary interest is in seeing ranked voting and finding ways to work with all people in accomplishing the acceptance of ranked voting, multi-member districts and STV.

    Now, if I haven’t lost you yet, and you agree with what I’m saying, then please consider allowing me to point you in the direction again of a project that has been continuing for 16 years to bring this one issue to the forefront.

    Google actually derived from my email address in 1997 (joogle@netcom.com), before they had a name for their search engine program, and my name sparked the idea for their logo.

    Sergie Bris asked “What is a joogle?” The answer was “I don’t know what a joogle is, but a google is a number.” I few days later Google the search engine was announced by him. But they don’t want anyone to know.

    They misspelled the number googol, because of me, and they try to appear democratic like the US Parliament, but they aren’t.

    OK, here’s the project, which is pretty much being censored by the press, just as it was by Google for over ten years:

    The 8th USA Parliament http://www.usparliament.org

    Right now is the time to plant the seeds for 2012.

    I’m working with the Constitution, Libertarian, Green Tea and many flavors of parties and independents.

    This system is a mathematical system that allows Socialists, independents, Pot, Free Marijuana, new names, Conservatives, and all kinds of alternative parties and individuals to try to work together as a team for the country as a whole.

    There is a certain amount of inclusion and tolerance required, and at the same time team spirit is also a requirement, where the team members of of a wide array – up to 100 possible varieties will be elected to 100 seats.

    This really changes everything.

    If you like the concept of bringing this closer to fruition, then please look into the web page, and encourage the participants to cooperate.

    We’ve had the team set up for 16 years, but the biggest problem is people can’t invest energy and time in a stack of ballots under ranked voting.

    I say, go with the stacks of ballots and build on them.

    Look into this, and support the three national prime ministers and help build on the work done, which is based on votes cast as proof.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    I am really tired of people trying to snuff out this concept which requires free speech, so I thank Green Party Watch and IPR in particular.

    I am critical of their “click the black dot poll”, but I still appreciate the platform for free speech and to able to at least present the concept/idea.

    Best,
    –James Ogle

  141. The Promise of Democracy

    I wrote:
    “When you reach 100 seats, the satisfaction level is 99% plus 100 seats.”

    Typo…should have been “satisfaction level is 99% plus 100 votes.”

    The equation for 100 seats is: the first 100 names that receive 1/101ths (or .99%), plus one vote, are the 100 names elected.

    So, it’s a tie between 101 names, and the first 100 names that get one vote (or tic, as ranking with numbers is used), are elected consecutively.

    #101 is not elected. But, if/when any of the names die or stand down, then #101 is automatically elected to the #100 spot, and all other numbers, #102 and on, are all moved up in line as consecutively ranked names as back-ups.

  142. The Promise of Democracy

    Single Winner District US Presidential Race Leaves Third Parties and Independents with Nothing….

    By James Ogle, Elected Secretary of the USA Parliament

    The 2012 elections are just around the corner, and what progress can be claimed to have been made for third parties and independents who wish to coordinate in the national electoral system?

    Three names have just been nominated:

    Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]
    John Argent [Roseannearchist]
    DizzyLoo [Info. Not Avail.]

    These are the latest nominees to the Central California Mini-state Parliament Election of 2011, made by this author.

    There’s a limit of three new names nominated per person, and these are the first three names nominated by the first nominator.

    And new names need not be a resident of Central California, because since we’ve so few people working together, we welcome new names from afar to vie for one of the 100 “seats”.

    As an elected member, you’ll have the voting rights for electing the five executives and rules.

    Want to see more happening in regards to third parties and independents working together in 2011, in preparation for 2012?

    Read more in Roseanne Barr’s [Green Tea] forum at http://www.roseanneworld.com or sign up/self nominate your name at the USA Parliament’s site linked to the this post.

    Nominate your name now, or nominate up to three names to represent you.

    If you want to see an alternative to single winner district elections, try the 8th USA Parliament’s system for once. And be elected as one of 100.

    Think as a team, vote as a team, and move forward as a team.

  143. Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] Release Candidacy for US Prez Text

    Full text of my Speech to declare my candidacy–here is my platform:
    Comments (6) | February 11, 2011 9:54 AM | Vote Votes (2) Recommended Greetings Earthlings! Greetings my fellow and sister Taxpayers of America, as well as any members of the Animal Kingdom who might be listening to me now. I speak for you today. I speak Truth to power today in honor of the mothers and grandmothers of this country (and all countries) who are the backbone of this and all countries, and without whose sacrifice, there would be no soldiers to fight in rich men’s war for turf in order to sell weapons, drugs, pornography, and the fried corpses of headless chickens that Colonel Sanders and other Colonels, Generals and contractors within the military industrial complex, genetically modified for mass consumption, which will soon lead to the ultimate death of the Entire Cosmic Web of Life, including Human Doom.

    I’m here today to announce that after a lifetime in TV and show business, and even tougher, raising five children and five grandsons, I have, thanks to much prayer and meditation decided to pursue a less stressful future. I, Roseanne Barr am simply going to fix everything…

    Read the rest at:
    http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2011/02/full-text-of-my-speech-to-decl.php

  144. Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] Releases Candidacy for US Prez Text

    NewFederalist // Feb 11, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    “Trump/Root in 2012? Perhaps for USA Parliament or PLAS!”

    NF, we are in fact looking forward to finding out who the slate in 2012 will be. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] wishes to be Queen of the USA Parliament, ASAP.

    It’s too bad all your reporters with IPR are such slackers, and don’t know a good story when they see one.

    Myself, I hope the Prez/VP will be a gender balanced team, and I am looking for voting for a female name for president. I encourage you to do the same.

    President Ron Paul [Republican] has certainly shown how ineffective he has been for the last 2 & 1/2 years as president of the USA Parliament.

    Maybe we can find our way in 2012? Everyone is certainly welcomed to help, and we do need more nominations ASAP. Including YOUR name.

  145. dlw

    Promise of Democracy,

    I don’t think you need to be a candidate for president or even a statewide office to get free-speech.

    If the two major parties are handicapped so that they’ll tend to be flexible enough to be relatively equal in strength then outsider LT parties that specialize in contesting local elections will be the swing voters between the two major parties and be able to get attention to their issues, so long as their demands are reasonable and targeted towards moving the de facto political center.

    As for nominating oodles of folks for president in the same very small party, doesn’t that make the game/simulation you have here a farce?

    I mean forget Normandy beach. You’re no longer on planet earth!

    dlw

  146. Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] Accepts Nomination as Queen

    @208 “As for nominating oodles of folks for president in the same very small party, doesn’t that make the game/simulation you have here a farce?”

    Me: All I can do is register voters and count votes on a small scale, but the data being collected and parliaments’ seats being distributed are exact, on either a small or large scale. Dysfunction is not us.

    It’s designed to grow. For example, we’ve had twelve new nominations in the past 18 hours. You never know when the numbers will increase.

    A spurt like today always gives one encouragement.

    Since it’s built on solid ground where every tic has counted since day one, more people will buy in.

    “I mean forget Normandy beach. You’re no longer on planet earth!”

    Me: I’ve never heard a complaint about the D-Day analogy that I recall. There have been concerns I guess, about the violent implications and making the Germans look bad, but the benefits are far greater.

    People like the WW2 story, and it gives a good time line analogy too. It provides the underdog philosophy and numbers of people/time line analogy.

    I can’t think of a better example, than the Normandy Beach analogy myself.

    160,000 soldiers landed on that day, while the USA Parliament has elected only four 100-member teams.

    It shows how small we are in numbers, and draws the distinction between the pluralist (in the concrete bunkers) and the proportionalists (on the beach, being decimated).

    I understand your plan on revamping the electoral system, but we can still implement your plan when we have an ever growing army of proportionalists, where we have the mechanics to vote on alternatives of your plan, when voting is needed to make decisions as a team.

    And right now, we are voting as a team. We (the ruling coalition) recently approved rule 33, and there are other improvements in the rules being undertaken for a vote.

    As a ruling coalition, we have a bit more support than just one person dictating.

  147. Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] Accepts Nomination as Queen

    Honorable QuackQuack, thank you for the question and the interest.

    I appreciate the opportunity to answer the question, “why would you want Roseannearchist’s to be involved in a Christian based movement?”

    The answer is simple, as I am the volunteer vote counter and founder of the Free Parliamentary Party.

    First of all. you are incorrect in labeling the USA Parliament as a Christian based movement.

    The USA Parliament was founded by the Environmentalist Party (EP) on August 5th, 1995 as a way to get pure proportional representation (PR) for the EP as one of 100 members of a board of directors, so that the EP could work with all voters and have a seat at the table on the all party system (and independents).

    And it has been very successful. Year after year, the EP wins one, sometimes two or three seats at the table of the USA Parliament’s BoD.

    We find that by protecting every voter’s liberty to self-categorize, allowing a word by the name on the ballot, is the best way to find team players who also wish to help make decisions in governments, and to organize political parties who want to try to take over governments.

    True, there are Christian Independents, Non-Pot-Smoking Christians for Pot, Constitutionalists and other Christian based free speech words beside many names in the parliament.

    However, we are a mathematical system, based on tics.

    Each person is elected at a position between one and 100 in consecutively ranked order, depending on the number of tics and the size of the tics – the smaller the tic the better. For example, a #1 tic is smaller than a #2 tic, so a candidate/decision receiving a #1 tic is ranked above the one with a #2 tic. But there are 100 “seats”, so all person with with the top 100 tics are elected. People of all types.

    So I hope this answers your question, and that you can see that although Roseannarchists are indeed involved, actually the structure is highly mathematical and dry.

    It is based on math, and all people are free to rank their tics, and everyone agrees on the outcome based on the stack of ballots, regardless of the religion of the person. Very dry and rather boring.

    So the only way that Roseannarchists are involved with Christians, is when both factions have their candidates and ideas ranked on a ballot.

    And once 100 are elected with 1/101ths (or .99%), plus one vote, of the total votes cast, each is elected, and we agree that decisions receiving the majority of tics, 50% plus one vote, of the voting members, those ideas receiving 50% plus one vote are approved.

    When decisions on how to bring all people to the table must be made, currently majority rule is the most agreed upon system. Fifty percent plus one vote minimum.

    Some decisions have to be made. For example, all members, Christian, Environmentalist, Green Tea and Roseannarchist, Constitutionalist…all people, agree that a free speech word should be allowed on the ballot by each candidate’s name so the voter will have enough information about the person to give them a tic, because when the voter enters the voting booth, often they know nothing about the names on the ballot, so the free speech word informs them correctly.

    The word by the name is like a free-market of ideas in an openly competitive free speech market. For example the Free Marijuana Party is a popular and competitive free speech label, and many people do vote for Barbee, leader of the Free Marijuana Party.

    For the Roseannarchists to attain the liberty to self-categorize, they must be willing to allow others to self-categorize freely as well, and visa versa. How can we expect our liberties to be protected, if we aren’t willing to protect the liberties of others?

    So I hope this answers your question. I know this is a long-winded response, but it was a very good question.

    The answer being: we all have similar interests in attaining free speech and proportional representation (PR), and all parties (and independents) must work together to attain these free speech liberties.

    Best,
    –James

  148. Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] Accepts Nomination as Queen

    Honorable California Don Lake [American Independent], your humor made me laugh. (snickers)

    BTW, if there are any influential people out there, the time for starting to work together is yesterday.

    Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] is aptly demonstrating team work by nominating twelve names to the USA Parliament, by voting on her Cabinet and by interacting via email on her blog.

    You don’t get to work with team players unless you pick them.

    This “Independent Political Report” is a clear example of the motto “hurry up and don’t work together”, and “hurry up and f*** up”, as it is of the same exclusionary and hypercritical philosophy of the national Libertarian Party.

    It’s already too late, but if there was any leadership, the LP (and Constitution and Green Parties) would aggressively try to work WITH people, instead of continually trying to drive them away. Make every vote count.

    Do they think 2012 will be different than every year in the past?

    They are all set up for total failure, due to the blinders they wear, they’re heading straight off the cliff like lemmings and there’s no stopping them!

    Thanks for ruining every one’s chances, by trying to grab for everything for one person! Instead, nobody wins. Not even you.

    Today is the first day on Normandy Beach, so what are you waiting for? Battle of the Bulge is 175,000 years in the future at current pace.

    How about Root/Barr [Libertarian/Green Tea] for females? Barr/Root [Green Tea/Libertarian] for males. Easy as 1, 2, 3…PLAS!

    Best,
    James Ogle, volunteer vote counter

  149. dlw

    I guess I get the analogy better now.

    My view is that the use of proportional representation in nat’l elections is so far away from our current system that it almost might be counter-productive to think about it. While we do have precedent for the use of 3-seated elections and my idea to revamp the Electoral College is more consistent with its original intent than either a NPV or the current system used.

    But maybe that’s me, I agree that we ought to give diverse viewpoints more voice and to build up solidarity among those voices for the use of multi-seated elections more so in the US.

    dlw

  150. Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] Accepts Nomination as Queen

    DLW Wrote: “[...] While we do have precedent for the use of 3-seated elections [...]”

    Really? That would be helpful, if we could implement that system in Prime Minister Barr’s campaign. Be sure to check her attempt to run for president, and click on her blog site.

    If we could get PLAS Minister Christ [Roseannarchist] and the Libertarians cooperating, maybe in MI, that’s always helpful.

    Right now, the only thing we’ve got going is the July 4th picnic in Monterey, CA. Maybe if you could do a picnic with the LT Party Movement in coordination, over the next two years? In Deluth, or somewhere near where you live?
    And announce it on her blog?

    We’re working with the Roseannarchists, Green Tea, Constitutional Monarchs , Info. Not Avail., and others. If we could get the LT Party Movement doing a picnic too, (or any others) she might like that.

    I’m trying to sell her on the idea of getting some PR, and she’s friends with some TV producers who post on her site who are interested in the Barr for president campaign.

    Peace,
    –James

  151. GoNott Search

    Thomas M. Sipos [Libertarian] writes: “Ogle and Milnes are loons…”

    Both IPR and Sipos use Google ads, and you can thank me for giving them the idea for the name.

    Call me a loon if you wish, but my name is a billion dollar gateway. And now the Google executive has helped create a parliament in Egypt.

    Imagine that, the benefactors of IPR and Sipos, the very company whose marketing director help over throw the dictator, a ad partner with Sipos and IPR.

    And guess what? The state of California will help the Libertarian Party too. The election codes are written in such a way, so that only Libertarians can work with Libertarians in California.

    And all parties can only work within their own party.

    So 2012 is sown up:

    Only Democrats can work with Democrats, only Republicans can work with Republicans, only Greens with Greens, only American Independents with American Independents.

    Better not step out of the plan, lest you might make a change that’s not allowed by the state.

    Better not have any alternative ideas, like electing a pure proportional representation parliament, you might disrupt the plans of your owners!

    What an embarrassment!

    The world is flat, remember?

    –James

  152. GoNott Search

    Paulie better protect all the real paying jobs with the state from being taken, so he can stay with IPR!

    Cause I guess the company Google is the only one that deserves PR in Egypt, eh?

    I mean, Google’s executive start the Facebook page, that’s enabling them to elect a real Parliament? Shoot, I’ll bet the Libertarian Party of Egypt is right in there with Google’s executive!

    Anybody know if/when the Libertarian Party of Egypt is expecting to win seats there?

    Maybe Paulie can travel to Egypt and get a job there? And the CON-STI-TU-TION Party too!

    By this time next year, they’ll be winning seats in Alaska!

  153. The 8th USA Parliament

    Everyone, plenty of bad news here. The Constitution Party isn’t allowed to the California American Independent Party’s convention in June.

    And the USA Parliament’s new computer (that I’ve been testing) needs jumpers so it’s not working very well. (And you know how expensive THOSE are?)

    Hey Thomas Knapp, BTW, your writing experience would be highly appreciated at the USA Parliament, in the high paying job of Communications Minister. That way, I would have to embarrass everyone. :)

    –James

  154. The 8th USA Parliament

    George Phillies writes:
    “Part of the problem is that the number of contributors is small, and the ones who go on all the time at great length can sometimes tend to drive other people out of the conversation.”

    Gee, I wonder who that could be, George?

    :)

    And Libertarian girl, for one who doesn’t want to talk about PLAS, you certainly do talk about it. :)

    I’m sure everyone is tired of smiley faces by now.

    Well, when you decide to get serious, and want to start working as a team, we do need nominations. And you don’t have to second.

    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

    And Queen to be Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] has nominated twelve names, and elected seven names to the Cabinet BTW.

    But only three of her nominations made it, because the limit is three nominations per person in 100-member parliaments, because we already have more than 100 names ballot qualified. All elected members automatically qualify.

    So when anyone wants to work together, here new nominee’s names are the ones on the Vote Here web page, linked above.

    I wrote:
    “That way, I would have to embarrass everyone.”

    See what I mean? I meant to write I would *NOT* have to embarrass everyone…jeeez.

    Maybe when my name becomes successful, I’ll be able to pay people to help. Did I say Go Ogle was a billion dollar gateway? Sorry, another typo. It’s a MULTI-billion dollar gateway.

    I’ll be glad to tell you how it was started, it had something to do with someone being a control freak, who didn’t want me making comments. Cool, eh?

    Doesn’t anyone out there actually care about free speech? I thought freedom was supposed to be encouraged by some parties?

    Like my party (I founded, BTW). we’re for the liberty to self-categorize. We work with all people. Course the Libertarians aren’t for that. Can you say “hypocrites?”

    People it’s not your fault, it’s just that party rules are party rules, and your party’s rules don’t allow anything but the word Libertarian by participant’s names.

    So that way, new people who are critical, with new ideas that aren’t part of the bosses plans can’t be written about or implemented.

    That way, independent people can’t have a tool by which to work together.

    BTW, I welcome anyone’s participation in the All Party System (and independents), the sooner the better!

    After all, I guess you know that today is like D-Day and there will be more than 2500 casualties. The situation is urgent.

    –James

  155. The 8th USA Parliament

    I have nominated three names:
    Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]
    John Argent [Roseannarchist]
    Dizzy Loo [Constitutional Monarchist]

    I am accepting nominations here, in case anyone wants to work as a team of USA voters, working to give true liberty to every voter.

    I am registered to vote with the state as a member of the Free and Equal Party.

    In the Parliament, I’m proclaiming to be with the Free Parliamentary Party.

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    And consecutively alternating genders thereafter.

  156. Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] Accepts Nomination as Queen

    Bad news, the CA American Independent Party’s convention won’t allow Constitution Party members, the Peace and Freedom Party won’t allow Populist Socialist Party members, the Green Party won’t allow Green Tea, the Libertarian Party won’t allow American Libertarian, Democratic nor Republican….

    Everyone has road blocks set for 2011 and 2012.

    Here are some recent photos:
    http://www.smithandersennorth.com/artists/wood/index.html

    If we don’t act quickly to educate the voters of the situation, it will cause continual delays for “V-Day”.

  157. Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] Accepts Nomination as Queen

    Hon. Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist], former PLAS Minister and former Deputy PLAS Minister said:

    “How many other Independent candidates do you screw with, paulie?
    How many of them are disabled, unemployed, broke, depressed, mentally ill, no significant other, not tech savvy, have no car or clunker or 2, little or no campaign contributions, few or no volunteers or staff, not on many or any ballots or otherwise not perfect or up to your standards?
    Shall we go to politics1 & check them all out?
    & ridicule the ones who deserve it?
    Could be hilarious.”

    Me: Honorable Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist], we need you on our team.

    I have shot my “rounds”, and I’m out of ammo. We need some nominations. One, two and three, we need you to come ashore. What’s taking you so long?!

    Everyone. All is forgiven. It’s not too late to nominate.

    You don’t want Barr/Root in 2012?
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss12.php

    You can type plenty of comments, but can’t do a creative nomination(s)? Can’t work under PLAS (or GLAS, or CLAS), votes cast as proof?

    To get votes, you’ve got to at least be nominated first.

    You think the national Libertarian Party is going to suddenly accept the Boston Tea Party, and then everyone is going to suddenly start working together?

    What else is the kind of tool can we use to give every individual who votes liberty?

    The Libertarian national convention, is a big set-up, by those who want to prevent your liberty.

    I don’t see them being interested in PLAS, or any idea that doesn’t automatically crown the “chosen one”, while preventing team work from a huge BoD, independents trying to work together and to help.

    Most here are too happy to be putting people down, and obviously devoid of working in a direction towards working together.

    Hate to tell you, but the process is fixed through 2012 in the current scenario. It’s a repeat of years past with the likes of Paul, Nader, Starr, Root, Paulie, etc., etc. I don’t hear them calling for all people to work together under votes cast as proof. Promoting liberty for all participants.

    This game is pretty much lost, as a gage, we’re but several hundred strong, and we know how many it takes to push past the first bunkers…160,000 landing on day one.

    Milnes, you’re actually correct, we’re shell-shocked, decimated, blinded, scattered, thinned out…just about the opposite from “V-Day”.

    Everyone is confused and in disarray.

    He who speaks does not know, and he who knows does not speak. But when you speak of victory, you’re promoting the opposite of the truth!

    It’s a comedy of errors here, this isn’t the time to be proclaiming V-Day. I don’t buy into that at all, and I hope you don’t either.

    Paulie is totally off-base.

    But who’s going to start trying to organize to turn this scenario around?

    Their first mistake is to hinder those who are at the tail, who’ve been watching the rear.

    You never know when a small faction of say Left Anarchists, are actually the largest once you count the votes. That the votes have them at #1.

    Every unit has a purpose, every team player a voter, every weapon fires consecutively ranked rounds: more than a hundred at a time.

    Free speech is needed, to communicate to the team what’s really going down. How bad things really are, and how the siuation on the ground is hopeless, and only getting worse very quickly.

    That’s the reality. Not “V-Day”.

    The good news, is the 8th USA Parliament, as small and as in trouble as we are, with our numbers rapidly diminishing, at least all parties and independents are united for the same cause. Pure proportional representation (PR), with votes cast as proof.

    The most mathematically perfect, and inclusive voting system known, pure PR. And why stop at 100 seats? Why stay small? We should be doubling in size on a monthly basis, and the plans are to grow.

    I hope you like this.

    Someone have a better idea? What’s the Internet good for, if you can’t lay out a better plan? A better truth?

  158. Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] Accepts Nomination as Queen

    Reposted from Roseanneworld.com

    PM Chelene Nightingale [Constitution]: “Yes” to Barr/Nightingale [Green Tea/Constitution] for President/Vice President

    I just got off the phone with Hon. PM Chelene Nightingale [Constitution] and she says she loves PM Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] because something like she “always makes her laugh”, and that she used to date a comedian who opened for Roseanne. She has been to one of Roseanne’s parties.

    Nightingale was very busy, but she did said she’d be happy to be a VP candidate in a Barr/Nightingale ticket.

    Chelene Nightingale was the top gubernatorial candidate with the American Independent Party (AIP) in the past twenty years in the California state election in 2008.

    During her campaign, she walked from Fresno to Sacramento to promote the power of the people, but was largely ignored by the establishment press.

    Currently Constitution Party members are prohibited from attending the American Independent convention due to strict election laws, even though the AIP was pretty much founded as a branch of the national Constitution Party.

  159. Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] Accepts Nomination as Queen

    Reposted from RoseanneWorld.com

    Not being Israeli, nor having ever been to Israel, I can’t make an accurate judgement. But with my philosophy on pure proportional representation (PR), I’d say keep it as one state.

    Israel uses PR in electing its 120 Knesset members.

    I did a little research, and noted that the way each member is nominated is always changing, and anything from one member being appointed, to 10,000 party members nominating one member, has happened over the past decade.

    My position would be, make the nomination process even across the board like the American Parliament.

    So, in an at-large district, the same number of signatures or votes would nominate every candidate, and every candidate is free to self-categorize under the party/category they wish.

    The number of signatures could be calibrated up or down, depending on supply and demand.

    In Israel, there could be some limits on free speech self-categorization in place that might need to be improved, sort of like there is in Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood (and Sisterhood) is prohibited.

    I do like the way Israel is unicameral, rather than bicameral like Egypt. I favor with the unicameral system under pure proportional representation.

    Bicameralism seems too inefficient, costly, and less direct and to the point for accurate representation of the voters.

    Splitting the country into two states based on ethnicity just doesn’t sit well with me for some reason. I’d prefer integration over segregation if given a choice, but I really don’t know if that’s applicable there, or if it’s ever been tried.

  160. Everybody for President

    Wilder wrote: “[...]Ralph Nader has run for President of the United States as a Green Party candidate, and more recently as an independent.[...]”

    I don’t recall Nader ever running for president befor 1995, when he first agreed to be on the “All Party System” (and independents)’s ballot.

    Between him sueing to win, and the Libertarian’s support of the Nolan Chart, that’s been a lot of wasted energy!

    People should be working together more, instead of grabbing for power for themselves.

  161. Catholic Trotskyist

    Good to hear that Chelene is interested.

    I have a question James; do people need to be over 18 to participate?
    I ask because I have a radical, surprising, most would say crazy idea.

    There was an interview with the po psinger Justin Bieber yesterday where he said that he was for single-payer healthcare, against abortion, and didn’t know much about political parties yet.
    His socially conservative, fiscally socialistic positions, are much in line with the Catholic Trotskyist Party, and so I thought of contacting him to see if he would be interested in joining. Then I realized that, since he doesn’t know much about the political parties yet, he might be open to learning about radical ideas like pure proportional representation and the all-party system.

    I don’t know much about his music, and he seems to be hated by a lot of people for some strange reason, but I think he would have great potential to be in USA Parliament, and he would educate the children of the world about pure proportional representation.

    What do you think? Unfortunately I’m not sure how to contact him. And I’m sure he has managers who are part of the single-member district agenda who would try to block him from doing this.

  162. Catholic Trotskyist

    The only other concern is that he’s 16 years old.

    Youth Minister Justin D. Bieber (Catholic Trotskyist), can be the person to revolutionize the world and get this into national attention.

  163. Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] Accepts Nomination as Queen

    Reposted frpm http://www.RoseanneWorld.com

    tosca wrote: “Peace seems so easy when You get rid of the profits of war. Why do people need so much money? Blood money!”

    Me: I recently read a post by Dale Sheldon-Hess (http://leastevil.blogspot.com/) stating something like that the American Civil War could have been avoided had the Whigs and the Democrats been able to discuss slavery. The Republican were the ones to win with Lincoln, but had there been pure proportional representation voting, things could have been different. (Of course women and blacks weren’t permitted to vote either)

    Voting is a peaceful decision making system, that is utilized to avoid conflict, and to make decisions on a larger scale in a peaceful, orderly manor.

  164. Joke About Independent Political Report

    My take on IPR, by James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    It’s 0630 hours, June 6th, 1944 and we’re on Normandy Beach, and there’s about 400 to 4000 of us, and we’re being slaughtered by the two-party system which is holed up inside concrete bunkers overlooking the beach.

    We’re scattered, shell-shocked, in confusion and disarray. Many are lost, wounded and scattered.

    Soon Paulie and a group of Libertarians will be joining us when they land on shore. Currently they’re inside a lander called IPR (100% Libertarian owned), and they’re all telling each other “We’re winning, we’re winning! V-Day is here!”

    They’re trying to elect a prez/vp candidate at this very moment who will lead a frontal assault.

    To be continued….

    Will the 2011 Libertarian lander make it to shore and take the bunker? Stay tuned, on IPR.

  165. Joke About Independent Political Report

    …Former PLAS Minister and presidential candidate Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist] won’t with with them. Paulie will probably throw him over the side (along with many other prez/vp candidates) before they get within range of the cannon which will likely hit them anyway before they ever make it to shore.

  166. Joke About Independent Political Report

    …stay tuned and find out how many more the USS IPR will dump over the side before they even get close to the shores of Normandy Beach.
    * * *

    Commercial break:

    Sponsored by Free Parliamentary Party and The USA Parliament

    “Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!”

    * * *

    We’ve been here for 16 minutes (one year = one minute on Normandy Beach), won’t you nominate your name or someone to represent you?

    Up to three names nominated per person:
    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

  167. IPR Landing Craft Update

    …the Libertarian party’s landing craft lander USS IPR must cleanse itself of all non-Libertarians, as only “they” are for liberty.

    Liberty to self categorize is not a liberty they can promote or tolerate.

    They are not for 100 equal units, but for one single unit, the final results of self downsizing all must undergo.

    They think, only they are for the non-initiation of force, only they are anti-war…so they may as well not coordinate with others. That is their message from the top down, separate from all others. Do not work together.

    So when they do hit the beaches of Normandy, they will be fewer and fewer, and not in coordination with the larger army.

    IPR will produce a single voice to dictate the orders as the time 0617 hour arrives.

    They are “just following orders”, separate and homogenize, only those called Libertarians will approach the bunker.

    This is June 6th 1944, and we know what their plan is, as does those in the bunker.

    Their plan is to create delays and to purposely cause more loss of life.

    Day one is on schedule. Day one will last lifetimes. At current pace, true liberty is delayed for more than 175,000 years.

    In proportion to the numbers required for victory, the entire Libertarian Party of a million, is actually like a small handful. To be easily dealt with by the bunkers.

    The time and schedule of the first Tuesday in November, is actually approx. 0617 hours. Next year, 2012, is but one minute away.

    The Libertarian Party will find themselves at 0617 hours, June 6th, 1944. They have purposefully fallen into their own schedule.

    Is it too late to change? No. But what’s at stake, but one more minute on Normandy Beach? How can one change the inertia and history? What person wants that?

    Perhaps they think they’ll broadcast some words through the national media, and suddenly everything will speed up?

    Suddenly everyone loves a dictator? How can that be, when there are no ears to listen?

    Will all people and all parties suddenly start working together in a free single parliamentary ballot, including those who profess liberty while at the same time acting in the opposite direction of liberty – i.e. the liberty to self categorize?

    Who can work for the good of the all? What does that entail? That entails nominations which are like votes of confidence, in a system where 1/101ths (or .99%) plus one vote, elects one of 100, and where true liberty to self-categorize is achieved. Not the fake liberty that the Libertarian Party eschews.

    (In my imagination, not an actual quote) Paulie “We won, we won! Today is V-Day!”, as the USS Libertarian Party lander approaches cannon range, and there are no other landers coordinating at that site: to be directly in front of bunker #1 at 0617 hours.

    Read this link here, about how today people are working together for the good of those in the bunkers, loading up on ammo and fuel:
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/18/MNDJ1HPCHC.DTL

    –James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

  168. PM Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] Accepts Nomination as Queen

    We are the Liberators

    Honorable Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea], we are ready to start working more on the parliamentary election of 2011 ASAP.

    People probably have no idea about what we’re about (see above post #244), but we must try to push forward anyway. Those in the army must teach others the situation.

    Here is the D-Day analogy:

    Creating an American Parliament where all people are free to self-categorize as they wish, and where under ranked voting, all elections of names and decisions must be ranked with consecutively ranked numbers beginning with the number “1″, is a lot like being on Normandy Beach on June 6th, 1944: we’re the liberators, and we’re being decimated.

    And if the time schedule of the American Parliament, or the 8th USA Parliament (USP), were compared to that of Normandy Beach on June 6th, 1944, since the the USP is sixteen years in the making and we’re getting nowhere, sixteen years is like the first sixteen minutes on Normandy Beach.

    The time of landing in France was 6:30 am (0630 in military time), and so right now the time is about 0646 hours (0630 + 16 = 0636) and next year one more minute will have passed, and the time will be 0647 hours.

    Earlier in the thread I was writing 0617 was the time, but that was incorrect, the time of the landing was 0630, not 0600 hours. So 2011 is 0646 hours, not 0616 hours as previousely written.

    I will describe the situation, and it’s not pretty.

    We have all types of people on Normandy Beach as the “All Party System (and independent)” and we consist of a full range of people. More people land every minute (nominations), consisting of all religions and backgrounds, all parties (even socialists) and non voters too.

    For example I’m of a different background from you. My grandmother Thelma Pearl Stoddard was Morman (she died at age 101 last year in good health in her sleep, RIP) and was married to a Morman, Bishop Frederick “Fred” George Stoddard. She was an incredible women, and I’ll write more about that later if you’re interested.

    As Prime Minister, you need the truth of the situation on the ground and it’s not good. We are the first four 100-member teams who’ve landed, and we are being decimated. As you know, we are in confusion, scattered and shell-shocked.

    Many of our team units are out of communication, some obliterated, blinded and I myself have no legs.

    We need to push forward with a frontal attack on the bunker and you were elected as one of three PMs working as specialists to lead us, and you’re on the front line. You’re a battle hardened spiritual warrior, I’m right with you, and we have a left wing and a right wing in coordination. I have a “radio” for better communication, but the noise is deafening.

    I have contacted the other executives, and they are ready to make a coordinated assault, ASAP (work together and debate).

    We await your decision on what to do next.

    Meanwhile, we need more names nominated all the time. People may nominate by clicking this link:
    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

    Their name can join the “battle” and self categorize under any party category they wish. Part of the work is getting more units on shore as we try to reach 160,000 in one day.

    I hope you like it, the team is ready to go to work with you, and we must move forward ASAP.

    Peace,
    Secretary James Ogle [Free Parliament]
    volunteer vote counter

  169. Work as a Free Speech Team, Votes Cast as Proof

    Everyone, the chance of working together in an all party system with independents in 2012 will be pretty much over in a matter of weeks.

    The national Constitution Party is meeting in April, and they are one of the three main national minor parties.

    –James

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

  170. Constitution and Green Tea Should Work as a Free Speech Team

    CONSTITUTION PARTY NATIONAL MEETING APRIL 29 AND 30, 2011 IN HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

    It is very important that we make it known that the Green Tea Party wishes to work with the Constitution Party ASAP, otherwise we lose a valuable ally.
    http://www.constitutionparty.com/view_events.php

    I suggest we do a voter drive together (Green Tea, Libertarian and Constitution), have it underway before the convention, and have representatives at the Constitution Party’s national convention in PA.

    Please contact Chelene at chelene@nightingaleforgovernor.com, ASAP, before it’s too late, to arrange for the coalition.

    The single free parliamentary paper ballot will be ready, and several Constitution Party members’ names are on it, along with three lines for write-ins on each ballot.

    –James

  171. whatever

    Has anyone mentioned yet what a horrible idea a US Parliament is? It only allows partisan politics and bans independent politics.

  172. Constitution and Green Tea Should Work as a Free Speech Team

    What do you mean?

    Any individual may self-categorize as an independent in the USA Parliament. When that independent receives 1/101ths (or .99%) of the vote plus one vote, they are elected as one of th 100 members of the team.

    A party name is just a free speech word to give the voter more information about the individual, when the voter enters the voting booth.

    Do you have a better way to integrate independents with partisans?

    Please do expound on your comment, whatever.

  173. Constitution and Green Tea Should Work as a Free Speech Team

    whatever wrote: “[...]You can’t really draw a direct comparison of CPAC to something like a 420 march. It’s apples and lemons.”

    Are you kidding?

    Both events are a waste of time, because there is no legitimate voting system created as a tool for expanding team work in an all party system.

    I’m writing about an ultra-conservative voting system where no votes (or very few) get liberally thrown away or wasted. A system on which all parties and independents agree* – pure proportional representation (PR).

    *Except single winner power grabbing egotists, who just want to dictate and do not want to work together under a mathematical tool as such.

  174. Paulie vs Wilder = Hurry Up and Don't Work Together!

    Call for Nominations of All Parties and Independents (Labor Too)

    http://www.usparliament.org/tv.php

    From:
    http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2011/02/parliamentary-elections.php

    Honorable Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea], I have a plan for our battle for Normandy Beach.

    Anne Frank would have liked this.

    Since there is a possibility that you may run for US Senate or US President in 2012, what we do is build the right and left wings around the center anyway.

    I have been in touch with PM Nightingale [Constitution] and she has given me the vote of confidence via email.

    We continue to try to work with her de jure government, the US Constitution, the Libertarian and Green Parties.

    Then whomever the prez/vp team elected is in 2012, the two (prez & vp) will rank vote on US Senate candidates in every state, including Hawaii, to elect the “coalition of three” as stated in rule #33 of the 8th USA Parliament.

    So whatever direction you take, we can still work as a team ASAP.

  175. dlw

    Hi,
    I live in the twin cities…

    I think it’s wishful thinking to try to link Proportional Representation with the Presidency, which is inevitably a winner-take-all election of some sort. The best we can hope for is a 2 or 3 stage election where the initial stages are multi-seated.

    I rewrote a more readable summary of my ideas on the use of the EC for the last stage to elect our president here.
    http://anewkindofparty.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-we-need-2-stage-us-presidential.html

  176. Paulie vs Wilder = Hurry Up and Don't Work Together!

    DLW, when we elect 100 consecutively ranked names, with plenty of consecutively ranked names as back-ups (of whom your name may be one), we also elect a president (#1) and vice president (#2).

    Why is that wishful thinking, when we already do it?

    MP Ron Paul [Republican] is the president and MP Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian] is the vice president on the national. On ss11-6, it’s reverse: MMP Gail Lightfoot is the president, and lone Republican MMP Ron Paul [Republican] is the vice president.
    http://www.usparliament.org/exec-ss11-6.php

    BTW, we don’t have an age limit on president on this year’s election, maybe you’ll be elected president of ss11-6 and you can see what I mean.

    It’s simple as 1, 2 and 3!

  177. Milnes a Shining Example of Libertarian Corruption

    It’s obvious that the current system with continual fights between labor and management doesn’t work, just look at the economy.

    Now look at governments with proportional representation like Germany and Japan, and you’ll find that labor actually wins seats in government, and helps write the laws.

    I’ve never been there, but I’ll bet the quality of life for working people is better.

    What works is to have multiple alternatives to solutions, the more the better, and to have the solutions ranked in order of preference.

    But to go on ignoring the better solution, and to continue to spend so much time and energy actually censoring unique ideas such a pure proportional representative really exposes people here as supporters/suppliers of the “bunkers” above the beach.

    While some people are building on ways to work together, others (Paulie and Kimberly) are self cleansing these ideas and creating awkward barriers and roadblocks which serve to delay the allies and bog us down year after year, decade after decade.

    Green, Libertarian, Constitution and Boston Tea Parties are all similar to Egyptian and Israeli elections, in that the selection and election of members and candidates are unequal. Some are appointed, while some require up to 10,000 signatures.

    The situation will Milnes’ presidential candidacy is a shining example of the hypocrisy and corruption of the Libertarian Party.

  178. "We Won! V-Day is Today!"

    …after throwing Milnes [Left Anarchist] over the side, the USS IPR Libertarian landing craft putters closer to the beach and approaches cannon range of the bunkers. The time is 0646 hours, June 6th, 1944 and the already four 100-member team on the beach being decimated.

    Paulie is the captain, and he’s telling everyone; “We Won! V-Day is Today!”

    Stay tuned in 2016, when the time will be 0649 hours, on June 6th, 1944, and the next Libertarian landing craft will approach the beach…but where is Paulie’s boat? Find out in one minute, at 0647 hours (November 2012).

  179. NewFederalist

    Cheshire cat working in harmony with Darth Vader… film at 11! Vote Monster Raving Loony Party!

  180. Catholic Trotskyist

    NewFederalist, we would appreciate your support in USA Parliament. A “New Federalist Party” would be an interesting addition to the team.

    With the growing cooperation of celebrities like Roseanne Barr, and hopefully the new Youth Minister Justin D. Bieber (Catholic Trotskyist), the US Parliament will be ready for more public action soon.

  181. NewFederalist

    CT- are you now taking the PLAS questions on the PLAS thread? I suggested to Bob Milnes that you be designated since he is now boycotting IPR.

  182. Libertarian Blog Owner=Dictator

    The tendency at IPR to control free speech has been blatantly arrogant, chauvinistic and misdirected.

    You’ll allow death threats directed at people including myself, you mangle and molest peoples’ posts, you allow degrading photos of female politicians, and you segregate ideas much like George Wallace would do with schools in Birmingham.

    And the whiners and complainers who self categorize as Libertarian write something like; “you’re driving people away by allowing people to post this and that”…and “you’re costing us money, and we’ll never be able to sell.”

    Well guess what, I don’t buy that, and I’ll bet that’s a smokescreen. For all I know the site has been sold, and it’s being run by a bunch of deceptive frauds who don’t want independent politics. They just want to be in control and they’re a lot like a dictator who doesn’t want to see real democracy.

    Seems to be a pattern here, and it’s reflective of the owners of the site and their chief propagandist Root, whose name is embedded in the index page.

    I hear there’s some work available in Libya, Gadhafi can use your help.
    * * *

    “Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1″

    Why do you THINK they called it Google?

  183. Libertarian Blog Owner=Dictator

    @265 and 262…my concept for the post was to misquote Paulie when he never wrote “We won, we won! Today is V-Day”.

    I am not trying to convey that we won, by misquoting that those were my own words, those weren’t his words either.

    My words are; “We losing, we’re losing, and we’re being decimated, and we’d better start working together. But we’re not. So we’re bogged down for 175,000 years at current pace.”

  184. Libertarian Blog Owner=Dictator

    And I have my suspicions of who it is, and they go by the anonymous name of wolfefan.

    So wolfefan doesn’t like the concept of our team fighting to liberate the oppressed from the two-party system in the concrete bunkers.

    While we’re being decimated on Normandy Beach, wolfefan has to give unfair advantage to the bunker’s already strong position.

    Paulie is not a member of the all party system, he declined to accept a position. He is not with us in name, nor does he wish to be there.

    Maybe he’s with another all party system? But he’s not on this side of the battle lines.

    As far as I know, he’s probably with the three-party system? But I am not with the three party system. So I am not on his side. I don’t know where they are, they won somewhere, in another time dimension.

    But he is not coordinated with the all party system, we’re powered by votes.

    Paulie, are you with the two-party, the three-party, the all-party or what?

    I’ve asked to to be with the all-party, and the invitation is open-ended. However, I don’t think it’s fair that your site claims to be independent and yet screws with people of differing system prospective.

    The “All Party System (and independents)” is the haps, and we’re going to get a lot better over the next 30 to 50 days.

  185. Libertarian Blog Owner=Dictator

    Sane LP Member wrote: “I hope they put as much energy into building the party and gettin LP candidates elected as they do with an internal race for state chair”

    They’re practicing for being dictators like in the election cycle when trying to get LP candidates elected.

    You know, don’t work with other parties in the dormant period, and don’t work with other parties in the elections either.

    They’re being just like single winner districts require them to be like-”one person is better than everyone else, namely the Libertarian person, and so we’re going to lecture to everyone why we’re better because only one person can be best in a single winner district”.

  186. Libertarian Blog Owner=Dictator

    …and if you try to be a Libertarian and we decide you aren’t one, we’ll throw you overboard…just like Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist], because we can’t work with anyone but homogenized Libertarians.

    So what if 100 units will perish every hour, for 24 hours, over and over for the next 10,000 years?

    Paulie never wrote; “we won, we won! Today is V-Day!” (Then in the 2016 presidential elections, repeat. The time will be 0621 hours, June 6th, 1944 on Normandy Beach as Paulie exclaims: “we won! Today is V-Day!” (only in my imagination, not in real life) Then in the 2020 presidential elections, repeat. The time will be 0625 hours, June 6th, 1944 on Normandy Beach as Paulie exclaims: “we won! Today is V-Day!”.)

  187. Libertarian Blog Owner=Dictator

    They’re being just like single winner districts require them to be like-”one person is better than everyone else, namely the Libertarian person, and so we’re going to lecture to everyone why we’re better because only one person can be best in a single winner district”.

  188. USA Parliament Nominations Coming Along

    Nominees to date 2/22/2011:

    Jason Baker [N/A] self nominated on 2/1/2011
    David L. Wezell [LT Movement] self nominated on 2/6/2011
    Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] nominated by James Ogle on 2/10/2011
    John Argent [Roseannarchist] nominated by James Ogle on 2/10/2011
    Dizzy Loo [Constitutional Monarchist] nominated by James Ogle on 2/10/2011
    KeyKay Fisher [Celtic Green Team] self nominated 2/11/2011
    Jennifer Pentland [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Roseanne Barr on 2/12/2011
    Becky Richardson [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Roseanne Barr on 2/12/2011
    Helen Barr [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Roseanne Barr on 2/12/2011
    Geraldine Barr [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Dizzy Loo on 2/12/2011
    Brandi Brown [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Dizzy Loo on 2/12/2011
    Jessica Oronoz [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Dizzy Loo on 2/12/2011
    Lisa Clampitt [Green Tea] self nominated on 2/15/2011
    Peck the Town Crier [Common Thread] self nominated on 2/15/2011
    Tina Fay [Info. Not Avail.] self nominated on 2/17/2011
    Alice Walker [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Jim Doyle on 2/19/2011
    Jim Doyle [Republican] self nominated by Jim Doyle on 2/19/2011
    Marcia Ray [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Jim Doyle on 2/19/2011
    Madea Benjamin [Green] nominated by Virgil Hales on 2/19/2011
    Virgil Hales [Green-Pot-Christ] self nominated by Virgil Hales on 2/19/2011
    Ruth Mccartney [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Virgil Hales on 2/19/2011
    Blossom Eaglefeather [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Kevin Clark on 2/20/2011
    Kevin Clark [Green Libertarian] self nominated by Kevin Clark on 2/20/2011
    Yehuda Berg [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Kevin Clark on 2/20/2011
    Llloyd Llewellyn [Flying Saucer] nominated by Zachary Scott Gordon on 2/20/2011
    Zachary Scott Gordon [American Libertarian] self nominated by Zachary Scott Gordon on 2/20/2011
    Angie Mccartney [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist] on 2/21/2011
    Noam Chomsky [New] nominated by Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist] on 2/21/2011

    Disqualified Nominated Names, Requiring New Nominee:

    Lauren Korba [Info. Not Avail.]
    Cathy Bilsky [Info. Not Avail.]
    DJ Tenn [Info. Not Avail.]
    Robert Greenwald [Info. Not Avail.]
    Cathy Obrien [Info. Not Avail.]
    Mark Phillips [Info. Not Avail.]
    Dr.Colin Ross [Info. Not Avail.]
    Scott Pelligrino [Info. Not Avail.]
    Randy Credico [Info. Not Avail.]
    Jim Cortez [Info. Not Avail.]

  189. USA Parliament Nominations Coming Along

    In post 268, my words are being screwed with by someone after I posted, in order to change what I wrote.

    Why? Because I’m lying.

    Paulie never wrote: “We won! We won! Today is V-Day!” I can’t produce that quote, because it never happened.

    The next time I put words in between quote marks, and it’s noticed by the admins here that they are not the exact words the person said, this is liable to happen again. So, from now on, I’ll definitely try harder to either provide exact and correct quotes, or not put words in between quote marks.

    Additionally, I’ll remember not to use any other person who posts here’s screen name as part of my screen name.

    And, finally, if I don’t like these rules, I understand that I can just leave and go somewhere else.

  190. The Legend of Billy Rose for President

    the legend of Billy Rose: Roseanne Barr saves the world–
    February 22, 2011 9:48 AM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kMoRBfJOXA

    PM Barr [Green Tea] wrote:
    “I just love this but do not agree with the jane fonda shooting depicted here, nor the shooting of anne coulter or satan palin–however I do agree with the beheading of all bankers as depicted herein by the holy and blessed guillotine, under Roseannearchy. these young kids really get me–that voice over sounds familiar too–i wonder if i know these guys? they are funny though and good graphic artists. ps– i love billy jack movies!”

  191. "V is [...] for Victory."

    i.e. We won!

    …as his landing craft putters closer to cannon range of the bunkers on high cliff above Normandy Beach.

    (Actually. I’m just being a dumbass. I know better than to think that “resistance is itself a form of victory” is the same thing as “we won,” and I already agreed to stop using other people’s names as part of my screen name, so now by making the admins here waste their time like this, I just want to be as obnoxious as possible and see whether I can get myself banned altogether for deliberately and repeatedly ignoring the very few and sensible rules.

    In the meantime, I understand that any such rule violating comment can be changed or removed at any time, and I also know that me being confined (“segregated”) to this thread is not any one person’s decision, and that the same decision was made elsewhere, like the Roseanneworld forum, due to my behavior. I also apologize for falsely saying that this blog is owned by a Libertarian and the many other lies I have told here

    I’ll try harder not to make these kinds of mistakes from now on, since I clearly seem to want to keep posting here).

  192. The Legend of Billy Rose for President

    The USA Parliament welcomes Todd M. Palin, as well as Gary G. Kreep and Michael “Savage” Weiner, on the preference ballot in 2012.

    I will nominate them myself to the 2011 election as disqualified nominees and test market their names, and so all they need is a new nominator.
    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

    –James

    “Mark Seidenberg // Feb 23, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    Timothy Young

    What do you think about Todd M. Palin on the
    February 7, 2012 Presidential Preference Ballot
    in California? Also, what do you think about
    either Gary G. Kreep and Michael “Savage” Weiner on the same Preference Ballot?

    Fusion ticket have been outlawed in California,
    since 1959. The American Independent Party
    has no affiliation with the Constitution Party,
    since June 27, 2008.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
    Vice Chairman, American Independent Party

    P.S. The Constitution Party of California under the claimed “chairmanship” of Don “Everything
    is a fake” Grundmann, has a total California
    electorate of 163 on October 18, 2010. The
    American Independent Party has a total electorate of 413,032 on the same October 18,
    2010 date.”

  193. The Legend of Billy Rose for President

    Paulie, please post your ideas for improved rules here, ranked with consecutive numbers beginning with the number one.

    Example:
    1. Language which includes death threats will be deleted.
    2. Language and links to photos which degrade female political candidates will be deleted.
    3. Etc.

  194. The Legend of Billy Rose for President

    If anyone wants to work under a voting system where 1/101ths (.99%) of the votes plus one vote elects one of the 100 names, the 8th USA Parliament is calling for nominations:
    http://www.usparliament.org/tv.php

    We have a set of 33 rules which guides us, and the rules were elected and implemented by the ruling coalition and are posted online:
    http://www.usparliament.org/rules.php

    We’ll be improving the rules, and each of the elected members will be able to rank all the rules on all three levels: national, super-state and mini-state. The rules with majority support are considered approved by the ruling coalition and are therefore implemented.

    It’s a much more democratically legitimate system for voters to work together based on votes cast a proof.

    We guarantee fairness for all voters through freedom speech on the levels where we operate. We don’t intentionally alter your wishes, it’s like Burger King; “Have it YOUR way!”

    Your name is invited to participate, and your liberty to self-categorize under the party/category of your choice is guaranteed.
    http://www.usparliament.org/signup.php

    We’ve already had more than 45 new nominees in twenty-three days, whose names will be vying for YOUR votes (or tics, i.e. ranked numerals), and it’s free to all US residents:
    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

  195. The Legend of Billy Rose for President

    If anyone wants to work under a voting system where 1/101ths (.99%) of the votes plus one vote elects one of the 100 names, the 8th USA Parliament is calling for nominations:
    http://www.usparliament.org/tv.php

    We have a set of 33 rules which guides us, and the rules were elected and implemented by the ruling coalition and are posted online:
    http://www.usparliament.org/rules.php

    We’ll be improving the rules, and each of the elected members will be able to rank all the rules on all three levels: national, super-state and mini-state. The rules with majority support are considered approved by the ruling coalition and are therefore implemented.

    It’s a much more democratically legitimate system for voters to work together based on votes cast a proof.

    We guarantee fairness for all voters through freedom speech on the levels where we operate. We don’t intentionally alter your wishes, it’s like Burger King; “Have it YOUR way!”

    Your name is invited to participate, and your liberty to self-categorize under the party/category of your choice is guaranteed.
    http://www.usparliament.org/signup.php

    We’ve already had more than 45 new nominees in twenty-three days, whose names will be vying for YOUR votes (or tics, i.e. ranked numerals), and it’s free to all US residents:
    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

  196. IPR Rules

    Trent Hill wrote: ” // Feb 23, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    Definitely Judge Grey.”

    Me: I happen to have enough experience with Judge Grey to make the comment “bad choice”.

    Opposite gender #1.

    If you want my advice as to who to support, after checking all the female names in the parliament…my criteria for selecting, I’d say:

    Definitely not MMP Takenaga [Libertarian].

    I’d say the best choice would be PM Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian] if I had to choose.

  197. Free and Equal Rules

    Wolfefan wrote: “Gary Kreep is the Seidenberg faction’s lawyer in the case for control of the CA party”

    Me: That’s cool how they’re planning to use preference voting in February of 2012 to select a presidential candidate.

  198. The Legend of Billy Rose for President

    Reposted from
    http://www.roseanneworld.com:
    Secretary James Ogle February 24, 2011 1:06 PM Hon. PM Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]:

    Two ideas:

    one) The national Libertarian Party is looking for two seats to fill, and Carol Moore [Libertarian] prefers a female. Perhaps you know a female Libertarian who can fly around to two or three meetings this year?

    two) It occurs to me, that third parties (and Dem/Reps) may not be interested in all parties and independents working together mathematically integrated based on votes cast as proof.

    Therefore, I suggest that we work as a Green Tea/Free Parliamentary coalition, and try to bring in the other parties as individuals.

    To get ballot access might be tricky, but that’s why we have to start recruiting all the splinter groups now i.e. Roseannarchists, Green Tea, Constitutional Monarchists, Catholic Trotskyists, Free Parliamentary…and since you [Green Tea], Covich [Catholic Trotskyist] and I [Free Parliamentary] are with the splinters, we three would be the most likely making the decisions as a 3/5ths vote in the near future.

    Eventually, we get Nightingale [Constitution] and Lightfoot [Libertarian] and the Green Party more involved, as well as Independents, Democratic and Republican.

  199. A Female #1, Nott #2!

    MM wrote:
    Gender balance is not bias, it’s a choice.
    John Jay Myers is not a female, get over it!

    Highly respected MM wrote:
    “Ah, yes, a vote for sexism. Wondered when that was going to pop up. Well, ya know, if John Jay Myers was actually Geraldine Jaye Myers, I’d be suggesting *her*. Were Karen Kwiatkowski seeking the spot, I’d be making phone calls on her behalf this instant.
    Etc.

    But electing a woman just because she is of the correct sex? No way. Bigoted sexist bias has no place in the Libertarian Party”
    * * *

    “Join the Frees,
    Opposite gender #1!”

  200. Multiple Parties Are Set Back

    Current situation is very bad for third parties.

    It’s caused by their own primitive rules which cause them to self-destruct.

    Typical example is IPR’s own prolific “George Wallace” free speech segregation, perpetrator of ill will and dysfunction.

  201. Ballad of BillyRose for President

    To LibertyWA

    You and everyone should be free vote your/their own interest. My interest is opposite gender #1, and consecutively ranked genders thereafter. Opposite Carol Moore’s, but what difference does it make? If you’re opposed to gender balance, that’s your prerogative. However, if you favor the top ranked male and the top ranked female (or visa versa) then abandon the Libertarian Party, and join the Frees!

    The Libertarian Party’s rules don’t allow for that, even when 2/3rds of the voters prefer it.

    So, the problem is, the Libertarian’s rules are inferior to what the 2/3rds majority might actually vote for, because the LP elects their prez/vp as a single winner district.

    But then, you’re not supposed to be aware of that, because Mr. Paulie “George Wallace” Canolli the censor, prefers these ideas be hidden and are of lessor value, and I don’t have the right to post directly on your comment.

    (Sorry for continuing to repeat this lie. I know that the decision to limit my comments was made by IPR writers as a group (with input from numerous readers), not any one person, and is being enforced by all IPR writers as a group, not any one person. I know the same decision has been made on other forums, including Roseanne Barr’s. My deepest apologies for continuing to spread this lie after its obvious falsehood has been repeatedly pointed out to me.)

    James O. Ogle (joogle)

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”
    (and that was 14 years ago!)

    65 LibertyWA // Feb 25, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    Carol @33 and others please read this: http://www.cypress.com/?rID=34986

    The TJ Rodgers letter to the nuns. Make your suggestions based on the cake (accomplishments and character) and not the frosting (gender, race, attire, etc.).

  202. Ballad of BillyRose for President

    Paulie wrote:

    “[...]Good luck to the Greens in breaking up the duopoly.”

    “Resistance … is Victory!”

    …segregation and resistance to the “All Party System (and independents)” is NOT the way victory is achieved. That’s the way victory is averted.

  203. IPR "Writers" Trying to Avert Free Speech

    Libertarians Just Too Slow in Copying the All Party System and IPR Averts Communications and Victories for the People

    If you look at the national Libertarian Party, you’ll see by their bylaws that they’ve adopted preference voting for electing a presidential candidate in their national rules.

    However, the wording of the rules are very primitive, as is most of their entire set of bylaws.

    Not so with the 8th USA Parliament.

    The USA Parliament’s rule for electing a president and vice president is much more advanced, and simultaneously elects #1 and #2 as president and vice president.

    Not only that, but by electing #s 3 through 100 (MPs), the powers of #s 1 and 2 are greatly diminished and the larger team of 100 MPs becomes a factor for the complete four year cycle.

    Number 1 & 2, president and vice president, are simply initial contacts, and don’t play the role of executives who are in charge of day to day activities.

    The rules are continually being upgraded by the ruling coalition, the largest majority of MPs who vote on such rules.

    The position of chair and vice chair are eliminated, and they’re combined with president and vice president, thus eliminating the split which exists as in the Libertarian Party’s (and most others) system.

    The ruling coalition likes that, and as they rotate the five executives, the decision makers who are the three prime and two secretaries in and out like five basketball players, they’re continuously electing Ministers and deputy Ministers.

    Plus the US Parliament has been giving individuals true liberty to self-categorize as they wish under any party/category or independent, so that hundreds of names can be on one ballot and the voter will have information about the name, by the word(s) on the ballot beside the candidates’ names.

    It’s no wonder that the writers at IPR don’t want the readers to know this, how else will they be able to portray the Libertarian Party as the most state of the art election system?

    How many other ways will IPR be able to constrict the rules of the game, in order to prevent victory for us voters in their own Gadhafi-like power grab for their own selfish greedy LP intentions?
    * * *

    Lyrics Posted Today by PM Barr on http://www.roseanneworld.com

    I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
    alive as you and me.
    Says I “But Joe, you’re ten years dead”
    “I never died” said he,
    “I never died” said he.

    “The Copper Bosses killed you Joe,
    they shot you Joe” they filled you full of lead.
    “Takes more than guns to kill a man”
    Says Joe “I didn’t die”
    Says Joe “I didn’t die”

    “In Salt Lake City, Joe,” says I,
    Him standing by my bed,
    “They framed you on a murder charge,”
    Says Joe, “But I ain’t dead,”
    Says Joe, “But I ain’t dead.”

    And standing there as big as life
    and smiling with his eyes.
    Says Joe “What they can never kill
    went on to organize,
    went on to organize”

    From San Diego up to Maine,
    in every mine and mill,
    Where working men defend their rights,
    it’s there you’ll find Joe Hill,
    it’s there you’ll find Joe Hill!

    I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
    alive as you and me.
    Says I “But Joe, you’re ten years dead”
    “I never died” said he,
    “I never died” said he.

  204. GooGoo/Barr Report

    GooGoo/Barr Report
    http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2011/02/parliamentary-elections.php

    1) Introduction
    2) Alaska Green Party
    * * *

    1) Introduction

    This is an experimental report to highlight the PM Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] for US President campaign.

    It will be a compilation of daily human interest stories, built around the US Parliament’s radical voter coalition of all parties and independents.

    2011′s election features President Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian] and Vice President Ron Paul [Republican] of the Central California Mini-state Parliament Election.

    In 2012, the president and vice president will elect 50 US Senate candidates across the US in a “GooGoo/Barr” coalition.
    * * *

    2) Alaska Green Party

    A former Alaska Green Party candidate for Governor and longtime Native activist, is in her 18th day without food. Dessa Jacobson began fasting on February 8 and says she will not halt her fast until her three key demands are met.

    Her demands include a company addressing mercury pollution, addressing the problem of domestic abuse in Alaska, and certain issues in the Native community.

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/02/former-green-candidate-for-alaska-governor-fasting-for-environment-abuse-victims-natives/
    * * *

  205. Female Candidates #1

    Got it.

    Mary Starrett [Constitution]
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_SobkISNrY&feature=player_embedded

    Paulie wrote:
    “[...] how would you account for the reports of higher than average vote totals for Libertarian candidates in heavily Mexican-American precincts in Texas?”

    Me: Did you ever consider that maybe when they walked into the voting booth not knowing who any of the names were nor what the names stood for, that as Mexican-Americans they voted for a minor faction simply because they may have identified with a minor faction, as they’re being perceived a minor faction themselves?
    * * *

    Disclaimer: Hypocrite “Libertarians” who are not cool, systematically deny cool Libertarians’ posting rights for some inane reason, and regularly take it upon themselves to control and to tamper with, the written words of others.

  206. GooGoo/Barr Report

    GooGoo/Barr Report
    (2/27/2011, issue #2)
    http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2011/02/parliamentary-elections.php
    Gold at $1409.60

    1. Media Bias, the Cause of Setbacks
    2. PLAS Minister Christ [Roseannarchist] “not positive” (re: IPR)
    3. Green/Constitution Relationships Grow as Libertarians Asked to Step Aside
    * * *

    1. Media Bias, the Cause of Setbacks

    It is another day of massive media bias against our army who have been all but abandoned by the Libertarian Party-owned establishment media outlets.

    Note that Independent Political Report has suddenly shifted gears to portray independent politics in a sort of “revolution” overtaking parliamentary governments. Today we read several articles about Independents’ success stories, such as today’s front page headline reading: “Independents Surge in Japan, Rocking Nascent Two-Party System” [sic]. http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/

    It’s as though IPR has ramped up their campaign of misinformation, and never bothered to mention the fact that Japan uses a semi-proportional five-party system called limited voting.

    But we’ve all come to expect such language from the pro-segregationists.
    * * *

    2. PLAS Minister Christ [Roseannarchist] “not positive” (re: IPR)

    As David Letterman promotes PM Roseanne Barr’s [Green Tea] presidential ticket earlier this week, PLAS Minister Christ says she’s “not positive [about approaching]” Libertarians.

    Gold continued its climb as markets reacted to her remarks.
    * * *

    3. Green/Constitution Relationships Grow as Libertarians Asked to Step Aside

    Mary Starrett [Constitution] has been receiving a lot of good publicity in her bid for US President or Vice President, as the team spirit grows between the Green and Constitution Parties:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_SobkISNrY&feature=player_embedded

    Spectrum Minister Nathan Sorenson [Christian Independent] will seek to strengthen the hand of the Central California Mini-state Parliament, by reaching out to current and former Prime Minister Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian] and Mary J. Ruwart [Libertarian].

    The Libertarian Party has been in disarray since their founder David Nolan [Libertarian] passed away in 2011, and they’ve not been able to plan any effective strategy. They have been reduced to squabbling and nitpicking among themselves about micromanaging lobbying in states, while their presidential candidates continue float rudderless.

    Spectrum Minister Nathan Sorenson’s [Christian Independent] overtures will be a welcomed relief to the chaos that we’re all currently witnessing.
    * * *

  207. GooGoo/Barr Report

    Former PLAS Minister Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist] wrote: “I’m not going to rejoin the LP. Not as it is-dominated by rightists. & I’m not the only one who is alienated from the LP. & refuses to feed into the diversion of libertarian wherewithall to the GOP and/or Ron Paul.”

    Me: Considering the fact that the convention rules are fixed, and have a built-in mathematical bias against the 2/3rds majority, all I have to say is; “What took you so long?”

  208. Join Those Who Are Nott Libertarayans

    Paulie: “[...]Naturally, I’m happy that the already existing “peer review” process as explained by Mr. Sipos keeps non-libertarians such as yourself from having any position in determining the party’s course. Not only are you not a Libertarian Party member, but you are not a libertarian (small l) ideologically, and don’t even claim that you are. [...]”

    Me: A perfect example of IPR segregation policies in action!

    JOIN THE LIBERTARYAN PARTY!!
    * * *

    Disclaimer: Hypocrite “Libertarians” who are not cool, systematically deny cool Libertarians’ posting rights for some inane reason, and regularly take it upon themselves to control and to tamper with, the written words of others.

  209. Join Those Who Are Nott Libertaryans

    Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] wrote:
    “i cannot be at your effect, making calls and running around–tell her to come here and see this: I will work with any coalition or person who cares about the dollar, and the united states of america. I will work with the constitution party, and ms.nightengale.”
    * * *

    Disclaimer: Hypocrite “Libertarians” who are not cool, systematically deny cool Libertarians’ posting rights for some inane reason, and regularly take it upon themselves to control and to tamper with, the written words of others.

  210. Join Those Who Are Nott Libertaryans

    The Libertarian Party’s convention rules are fixed, and have a built-in mathematical bias against the 2/3rds majority.

    I can easily prove right here in this open thread that this is a mathemtical fact in case anyone wants to challenge my claim.
    –James Ogle, volunteer vote counter
    * * *

    Disclaimer: Hypocrite “Libertarians” who are not cool, systematically deny cool Libertarians’ posting rights for some inane reason, and regularly take it upon themselves to control and to tamper with, the written words of others.

  211. Join Those Who Are Nott Libertaryans

    I propose that the Libertarian National Committee try to repair the damage to US presidential candidate and former PLAS Minister Hon. Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist], by making him one of the two national committee members, fly him to the national meetings with all expenses paid, and correct their flawed and bogus convention rules so that his name will be on the ballot for US President, along with all others who are legitimately nominated.

    Through this compensatory action, the slander and ill-will carried out by the mercenaries of IPR will begin to be repaired.
    * * *

    Disclaimer: Hypocrite “Libertarians” who are not cool, systematically deny cool Libertarians’ posting rights for some inane reason, and regularly take it upon themselves to control and to tamper with, the written words of others.

  212. How the Majority of 66.66% (plus two votes) Loses at the Libertarian Convention in 2012

    I wrote: “The Libertarian Party’s convention rules are fixed, and have a built-in mathematical bias against the 2/3rds majority.

    I can easily prove right here in this open thread that this is a mathematical fact in case anyone wants to challenge my claim.”
    * * *

    OK, here it is anyway…

    How smaller majority of 50% plus one defeats bigger majority 66.66% plus two:

    The LP’s rules state that the presidential candidate will be chosen using preference voting where the first candidate that receives a majority of the votes cast (50% plus one vote) is their presidential candidate.

    Yet, what happens when 2/3rds of the voters prefer (for example) a female for president, and Milnes as vice president,(the names/interests could be based on anything), and how can the 2/3rds bigger majority LOSE under current rules?

    Here’s how:
    What if 2/3rds prefer a gender balanced PLAS coalition as their top and only priority, with one female (president) and Milnes (vice president) as the choices?

    Example:

    35% preferred Ruwart, and 15% minus one vote preferred Lightfoot (the females) and 16% plus three voters preferred Milnes, and they all deplored Root and did not give him any ranking at all.

    That’s a total of 50% minus one vote for a female for president, and with Milnes’ 16.66% plus three votes for vice president makes the total 66.66% plus two votes, more than a 2/3rds majority.

    That’s a total of 66.66% plus two votes, who did not want Root nor a male for president, nor a non-PLAS candidate for president or vice president.

    But when the votes are counted, Root wins prez with 50% plus one vote, because in round one, Ruwart lost with 35% and even when combined with Lightfoot’s 15% in round two when Lightfoot is eliminated and the preference votes are single transferred (STV or single transferable vote), they loose the president’s spot with 50% minus one vote, since Root got 50% plus one vote for president.

    PLAS loses president.

    So now it’s for vice president for the 2/3rds who wanted a female/Milnes PLAS coalition.

    And neither Ruwart nor Lightfoot nor Milnes wants to be Root’s VP candidate.

    But the PLAS team being broken at a female for president, their strategy isn’t working and the PLAS plan is broken because Root is not for PLAS.

    And their voters have to change their strategy and get aligned between the three PLAS candidates, Ruwart, Lightfoot and Milnes, in order to at least win a VP spot (provided the three don’t stand down or walk out in protest, as the 2/3rds wishes are being defeated).

    But the team is fragmented when the new vote takes place, and being unsure, a few of the voters forget to rank all three candidates, as alternatives for some reason.

    So the Root choice (another male?) instead wins with 50% plus one, as the other three PLAS candidates are split for vice president with 16.?% votes each.
    * * *

    So there you are, when the conventioneers arrived, they wanted a female/Milnes PLAS candidacy with 66.66% plus two votes, but instead they get a non-PLAS, Root/male, non-gender balanced candidacy.

    I much bigger majority of 66.66% than the 50% plus one vote required by current rules, *wanted* PLAS and gender balance at all costs, but they lost everything.

    So under the current LP system, the votes are cast and Root wins with 50% plus one vote.

    The female candidates for president lost with 50% (not plus one vote) votes cast.

    Therefor the 66.66% plus two votes lost, and the anti-PLAS/gender balanced team won both seats with 50% plus one vote each.
    * * *

    Disclaimer: Hypocrite “Libertarians” who are not cool, systematically deny cool Libertarians’ posting rights for some inane reason, and regularly take it upon themselves to control and to tamper with, the written words of others.

  213. How the Majority of 75% Loses at Libertarian Party Convention

    How does a smaller majority of 50% plus one defeat a bigger majority 75% plus three?

    The LP’s rules state that the presidential candidate will be chosen using preference voting where the first candidate that receives a majority of the votes cast (50% plus one vote) is their presidential candidate.

    Yet, what happens when 3/4ths majority of the voters prefer (for example) a female for president, and Milnes or Burns as vice president,(the names/interests could be based on anything).

    How can the 3/4ths bigger majority LOSE under current rules?

    Here’s how:
    What if 3/4ths plus three voters prefer a gender balanced PLAS coalition as their top and only priority, with one female (president) and Milnes or Burns (vice president) as the choices?

    Example:

    35% preferred Ruwart, and 15% minus one vote preferred Lightfoot (the females) and 16% plus three voters preferred Burns, 9% plus one voters preferred Milnes, and they all deplored Root and did not give him any ranking at all.

    That’s a total of 50% minus one vote for a female for president, and with Milnes’ and Burns together makes 25% plus three votes for vice president makes the total 66.66% plus two votes, more than a 3/4ths majority.

    That’s a total of 75% plus three votes, who did not want Root nor a male for president, nor a non-PLAS candidate for president or vice president except maybe Jim Burns [Libertarian].

    But when the votes are counted, Root wins prez with 50% plus one vote, because in round one, Ruwart lost with 35% and even when combined with Lightfoot’s 15% in round two when Lightfoot is eliminated and the preference votes are single transferred (STV or single transferable vote), they lose the president’s spot with 50% minus one vote, since Root got 50% plus one vote for president.

    PLAS loses president.

    So now it’s for vice president for the 3/4ths who wanted a female/Milnes PLAS coalition plus maybe Burns.

    And neither Ruwart, Lightfoot, Milnes nor Burns wants to be Root’s VP candidate.

    But the PLAS team being broken at a female for president and their strategy isn’t working.

    The PLAS plan is half broken because Root is not for PLAS.

    And their voters have to change their strategy and get aligned between the four PLAS candidates, Ruwart, Lightfoot and Milnes, in order to at least win a VP spot (provided the four don’t stand down or walk out in protest, as the 3/4th’s wishes are being defeated).

    But the team is fragmented when the new vote takes place, and being unsure, one of the voters forget to rank all four candidates, as alternatives for some reason.

    It’s a four-way split, and each name is eliminated as long as no one candidate gets 50% plus one vote until one the the PLAS names ends up with 50% of the votes.

    So the Root choice (another male?) instead wins with 50% plus one, as the other four PLAS candidates are split for vice president but still manage 50%.
    * * *

    So there you are, when 3/4ths of the conventioneers arrived, they wanted a female/Milnes PLAS candidacy with 75% plus three votes, but instead they get a non-PLAS, Root/male, non-gender balanced candidacy.

    I much bigger majority of 75% than the 50% plus one vote required by current rules, *wanted* PLAS and gender balance at all costs, but they lost everything.

    So under the current LP system, the votes are cast and Root wins with 50% plus one vote.

    The female candidates for president lost with 50% (not plus one vote) votes cast.

    Therefore the 75% plus three votes lost, and the anti-PLAS/gender balanced team won both seats with 50% plus one vote each.
    * * *

    Next up: How the smaller majority of 50% plus one vote defeats the larger majority of 80% (4/5ths) plus four votes.
    * * *

    Disclaimer: Hypocrite “Libertarians” who are not cool, systematically deny cool Libertarians’ posting rights for some inane reason, and regularly take it upon themselves to control and to tamper with, the written words of others

  214. How the Majority of 80% Loses at Libertarian Party Convention

    How does a smaller majority of 50% plus one, defeat a bigger majority 80% plus two votes?
    By James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    The LP’s rules state that the presidential candidate will be chosen using preference voting where the first candidate that receives a majority of the votes cast (50% plus one vote) is the elected presidential candidate.

    Yet, what happens when 4/5ths majority (80%) of the voters prefer (for example) a female for president, and Milnes, Wrights or Burns as vice president, (the names/interests could be based on anything, gender, PLAS, liberal vs conservative, etc.)?

    How can the 4/5ths bigger majority LOSE under current rules?

    Here’s how:
    What if 4/5ths plus two voters (80%+) prefer a gender balanced PLAS coalition as their top and only priority, and wish to elect one female (president) and one male (Milnes, Burns or Wights as vice president) as the choices?

    Example:

    35% preferred Ruwart, and 15% minus one vote preferred Lightfoot (the female candidates), and 16% plus one voters preferred Burns, 9% plus one voters preferred Milnes, 5% plus one vote preferred Wrights, and they all deplored Root and their voters did not give Root any lower rankings at all.

    That’s a total of 50% minus one vote for a female for president, and with Milnes, Burns and Wights together makes 30% plus three votes for vice president.

    Add the total of the voters #1 tics, and that makes the grand total 80% plus two votes, well over 4/5ths majority.

    That’s a total of 80% plus two votes, who did not want Root, a male for president, nor a non-PLAS candidate for president or vice president except maybe if it were Jim Burns [Libertarian] or Lee Wrights [Libertarian] who may not support PLAS as a strategy, but they’d be lower ranking to Milnes anyway because of their platforms.

    But when the votes are counted, Root wins prez with 50% plus one vote, because in round one, Ruwart lost with 35% and even when combined with Lightfoot’s 15% in round two when Lightfoot is eliminated and the preference votes are single transferred (STV or single transferable votes) to Ruwart, they lose the president’s spot with 50% minus one vote, since Root got 50% plus one vote for president.

    PLAS loses president.

    So now it’s for vice president for the 4/5ths who wanted a female/Milnes PLAS coalition plus maybe Burns or Wrights.

    And neither Ruwart, Lightfoot, Milnes, Burns nor Wrights wants to be Root’s VP candidate.

    But the PLAS team being broken, after their main plan for electing a female for president and a PLAS supporter for VP, and their strategy isn’t working.

    The PLAS plan is half broken because Root is not for PLAS.

    And the pro-PLAS voters have to change their strategy and get aligned between the five PLAS candidates: Ruwart, Lightfoot, Burns, Wrights and Milnes, in order to at least win a VP spot (provided the five don’t stand down or walk out in protest, as the 4/5th’s wishes are being defeated).

    But the team is fragmented when the new vote takes place, and being unsure, one of the voters forgets to rank all five candidates, as alternatives for some reason.

    It’s a five-way split, and each name is eliminated as long as no one candidate gets 50% plus one vote until one of the PLAS names ends up with 50% of the votes.

    But again they are defeated by the anti-PLAS team who garners 50% plus one vote, the simple majority.

    So the Root choice (another male?) instead wins with 50% plus one, as the other five PLAS candidates are split for vice president but still manage 50%.
    * * *

    So there you are, when 4/5ths (80%) of the conventioneers arrived, they wanted a female/Milnes PLAS candidacy (or one of two alternative male candidates) with 80% plus two votes, but instead they get a non-PLAS, Root/male, non-gender balanced candidacy.

    A much bigger majority of 80%, bigger than the 50% plus one vote required by current rules, *wanted* PLAS, gender and not Root balance at all costs, but they lost everything. They won nothing.

    So under the current LP system, the votes are cast and Root and the anti-PLAS camp wins with 50% plus one vote with both president and then vice president when elected in two single winner districts.

    The female candidates for president lost with 50% minus one vote of the votes cast.

    Therefore the 80% plus two votes lost, and the anti-PLAS, anti-gender balanced team won both seats with 50% plus one vote each.
    * * *

    Disclaimer: Hypocrite “Libertarians” who are not cool, systematically deny cool Libertarians’ posting rights for some inane reason, and regularly take it upon themselves to control and to tamper with, the written words of others

  215. GooGoo/Barr Report 2/28/2011

    GooGoo/Barr Report
    2/28/2011 issue #3
    http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2011/02/parliamentary-elections.php
    Gold at $1414.79

    1) Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] an Ally of All
    2) Constitution, American Independent and Green Tea Parties Working Together in West
    * * *

    1) Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] an Ally of All

    Queen to be, PM Barr [Green Tea] is actively building the all-party coalition with all people of all religions, in her attempt to take the “bunker” called the two-party system.
    http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2011/02/troy-williams-my-buddy-and-co-.php

    As a Green Tea leader, she understands the hypocrisy involved in partisan politics, and her Goddess vision transcends all religions, puts those words behind us and works together for liberty, freedom and the good of the all.
    * * *

    2) Constitution, American Independent and Green Tea Parties Working Together in West

    Valiant member of parliament (MP) Don Grundmann [Constitution] vigorously defends national Prime Minister Chelene Nightingale [Constitution] in debate with California Prime Minister Don Lake [American Independent]. Asks him “turn over a new leaf”:
    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/02/early-constitution-party-presidential-candidate-considerations-for-2012/comment-page-2/#comment-327732

    The Green Tea and the Constitution Parties are currently working in a liberty alliance to give true liberty to all people, no matter what their religion and/or political categorization may be. It is the hope of the people, that the Libertarian Party itself will remove its blinders and see the value of these liberties.

    Won’t you join with us at the picnic on July 4th, 2011 in Monterey, CA?
    http://www.usparliament.org/picnic2011.php
    * * *

  216. What's the Plan?

    The Democratic Party likes the Libertarian Party because they split off votes from the Republican Party.

    The Republican Party likes the Green Party because they split off votes from the Democratic Party.

    The Constitution Party likes the Libertarian Party, because they think they can work together on ballot access.

    The Libertarian Party likes the Republican Party, because with Ron Paul, the Republicans are viewed as the lessor of two evils.

    Ron Paul [Republican] endorsed the Constitution Party presidential candidate in the last cycle, and Ron Paul is running for president again.

    The Free Parliamentary Party likes the splinter parties, because we’re a splinter and all other parties don’t like splinter parties.

    Most splinter parties don’t like other splinter parties.
    Anyone have a plan?

  217. Plan: TYRANNIZE

    Former PLAS Minister Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist] wrote:
    “An alternative or alternative to the LNC.
    Via BTP. Radicals withdraw support for LP en masse. & join BTP. Pick up stragglers. 100% radical membership.”

    Robert, can’t you see that the strategy of the Libertarian Party (i.e. LNC, Paulie et al) is:

    A) Talk among themselves about how great the words “Libertarian Party” are, and TYRANNIZE anyone else who mentions another word/party/independent idea in their “territory” with the words “Libertarian Party”.

    B) Hear candidates for Prez/VP speak among themselves about how great the words “Libertarian Party” are, and TYRANNIZE anyone else who mentions another word/party/independent idea in their “territory” with the words “Libertarian Party”.

    C) Elect candidates among themselves who adequately speak about how great the words “Libertarian Party” are, and TYRANNIZE anyone else who mentions another word/party/independent idea in their “territory” with the words “Libertarian Party”.

    D) Be viewed as Libertarian Party dorks who only listen/hear candidates among themselves about how great the words “Libertarian Party” are, and TYRANNIZE anyone else who mentions another word/party/independent/idea in their “territory” with the words “Libertarian Party”.

  218. Plan: TYRANNIZE

    I intentionally misquoted someone again in this comment, as well as using their name as part of mine. I’ve been warned about this before. I understand that if I do this again even once, I will be banned from IPR. My apologies for continuing to be a massively annoying waste of time, as well as generally full of shit.

  219. How 83.33% (5/6ths) Loses at Libertarian Party Convention

    How 83.33% (5/6ths) Loses at Libertarian Party Convention
    (PLAS=progressive libertarian alliance strategy)

    How does a small majority of 50% plus one, defeat a bigger majority 83.33% plus three votes at the Libertarian Party national convention?

    By James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Tyranny of the Smaller Majority!

    The LP’s rules state that the presidential candidate will be chosen using preference voting.

    That’s where the first candidate that receives a majority of the ranked votes (or tics) cast (50% plus one vote) is the elected presidential candidate.

    Yet, what happens when 5/6ths majority (83.33%) of the voters prefer (for example) a female for president, and Milnes, Wrights, Burns or Ogle as vice president?

    In the following example, the majority of 83.33%’s names/interests could be based on anything: gender, PLAS, liberal vs conservative, Reagan Libertarian, Radical Libertarian, Gingrich Libertarian vs Anarchist Libertarian, etc., etc.

    How can the 5/6ths (83.33%) plus three votes, the bigger majority LOSE to a smaller majority of 50% plus one vote, under current rules?

    Here’s how:
    What if 5/6ths plus three of the voters (83.33%+) prefer a gender balanced, PLAS coalition as their top and only priority, and wish to elect one female for president, and one male (i.e. Milnes, Burns, Wrights or Ogle) as vice president as the preferred choices?

    Example:

    35% preferred Ruwart, and 15% minus one vote preferred Lightfoot (the two female candidates), and 16% plus one voters preferred Burns, 9% plus one voters preferred Milnes, 5% plus one vote preferred Wrights, and 3.33% plus one vote preferred Ogle, and they all deplored Root and their voters did not give Root any lower rankings at all.

    That’s a total of 50% minus one vote for a female for president, and with Milnes, Burns, Wights and Ogle together makes a total of 33.33% plus four votes for vice president.

    Add the total of the voters’ tics, and that makes the grand total 83.33% plus three votes, three votes over a 5/6ths majority for the PLAS team.

    That’s a total of 83.33% plus three votes who did not want Root, a male for president, nor a non-PLAS candidate for president or vice president, except maybe if it were Jim Burns [Libertarian] or Lee Wrights [Libertarian], who may not support PLAS as a strategy but they’d be lower ranking to Milnes anyway because of their good platforms.

    But when all the votes are counted, Root wins prez with 50% plus one vote, because in round one, Ruwart lost with 35% and even when combined with Lightfoot’s 15% in round two when Lightfoot is eliminated and the 2nd choice preference votes are single transferred (STV or single transferable votes) to Ruwart, the female candidates lose the president’s spot with 50% minus one vote, since Root got 50% plus one vote for president.

    Maybe there was an unknown outsider who may have been for PLAS, and say they split off a few votes that might have otherwise gone to the larger PLAS team which cost PLAS the winning vote needed.

    PLAS loses president.

    So now it’s the election for vice president for the 5/6ths who wanted a female/Milnes or Ogle PLAS coalition plus maybe Burns or Wrights, has to regroup.

    And neither Ruwart, Lightfoot, Milnes, Burns, Ogle nor Wrights wants to be Root’s VP candidate.

    But the PLAS team, having been broken down after their main plan for electing a female for president, and for PLAS had lost, and were feeling that their strategy isn’t working.

    The PLAS plan is half broken because Root is not a female and not for PLAS.

    And the pro-PLAS voters have to change their strategy and get aligned between the five PLAS candidates: Ruwart, Lightfoot, Burns, Wrights, Ogle and Milnes, in order to at least win a VP spot (provided the five don’t stand down or walk out in protest, as the 5/6th’s wishes are being defeated).

    But the team is fragmented when the new vote takes place, Root gets the extra time for his usual slander against the opposition (see rules for elected presidential candidate’s free speech time, and see Root’s usual patterns of slanderous articles) since he just won the prez spot.

    Being unsure, one of the voters forgets to rank all five candidates as alternatives for some reason, or else another outsider draws a few votes.

    It’s a six-way split, and as each name is eliminated in each round, finally no one PLAS candidate gets 50% plus one vote and so one of the PLAS names ends up with only 50% of the total votes.

    But again they are defeated by the anti-PLAS team who garners 50% plus one vote, the simple majority.

    So the Root choice (another male?) for vice president wins with 50% plus one, as the other six PLAS candidates were split for vice president but still managed 50%, but not enough to win.
    * * *

    So there you are, when 5/6ths (83.33%) of the conventioneers arrived, they wanted a female/Milnes or Ogle PLAS candidacy (or one of two alternative male candidates) with 83.33% plus two votes (maybe minus an outsider’s vote or two who wanted the same thing but wasn’t properly informed about the plan), but instead they get a non-PLAS, Root/male, non-gender balanced candidacy.

    A much bigger majority of 83.33%, bigger than the 50% plus one vote required by current rules, *wanted* PLAS, gender balance, and not Root at all costs, but they lost everything. They won nothing.

    So under the current LP system, the votes are cast and Root and the anti-PLAS camp wins with 50% plus one vote with both president and then vice president when elected under current rules, in two single winner districts.

    Therefore the 83.33% plus three votes (minus a vote or two from outsiders not informed of the plan), the bigger majority, lost.
    * * *

    Next up: How a larger majority of 6/7ths (85.71%) plus four votes, loses to smaller majority of 50% plus one vote at Libertarian Party national convention…

  220. Tyrannizer/Segregator/Homogenizer

    Someone wrote: “…a massively annoying waste of time, as well as generally full of shit”

    If that’s what you think of my political party, than I apologize for wasting your precious little time.
    * * *

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    James O. Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

  221. How Larger Majority 85.71% (or 6/7ths) Loses to Smaller Majority 50% (1/2) at LP Convention

    How will a 85.71% (6/7ths) Majority Lose to a 50% (1/2) Majority at Libertarian Party Convention?
    (PLAS=progressive libertarian alliance strategy)

    How does a small majority of 50% plus one, unjustly defeat a bigger majority 85.71% plus four votes at the Libertarian Party national convention?

    By James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Tyranny of the Segregating Homogenizer Smaller Majority!

    The LP’s rules state that the presidential and vice presidential candidates will be chosen using preference voting.

    That’s where the first candidate that receives a majority of the ranked votes (or tics) cast (50% plus one vote) is the elected presidential candidate, and then the process is repeated for vice president.

    Yet, what happens when 6/7ths majority (85.71%) plus four of the voters, prefer (for example) a female for president, and Milnes, Wrights, Burns, Ogle or Smith as vice president?

    In the following imaginary example, the majority of 85.71%’s names/interest groups could be based on anything: gender, PLAS, liberal vs conservative, Reagan Libertarian, Radical Libertarian, Gingrich Libertarian vs Anarchist Libertarian, etc., etc.

    How can the 6/7ths (85.71%) plus four votes, the bigger majority LOSE to a smaller majority of 50% plus one vote, under current rules?

    Here’s how:
    What if 6/7ths plus four of the voters (85.71%+) preferred a gender balanced, PLAS coalition as their top and only priority, and wish to elect one female for president, and one male or female (i.e. Milnes, Burns, Wrights, Ogle or Smith) as vice president as the preferred choices?

    Example:

    35% preferred Ruwart, and 15% minus one vote preferred Lightfoot (the two female candidates) for president, and for vice president 16% plus one vote preferred James Burns, 9% plus one vote preferred Robert Milnes, 5% plus one vote preferred Lee Wrights, and 3.33% plus one vote preferred James Ogle, and 1.38% plus one vote preferred Christine Smith, and they all deplored Root and their voters did not give Root any lower rankings at all.

    That’s a total of 50% minus one vote for a female for president, and with Milnes, Burns, Wights, Ogle and Smith together makes a total of 35.71% plus five votes for vice president.

    Add the total of the voters’ tics, and that makes the grand total 85.71% plus four votes, four votes over a 6/7ths majority for the PLAS team.

    That’s a total of 85.71% plus four votes who did not want Root, a male for president, nor a non-PLAS candidate for president or vice president, except maybe if it were Jim Burns [Libertarian], Lee Wrights [Libertarian], James Ogle [Free Parliamentary] or Christine Smith [Libertarian] who may not support PLAS as a strategy but they’d be lower ranking to Milnes anyway because of their good platforms.

    But when all the votes are counted, Root wins prez with 50% plus one vote, because in round one, Ruwart lost with 35% and even when combined with Lightfoot’s 15% in round two when Lightfoot is eliminated and the 2nd choice preference votes are single transferred (STV or single transferable votes) to Ruwart, the female candidates lose the president’s spot with 50% minus one vote, since Root got 50% plus one vote for president.

    Maybe there was an unknown outsider who may have been for PLAS but preferred a male for president, and say they split off a few votes that might have otherwise gone to the larger PLAS team which cost PLAS the winning vote needed.

    PLAS loses president.

    So now it’s the election for vice president for the 6/7ths who wanted a female/Milnes or Ogle PLAS coalition plus maybe Burns, Wrights or Smith, has to regroup.

    And neither Ruwart, Lightfoot, Milnes, Burns, Ogle, Wrights nor Smith wants to be Root’s VP candidate.

    But the PLAS team, having been broken down after their main plan for electing a female for president and for PLAS had lost, and were feeling that their strategy isn’t working.

    The PLAS plan is half broken because Root is not a female and not for PLAS.

    And the pro-PLAS voters have to change their strategy and get aligned between the seven PLAS candidates: Ruwart, Lightfoot, Burns, Wrights, Ogle, Milnes and Smith, in order to at least win a VP spot (provided the five don’t stand down or walk out in protest, as the 6/7th’s wishes are being defeated).

    But the team is fragmented when the new vote takes place, Root gets the extra time for his usual slander against the opposition (see rules for elected presidential candidate’s free speech time and see Root’s usual patterns of slanderous articles) since he just won the prez spot.

    Being unsure, one of the voters forgets to rank all seven candidates as alternatives for some reason, or else another outsider draws a few votes.

    It’s a seven-way split, and as each name is eliminated in each round, finally no one PLAS candidate gets 50% plus one vote and so one of the PLAS names ends up with the needed 50% plus one vote of the total votes.

    Again they are defeated by the anti-PLAS team who garners 50% plus one vote, the simple majority.

    So the Root choice (another male?) for vice president wins with 50% plus one, as the other seven PLAS candidates were split for vice president but still managed 50%, but not enough to win.
    * * *

    So there you are, when 6/7ths (85.71%) of the conventioneers arrived, they wanted a female/Milnes or Ogle PLAS candidacy (or one of three or four other alternative candidates) with 85.71% plus four votes (maybe minus an outsider’s vote or two who wanted the same thing but wasn’t properly informed about the plan), but instead they get a non-PLAS, Root/male, non-female candidacy.

    A much bigger majority of 85.71%, bigger than the 50% plus one vote required by current rules, *wanted* PLAS, gender balanced or all-female slate, and not Root at all costs, but they lost everything. PLAS won nothing.

    So under the current LP system, the votes are cast and Root and the anti-PLAS camp wins with 50% plus one vote.

    Both president and then vice president when elected under current rules, in two single winner districts, allow for Root to walk away with both seats with a 50% plus one vote majority.

    Therefore the 85.71% plus four votes (minus a vote or two from outsiders not informed of the plan), the bigger majority, lost.
    * * *

    Next up: How a larger majority of 7/8ths (87.5%) plus five votes, loses to smaller majority of 50% plus one vote Root candidacy at Libertarian Party national convention…

  222. To: All Tyrannizers, Segregators and Homogenizers

    Current Plan of Attack:

    The Democratic Party likes the Libertarian Party because they split off votes from the Republican Party.

    The Republican Party likes the Green Party because they split off votes from the Democratic Party.

    The Constitution Party likes the Libertarian Party, because they think they can work together on ballot access.

    The Libertarian Party likes the Republican Party because with Ron Paul, the Republicans are viewed as the lessor of two evils.

    Ron Paul [Republican] endorsed the Constitution Party presidential candidate in the last cycle, and Ron Paul is running for president again.

    The Green Party doesn’t like any other parties, but the Environmentalist Party does and created the USA Parliament in 1995 as a nursery bed for all parties and independents.

    Most splinter parties don’t like other splinter parties and independents, except within the USA Parliament, as far as I know.

    So it’s refreshing when someone like Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] nominates 32 names from five to seven or more differing parties (and independents?), not based on party or vote-splitting, but based on political agreement.

    The USA Parliament provided the tool for working together.

    Anyone else have a better plan?

    Or do you prefer to continue towards the beachhead being led by the Tyrannizers, Segregators, and Homogenizers who help perpetuate the two-party system’s success as everyone flounders in the continual decimation on said beachhead where the line of fire is focused on the mindset of the single winner district power grabbers?

  223. To: All Tyrannizers, Segregators and Homogenizers

    PM Barr [Green Tea]
    Roseanne February 28, 2011 5:37 PM
    in reply to Secretary James Ogle:
    “we are the protectors of our mother, EARTH! she is under attack! ”

    Me: And see, that’s the problem will Hon. Ron Paul [Republican]. Not only is he out of touch with the USA-PAR, but he’s weak on the environmental issues.

    I mean REALLY, sell off/privatize the national forests?

    http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2011/02/parliamentary-elections.php#comments-content

  224. USA-PAR: March Bulletin 2011

    To: Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]
    Prime Minister Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian]
    Prime Minister Chelene Nightingale [Constitution]
    Secretary Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist]
    Cc: All Voters and Non Voters
    From: Secretary James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Subject: USA-PAR: March Bulletin 2011
    http://www.usparliament.org/

    1. HEAR YE! HEAR YE! HEAR Ye! Last Call for Nominations!
    2. Funny Video: Ballad of BillyRose for President
    3. Ruling Coalition Vote (re: rules #28 & #34)
    * * *

    1. HEAR YE! HEAR YE! HEAR Ye! Last Call for Nominations!
    Last Call Video: http://www.usparliament.org/tv.php

    HEAR YE! HEAR Ye! Last call for nominations for the
    Central California Parliament Election of 2011.
    Nominate here:
    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

    Nominees to date (2/24/2011):

    Jason Baker [N/A] self nominated on 2/1/2011
    David L. Wezell [LT Movement] self nominated on 2/6/2011
    Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] nominated by James Ogle on 2/10/2011
    John Argent [Roseannarchist] nominated by James Ogle on 2/10/2011
    Dizzy Loo [Constitutional Monarchist] nominated by James Ogle on 2/10/2011
    KeyKay Fisher [Celtic Green Team] self nominated 2/11/2011
    Jennifer Pentland [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Roseanne Barr on 2/12/2011
    Becky Richardson [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Roseanne Barr on
    2/12/2011
    Helen Barr [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Roseanne Barr on 2/12/2011
    Geraldine Barr [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Dizzy Loo on 2/12/2011
    Brandi Brown [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Dizzy Loo on 2/12/2011
    Jessica Oronoz [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Dizzy Loo on 2/12/2011
    Lisa Clampitt [Green Tea] self nominated on 2/15/2011
    Peck the Town Crier [Common Thread] self nominated on 2/15/2011
    Tina Fay [Info. Not Avail.] self nominated on 2/17/2011
    Alice Walker [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Jim Doyle on 2/19/2011
    Jim Doyle [Republican] self nominated by Jim Doyle on 2/19/2011
    Marcia Ray [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Jim Doyle on 2/19/2011
    Madea Benjamin [Green] nominated by Virgil Hales on 2/19/2011
    Virgil Hales [Green-Pot-Christ] self nominated by Virgil Hales on
    2/19/2011
    Ruth Mccartney [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Virgil Hales on 2/19/2011
    Blossom Eaglefeather [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Kevin Clark on
    2/20/2011
    Kevin Clark [Green Libertarian] self nominated by Kevin Clark on 2/20/2011
    Yehuda Berg [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Kevin Clark on 2/20/2011
    Llloyd Llewellyn [Flying Saucer] nominated by Zachary Scott Gordon on
    2/20/2011
    Zachary Scott Gordon [American Libertarian] self nominated by Zachary
    Scott Gordon on 2/20/2011
    Angie Mccartney [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Jacob Covich on 2/21/2011
    Noam Chomsky [New] nominated by Jacob Covich on 2/21/2011
    Lauren Korba [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Jim Burns on 2/22/2011
    DJ Tenn [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Jim Burns on 2/22/2011
    Cathy Bilsky [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by Jim Burns on 2/22/2011
    Sarah Palin [Republican] nominated by J.R. Myers on 2/23/2011
    J.R. Myers [Constitution] self nominated by J.R. Myers on 2/23/2011
    Scott Kohlaas [Libertarian] nominated by J.R. Myers on 2/23/2011
    Robert Greenwald [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by David Sullivan on 2/24/2011
    Cathy Obrien [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by David Sullivan on 2/24/2011
    Mark Phillips [Info. Not Avail.] nominated by David Sullivan on 2/24/2011

    Disqualified Nominated Names, Requiring New Nominee:

    Robert Greenwald [Info. Not Avail.]
    Cathy Obrien [Info. Not Avail.]
    Mark Phillips [Info. Not Avail.]
    Dr.Colin Ross [Info. Not Avail.]
    Scott Pelligrino [Info. Not Avail.]
    Randy Credico [Info. Not Avail.]
    Jim Cortez [Info. Not Avail.]
    Jim Burns [Libertarian]
    Laura Wells [Green]
    Gary G. Kreep [Info. Not Avail.]
    Michael “Savage” Weiner [Info. Not Avail.]
    Todd M. Palin [Info. Not Avail.]
    Roy Moore [Info. Not Avail.]
    Sheriff Mack [Info. Not Avail.]
    Barry Goldwater Jr. [Info. Not Avail.]
    Tom Tancredo [Constitution]
    Chuck Baldwin [Constitution]
    Bob Barr [Libertariaqn]
    Virgil Goode [Constitution]
    Starchild [Libertarian]
    Randy Eshelman [Libertarian]
    Sam Goldstein [Libertarian]
    Doug Craig [Libertarian]
    Jerome Corsi [Constitution]
    Darrell Castle [Constitution]
    Dessa Jacobson [Green]
    Mary Starrett [Constitution]
    Ed Vallejo [Libertarian]
    Bruce Majors [Libertarian]
    Matt Cholko [Libertarian]
    * * *

    2. Funny Video: Ballad of BillyRose for President

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kMoRBfJOXA
    * * *

    3. Ruling Coalition Vote (re: rules #28 & #34)

    The ruling coalition is asked to vote on proposed new rules #28 and #34:

    28. THE TWENTY-FOUR FULL CABINET MINISTERS: The US Parliament’s national,
    and all super-state and mini-state assemblies, shall also elect 24 Full
    Cabinet Ministers, and each of the five executives agree to rank all names
    nominated by each of the other four executives, thus guaranteeing that
    each of the five executives elects 1/5th of the 24 cabinet ministers. All
    ministries with lower ranked names shall be known as deputy ministers, and
    all nominees not elected shall be grouped as ministers awaiting higher
    rankings by executives. Once all twenty-four full ministries are elected,
    the executives shall take turns nominating new names to the cabinet,
    unless the parliamentary go-ahead is given, at which time new nominees
    automatically receive all other four executive’s #1 rankings, and thus
    automatically elect up to six new nominees to any of the 24 Full Minister
    positions in the Cabinet.

    34. Declare Roseanne Barr Queen

    This rule, once approved by the ruling coalition will make Roseanne Barr
    the Queen of the 8th USA Parliament and all consecutively elected USA
    Parliaments from the 8th USA Parliament thereafter, in compliance with the
    US Constitution.

    The rule will remain in effect until her death, or until the rule is
    changed by the majority coalition. Her decsendents will not be elected
    Monarch automatically, unless approved by the ruling coalition. She and
    all future royalty elected, must be a USA citizen, and must have been born
    within the United States of America.
    * * *

    Ad for GoNott Search!
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html
    *Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted*
    * * *
    There are two US Parliament email lists;
    1) US-PAR: All voters, non-voters and news media
    (approx. 195 subscribers).
    2) GoNott Search Team (approx. 73 subscribers).
    -*-
    Please feel free to engage or disengage to list #s
    1) or 2) by sending the message “subscribe” or
    “unsubscribe” to joogle@gonott.com.
    * * *

  225. USA-PAR: March Bulletin 2011

    To: Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]
    Prime Minister Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian]
    Prime Minister Chelene Nightingale [Constitution]
    Secretary Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist]
    Cc: All Voters and Non Voters
    From: Secretary James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Subject: USA-PAR: March Bulletin 2011
    http://www.usparliament.org/

    Note: Please feel free to engage or disengage
    from this communication link by sending the message
    “subscribe” or “unsubscribe” to joogle@gonott.com.
    OK to “reply all”.

    New: Anonymous forwarder now available upon request.
    –James

    1. HEAR YE! HEAR YE! HEAR Ye! Last Call for Nominations!
    2. Funny Video: Ballad of BillyRose for President
    3. Ruling Coalition Vote (re: rules #28 & #34)
    * * *

    1. HEAR YE! HEAR YE! HEAR Ye! Last Call for Nominations!
    Last Call Video: http://www.usparliament.org/tv.php

    HEAR YE! HEAR Ye! Last call for nominations for the
    Central California Parliament Election of 2011.
    Nominate here:
    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

    Nominees to date (2/24/2011):
    [snip, snip]

    See the complete bulletin by clicking:
    http://www.usparliament.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=261

  226. PLAS: How Can a 87.5% Majority Lose to a 50% Majority at the Libertarian Party Convention?

    How an a 87.5% PLAS Majority Lose to a 50% Majority at Libertarian Party Convention? (PLAS=progressive libertarian alliance strategy)

    By James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Tyranny of the Segregating Homogenizers!

    The LP’s rules state that the presidential and vice presidential candidates will be chosen using preference voting, i.e. ranking names with “tics” #1, #2, #3, #4, etc., etc.

    That’s where the first candidate that receives a majority tics (50% plus one vote) wins. When no name has 50% plus one vote, the names with fewer tics are eliminated one at a time until a winner has 50% plus one vote and is the elected presidential candidate.

    The process is repeated for vice president.

    How can it happen that a 7/8ths majority (87.5%) plus five of the Libertarian Party’s conventioneers’ voters *lose* to 50% plus one vote?

    In the following imaginary example, the majority of voters who might support the 87.5%’s names/interest groups could be based on anything: gender, PLAS, liberal vs conservative, Reagan Libertarian, Radical Libertarian or Gingrich Libertarian vs Anarchist/Left Libertarian, libertarian Constitutionalist, American Libertarian etc., etc.

    Here’s how:
    What if 7/8ths plus five of the voters (87.5%+) preferred an all-female or gender balanced PLAS coalition as their top and only priority?

    Example:

    Say 30% preferred Mary J. Ruwart [Libertarian], and 20% minus one vote preferred libertarian Chelene Nightingale [Constitution] for president.

    For vice president 15% plus one vote preferred James Burns [Libertarian], 10% plus one vote preferred libertarian Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist], 5% plus one vote preferred Lee Wrights [Libertarian], and 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian James Ogle [Free Parliamentary], 1.5% plus one vote preferred Christine Smith [Libertarian], 1% plus one vote preferred Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian].

    Pretend they and their supporters all deplored Wayne Root [Libertarian] and their voters did not give Root any lower rankings at all.

    That’s a total of 50% minus one vote for a female for president, and with Milnes, Burns, Wights, Ogle, Smith and Lightfoot together makes a total of 37.5% plus six votes for vice president.

    Add up the total of the voters’ tics, and that makes the grand total 87.5% plus five votes, five votes over a 7/8ths majority for the PLAS team.

    That’s a total of 87.5% plus five votes who did not want Root, a male for president, nor a non-PLAS candidate for president or vice president, except maybe if it were Jim Burns [Libertarian], Lee Wrights [Libertarian], Christine Smith [Libertarian] or Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian], who may or may not support PLAS as a strategy but they might be lower ranking to Milnes’ PLAS idea anyway because of their good platforms.

    But when all the votes are counted, Root wins prez with 50% plus one vote because in round one, Ruwart lost with 30%, and when combined with Nightingale’s 20% in round two when Nightingale is eliminated and the voters’ 2nd choice preference tics are single transferred (STV or single transferable votes) to Ruwart, the female candidates lost the president’s spot with 50% minus one vote.

    Maybe there was an unknown outsider or two who may have been for PLAS but preferred a male for president, and say they split off a few votes that might have otherwise gone to the larger PLAS team which cost PLAS the single winning vote needed.

    PLAS loses president.

    So now it’s the election for vice president for the 7/8ths who wanted a female in a PLAS coalition and they must regroup.

    And neither Ruwart, Lightfoot, Milnes, Burns, Ogle, Wrights, Nightingale nor Smith wants to be Root’s VP candidate.

    But the PLAS team, having been broken down after their main plan lost, were feeling that their strategy isn’t working.

    The PLAS plan is half broken because Root is not a female and not for PLAS.

    And the pro-PLAS voters have to change their strategy and get aligned between the eight PLAS candidates: Ruwart, Lightfoot, Burns, Wrights, Ogle, Milnes, Nightingale and Smith, in order to at least win a VP spot (provided the eight don’t stand down or walk out in protest, as theirs and the 7/8th’s of the conventioneers’ wishes are being defeated).

    But the team is fragmented when the new vote takes place, Root gets the extra time for his usual slander against the opposition (see rules for elected presidential candidate’s free speech time and see Root’s usual patterns of slanderous language) since he just won the prez spot.

    Being unsure, a few of the convention’s voters forget to rank all eight candidates as alternatives for some reason, or else maybe another outsider draws a few votes.

    It’s a eight-way split, and as each name is eliminated and the STV transferred in each round, finally no one PLAS candidate gets 50% plus one vote. One of the PLAS names ends up with only 50% of the total votes.

    Again they are defeated by the anti-PLAS team who garners 50% plus one vote, the simple majority.

    So the Root choice (another male?) for vice president wins with 50% plus one, as the other eight PLAS candidates were split for vice president but still managed 50%, but not the extra one vote to win.
    * * *

    So there you are, when 7/8ths (87.5%) of the conventioneers arrived, they wanted a PLAS candidacy, and yet with 87.5% plus five votes, instead they get a non-PLAS, Root/male, and no female candidate at all.

    A much bigger majority of 87.5% plus five votes, bigger than the 50% plus one vote required by current rules, *wanted* PLAS, a gender balanced or all-female slate and not Root at all costs, but they lost everything.

    PLAS got nothing.

    The two single winner districts allowed for Root to walk away with both seats.
    * * *

    Next up, how the larger majority of 8/9ths (88.88%) plus six votes loses to Root’s 5o% plus one vote.

  227. How 83.33% (5/6ths) Loses at Libertarian Party Convention

    GooGoo/Barr Report
    Gold at $1436.96
    3/2/2011
    http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2011/ … ctions.php

    New nominations include former Alaskan Green Party gubernatorial candidate Dessa Jaconson [Green], US Presidential candidate and Economics Minister Jim Burns [Libertarian] of Nevada, and MdMj advocate Darren Courtney [Free Democratic] of Northern California.

    Nominated:
    Dessa Jacobson [Green] nominated by Darren Courtney on 3/1/2011
    Darren Courtney [Free Democratic] self nominated by Darren Courtney on 3/1/2011
    Jim Burns [Libertarian] nominated by Darren Courtney on 3/1/2011
    * * *

  228. How 88.88% (8/9ths) Loses at Libertarian Party Convention

    How an a 88.88% PLAS Majority Lose to a 50% Majority at Libertarian Party Convention? (PLAS=progressive libertarian alliance strategy)

    By James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Tyranny of the Segregating Homogenizers!

    The LP’s rules state that the presidential and vice presidential candidates will be chosen using preference voting, i.e. ranking names with “tics” #1, #2, #3, #4, etc., etc.

    That’s where the first candidate that receives a majority tics (50% plus one vote) wins. When no name has 50% plus one vote, the names with fewer tics are eliminated one at a time until a winner has 50% plus one vote and is the elected presidential candidate.

    The process is repeated for vice president.

    How can it happen that a 8/9ths majority (88.88%) plus six of the Libertarian Party’s conventioneers’ voters *lose* to 50% plus one vote?

    In the following imaginary example, the majority of voters who might support the 88.88%’s names/interest groups could be based on anything: gender, PLAS, liberal vs conservative, Reagan Libertarian, Radical Libertarian or Gingrich Libertarian vs Anarchist/Left Libertarian, libertarian Constitutionalist, American Libertarian etc., etc.

    Here’s how:
    What if 8/9ths plus six of the voters (88.88%+) preferred an all-female or gender balanced PLAS coalition as their top and only priority?

    Example:

    Say 30% preferred Mary J. Ruwart [Libertarian], and 20% minus one vote preferred libertarian Chelene Nightingale [Constitution] for president.

    For vice president 15% plus one vote preferred James Burns [Libertarian], 10% plus one vote preferred libertarian Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist], 5% plus one vote preferred Lee Wrights [Libertarian], and 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian James Ogle [Free Parliamentary], 1.5% plus one vote preferred Christine Smith [Libertarian], 1% plus one vote preferred Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian], and 1.38% plus one vote preferred George Phillies [Libertarian].

    Pretend they and their supporters all deplored Wayne Root [Libertarian] and their voters did not give Root any lower rankings at all.

    That’s a total of 50% minus one vote for a female for president. And with Milnes, Burns, Wights, Ogle, Smith, Lightfoot and Phillies together makes a total of 38.88% plus seven votes for vice president.

    Add up the total of the voters’ tics, and that makes the grand total 88.88% plus six votes, five votes over a 8/9ths majority for the PLAS team.

    That’s a total of 88.88% plus six votes who did not want Root, a male for president, nor a non-PLAS candidate for president or vice president, except maybe if it were Jim Burns [Libertarian], Lee Wrights [Libertarian], Christine Smith [Libertarian], Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian] or George Phillies [Libertarian], who may or may not support PLAS as a strategy but they might be lower ranking to Milnes’ PLAS idea anyway because of their good platforms.

    But when all the votes are counted, Root wins prez with 50% plus one vote because in round one, Ruwart lost with 30%, and when combined with Nightingale’s 20% in round two when Nightingale is eliminated and the voters’ 2nd choice preference tics are single transferred (STV or single transferable votes) to Ruwart, the female candidates lost the president’s spot with 50% minus one vote.

    Maybe there was an unknown outsider or two who may have been for PLAS but preferred a male for president, and say they split off a few votes that might have otherwise gone to the larger PLAS team which cost PLAS the single winning vote needed.

    PLAS loses president.

    So now it’s the election for vice president for the 8/9ths who wanted a female in a PLAS coalition and they must regroup.

    And neither Ruwart, Lightfoot, Milnes, Burns, Ogle, Wrights, Nightingale, Smith nor Phillies wants to be Root’s VP candidate.

    But the PLAS team, having been broken down after their main plan lost, were feeling that their strategy isn’t working.

    The PLAS plan is half broken because Root is not a female and not for PLAS.

    And the pro-PLAS voters have to change their strategy and get aligned between the eight PLAS candidates: Ruwart, Lightfoot, Burns, Wrights, Ogle, Milnes, Nightingale, Smith or Phillies, in order to at least win a VP spot (provided the eight don’t stand down or walk out in protest, as theirs and the 8/9th’s of the conventioneers’ wishes are being defeated).

    But the team is fragmented when the new vote takes place, Root gets the extra time for his usual slander against the opposition (see rules for elected presidential candidate’s free speech time and see Root’s usual patterns of slanderous language) since he just won the prez spot.

    Being unsure, a few of the convention’s voters forget to rank all eight candidates as alternatives for some reason, or else maybe another outsider draws a few votes.

    It’s a nine-way split, and as each name is eliminated and the STV transferred in each round, finally no one PLAS candidate gets 50% plus one vote. One of the PLAS names ends up with only 50% of the total votes.

    Again they are defeated by the anti-PLAS team who garners 50% plus one vote, the simple majority.

    So the Root choice (another male?) for vice president wins with 50% plus one, as the other eight PLAS candidates were split for vice president but still managed 50%, but not the extra one vote to win.
    * * *

    So there you are, when 8/9ths (88.88%) of the conventioneers arrived, they wanted a PLAS candidacy, and yet with 88.88% plus six votes, instead they get a non-PLAS, Root/male, and no female candidate at all.

    A much bigger majority of 88.88% plus six votes, bigger than the 50% plus one vote required by current rules, *wanted* PLAS, a gender balanced or all-female slate and not Root at all costs, but they lost everything.

    PLAS got nothing.

    The two single winner districts allowed for Root to walk away with both seats.
    * * *

    Next up, how the larger majority of 9/10ths (90%) plus seven votes loses to Root’s 5o% plus one vote.

  229. How 90% (9/10ths) Majority Loses at Libertarian Party Convention

    How does a 90% plus eleven votes PLAS Majority Lose to a 50% plus one vote Majority at Libertarian Party Convention? (PLAS=progressive libertarian alliance strategy)

    By James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Tyranny of the Segregating Homogenizers!

    The LP’s rules state that the presidential and vice presidential candidates will be chosen using preference voting, i.e. ranking names with “tics” #1, #2, #3, #4, etc., etc.

    That’s where the first candidate that receives a majority tics (50% plus one vote) wins. When no name has 50% plus one vote, the names with fewer tics are eliminated one at a time, and the voters’ next choices are single transferred to the next highest ranked name, until a winner has 50% plus one vote and is the elected presidential candidate.

    The process is repeated for vice president.

    How can it happen that a 9/10ths majority (90%) plus eleven votes of the Libertarian Party’s conventioneers’ voters *lose* to 50% plus one vote?

    In the following imaginary example, the majority of voters who might support the 90%’s names/interest groups could be based on anything: liberty to self-categorize, gender, PLAS, liberal vs conservative, Reagan Libertarian, Radical Libertarian or Gingrich Libertarian vs Anarchist/Left Libertarian, libertarian Constitutionalist, American Libertarian etc., etc.

    Here’s how:
    What if 9/10ths plus eleven of the voters (90%+) preferred an all-female or gender balanced PLAS coalition as their top and only priority?

    Example:

    Say 16% plus one vote preferred Mary J. Ruwart [Libertarian], and 16% plus one vote referred libertarian Chelene Nightingale [Constitution], and 16%plus one vote preferred libertarian Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] for president. Total: 48% plus three votes.

    For vice president 15% plus one vote preferred James Burns [Libertarian], 10% plus one vote preferred libertarian Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist], 5% plus one vote preferred Lee Wrights [Libertarian], and 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian James Ogle [Free Parliamentary], 3% plus one vote preferred Christine Smith [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian], 1% plus one vote preferred George Phillies [Libertarian], and 1% plus one vote preferred Cory Nott [Libertarain]. Total: 42% plus eight votes.

    Pretend they and their supporters all deplored Wayne Root [Libertarian] and their voters did not give Root any lower rankings at all.

    That’s a total of 48% plus three votes for a female for president.

    Milnes, Burns, Wights, Ogle, Smith, Lightfoot, Phillies and Nott together makes a total of 42% plus eight votes for vice president.

    Add up the total of the voters’ tics, and that makes the grand total 90% plus eleven votes, eleven votes over a 9/10ths majority for the PLAS team.

    That’s a total of 90% plus eleven votes who did not want Root, a male for president, nor a non-PLAS candidate for president or vice president, except maybe if it were Jim Burns [Libertarian], Lee Wrights [Libertarian], Christine Smith [Libertarian], Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian], George Phillies [Libertarian], or Cory Nott [Libertarian], who may or may not support PLAS as a strategy. They might be lower in rankings to Milnes’ PLAS idea anyway because of their platforms.

    But when all the votes are counted, Root wins prez with 50% plus one vote because in round one, Ruwart, Nightingale and Barr each lost with 18% plus one vote each, and in rounds two and three, when their names were eliminated and the voters’ 2nd and 3rd choice preference tics are single transferred (STV or single transferable votes) to the other female candidates for president, all three female candidates lost the president’s spot with a combined 48% plus three votes.

    Maybe there was an unknown outsider or two who may have been for PLAS but preferred a male for president, and say they split off a few votes that might have otherwise gone to the larger PLAS team which cost PLAS a few of the winning votes needed.

    PLAS loses president.

    So now it’s the election for vice president for the 9/10ths plus eleven voters who wanted a female in a PLAS coalition and they must regroup.

    And pretend that neither Ruwart, Lightfoot, Barr, Milnes, Burns, Ogle, Wrights, Nightingale, Smith, Phillies or Nott wants to be Root’s VP candidate.

    But the PLAS team, having been broken down after their main plan lost, a female candidate for president, they’re feeling that their strategy isn’t working.

    The PLAS plan is half broken because Root is not a female and he’s not for PLAS.

    And the pro-PLAS voters have to change their strategy and get aligned between the eleven PLAS candidates: Ruwart, Lightfoot, Burns, Barr, Wrights, Ogle, Milnes, Nightingale, Smith, Phillies or Nott, in order to at least win a VP spot (provided the eleven don’t stand down or walk out in protest, as their wishes and the 9/10th’s plus eleven votes of the conventioneers’ wishes are being defeated).

    But the team is fragmented when the new vote takes place, Root gets the extra time for his usual slander against the opposition.

    *See rules for elected presidential candidate’s free speech time before VP debate/election and see Root’s usual patterns of slanderous language.

    Being unsure, a few of the convention’s voters forget to rank all eleven candidates as alternatives for some reason, or else maybe another outsider draws a few votes.

    It’s an eleven-way split, and as each name is eliminated and the STV transferred in each round, finally no one PLAS candidate gets 50% plus one vote. One of the PLAS names ends up with only 50% of the total votes.

    Again they are defeated by the anti-PLAS team who garners 50% plus one vote, the simple majority.

    So the Root choice (another male?) for vice president wins with 50% plus one, as the other eleven PLAS candidates were split for vice president but still managed 50%, but not the extra one vote to win.
    * * *

    So there you are, when 9/10ths (90%) of the conventioneers arrived, they wanted a PLAS candidacy, and yet with 90% plus eleven votes, instead they get a non-PLAS, Root/male, and no female candidate at all.

    A much bigger majority of 90% plus eleven votes, bigger than the 50% plus one vote required by current rules, *wanted* PLAS, a gender balanced or all-female slate and not Root at all costs, but they lost everything.

    PLAS got nothing.

    The two single winner districts allowed for Root to walk away with both seats.
    * * *

    Next up, how the larger majority of 10/11ths (90.09%) plus twelve votes loses to Root’s 5o% plus one vote.

    Like it? Won’t you please help elect the PLAS coalition? Nominate YOUR name (or someone to represent you) now:
    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

  230. Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] Writes

    Reply Roseanne March 2, 2011 11:53 AM
    in reply to Secretary James Ogle you nominate me. I have a message for you to pass to all listening over at the parliamentary procedure place–”I BELIEVE THAT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN US ARE MINIMAL, AND THAT WE SHOULD PROCEED WITH THE REVOLUTION. NO MORE FED. NO NEW WORLD ORDER. PEACE AND PROSPERITY. A BLEND BETWEEN CAPITAL AND CARING. A NEW STOCK MARKET, ONE IN WHICH THE JOYS AND THE SUCCESSES OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO LIVE IN PEACE are greatly rewarded with capital. PEOPLE-ISM NOW!!!

    http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2011/02/parliamentary-elections.php#comments-content

  231. End the Tyranny of the Segregating Homogenizers

    The Tyranny of the Segregating Homogenizers

    The owners of IPR here don’t want you to know that people are working together under a voting system based on votes cast as proof, so the tyrannists delete posts here in order to tyrannize, segregate and homogenize.

    Robert’s Rules of Order don’t elect parliamentary bodies, yet they think it’s the cat’s meow.

    They can’t STAND the 8th USA Parliament! It’s against everything they stand for, pure proportional representation (PR).

    They’re “Libertarians” who are opposed to liberty. What about liberty to self categorize under 1/101ths plus one vote?

    Look at their site:
    http://www.lp.org/

    They think that they have a right to turn away liberty, and they say things like “the Libertarian Party IS the Pot Party!”

    But without the 8th USA Parliament, the Pot Party, Free Marijuana Party, Free Parliamentary Party and Environmentalist Parties wouldn’t even exist.

    We’ll just have to avoid those who choose to tyrannize, segregate and homogenize, and link up with everyone else.

    When you don’t have legitimate elections, you’re going to run into a lot of unaccountable, unelected dictators.

  232. GooGoo/Barr Report

    GooGoo/Barr Report
    Gold at $1423.82

    http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2011/02/parliamentary-elections.php
    * * *

    1. Green Tea/Constitution Coalition Update
    2. Green Tea/Libertarian Coalition Update
    3. PM Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]: “You nominate me.”
    4. Secretary: “We’re Bogged Down.”
    * * *

    1. Green Tea/Constitution Coalition Update

    Great news today, three prominent female presidential candidates from the US Constitution Party are getting high profile publicity today from IPR http://www.IndependentPoliticalReport.com

    “Oregon’s marvelous Mary Starrett [Constitution]”

    “Teri Owens [Constitution], the [Ohio] party’s state secretary, who is an outstanding political activist in her own right”

    “…and “veteran campaigners like Nevada’s favorite daughter, Janine Hansen [Constitution]”

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/
    * * *

    2. Green Tea/Libertarian Coalition Update

    Two new names were nominated and disqualified from the Libertarian Party in the past 24 hours, presidential draftee Libertarian Girl [Libertarian] and vice presidential candidate draftee and writer Bruce Cohen [Libertarian] of IPR.

    Libertarian Girl resides in Las Vegas, home to the 2012 Libertarian Party National Convention, and it’s not known if she’d accept nomination, but we could try to promote the “Draft a Libertarian Girl/Cohen for President” ticket, in order to make a friend at the convention.
    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/12/us-parliament-open-thread/comment-page-7/#comment-329013

    This is but one of the scenarios being looked into, to get Queen to be, Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] on the “All Party System” ticket for President.
    * * *

    3. PM Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]: “You nominate me.”

    PM Barr [Green Tea] has asked that we nominate her name for president, on the “All Party System”.

    PM Barr writes:
    “you nominate me. I have a message for you to pass to all listening over at the parliamentary procedure place–”I BELIEVE THAT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN US ARE MINIMAL, AND THAT WE SHOULD PROCEED WITH THE REVOLUTION. NO MORE FED. NO NEW WORLD ORDER. PEACE AND PROSPERITY. A BLEND BETWEEN CAPITAL AND CARING. A NEW STOCK MARKET, ONE IN WHICH THE JOYS AND THE SUCCESSES OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO LIVE IN PEACE are greatly rewarded with capital. PEOPLE-ISM NOW!!!”
    * * *

    4. Secretary: “We’re Bogged Down.”

    As one of the secretaries (my counter-part Covich [Catholic Trotskyist] is currently too busy teaching), I must tell everyone the truth of the situation, and that is that we are bogged down.

    We have many good names who have been disqualified because of the rules limit us to three nominations per person. We need new nominators, in order to get the following names on our ballot, but I’ve run out of friends.

    You’ve seen that our central prime minister and future Queen likes our plan and she wants to be nominated, and she has been nominated to our ballot. But we need more people working together so we can try to get her nominated to other ballots. Please nominate your name, or another name to represent you (up to three names total) now, at: http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

    Disqualified Nominated Names, Requiring New Nominee:

    Dr.Colin Ross [Info. Not Avail.]
    Scott Pelligrino [Info. Not Avail.]
    Randy Credico [Info. Not Avail.]
    Jim Cortez [Info. Not Avail.]
    Laura Wells [Green]
    Gary G. Kreep [Info. Not Avail.]
    Michael “Savage” Weiner [Info. Not Avail.]
    Todd M. Palin [Info. Not Avail.]
    Roy Moore [Info. Not Avail.]
    Sheriff Mack [Info. Not Avail.]
    Barry Goldwater Jr. [Info. Not Avail.]
    Tom Tancredo [Constitution]
    Chuck Baldwin [Constitution]
    Bob Barr [Libertarian]
    Virgil Goode [Constitution]
    Starchild [Libertarian]
    Randy Eshelman [Libertarian]
    Sam Goldstein [Libertarian]
    Doug Craig [Libertarian]
    Jerome Corsi [Constitution]
    Darrell Castle [Constitution]
    Mary Starrett [Constitution]
    Ed Vallejo [Libertarian]
    Bruce Majors [Libertarian]
    Matt Cholko [Libertarian]
    Bruce Cohen [Libertarian]
    Libertarian Girl [Libertarian]
    Teri Owens [Constitution]
    Janine Hansen [Constitution]
    * * *

  233. GooGoo/Barr Report

    This is a test for the “recent comment” section…my posts don’t seem to get announced there in that section so I’m running a test.

    Please ignore this, but check my two comments above if interested in the GooGoo/Barr Report.

  234. GooGoo/Barr Report

    Disqualified Nominated Names, Requiring New Nominee:

    Mary Hunt [Info. Not Avail.]
    Jane Caputi [Info. Not Avail.]
    JZ Knight [Info. Not Avail.]
    Jane Fonda [Info. Not Avail.]
    Colleen Camp [Info. Not Avail.]
    Alana Stewart [Info. Not Avail.]
    Joan Dangerfield [Info. Not Avail.]
    Cher [Info. Not Avail.]

  235. How PLAS (91.6% plus 13 votes) Loses to Root (50% plus one vote)

    How Does a 91.6% (11/12ths) PLAS Majority Lose at Libertarian Party (LP) Convention?
    (PLAS=progressive libertarian alliance strategy)

    By James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Stop the Tyranny of the Segregating Homogenizers!

    The LP’s rules state that the presidential and vice presidential candidates will be chosen at their national convention in Los Vegas Nevada in My of 2012 by using preference voting, i.e. ranking names with “tics” #1, #2, #3, #4, etc., etc.

    That’s where the first candidate that receives a majority tics (50% plus one vote) wins. When no name has 50% plus one vote, the names with fewer tics are eliminated one at a time (rounds), and the voters’ next choices are single transferred to the next highest ranked name round by round, until a winner has 50% plus one vote and is the elected presidential candidate.

    The process is repeated for vice president.

    How can it happen that a 11/12ths majority (91.6%) plus thirteen votes of the Libertarian Party’s conventioneers’ voters *LOSE* to a smaller of 50% plus one vote?

    In the following imaginary example, the majority of voters who might support the 91.6%’s names/interest groups could be based on anything: liberty to self-categorize, gender, PLAS, liberal vs conservative, Reagan Libertarian, Bush Libertarian or Gingrich Libertarian vs Anarchist/Left Libertarian, libertarian Constitutionalist, American Libertarian, Paul Libertarian etc., etc.

    Here’s how:
    What if 11/12ths plus thirteen of the voters (91.6%+) preferred an all-female or gender balanced PLAS coalition as their top and only priority?

    Example:

    Say 12% plus one vote preferred Mary J. Ruwart [Libertarian], 12% plus one vote preferred libertarian Chelene Nightingale [Constitution], 12% plus one vote preferred libertarian Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] for president and 12% plus one vote preferred Libertarian Girl [Libertarian]. Total: 48% plus four votes.

    For vice president 10% plus one vote preferred James Burns [Libertarian], 10% plus one vote preferred libertarian Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist], 5% plus one vote preferred Bruce Cohen [Libertarian], 5% plus one vote preferred Lee Wrights [Libertarian], 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian James Ogle [Free Parliamentary], 3% plus one vote preferred Christine Smith [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian], 1% plus one vote preferred George Phillies [Libertarian], and 1% plus one vote preferred Cory Nott [Libertarian]. Total: 42% plus nine votes.

    Pretend they and their supporters all deplored Wayne Root [Libertarian] and their voters did not give Root any lower rankings at all.

    But also pretend that voters for the PLAS presidential candidates weren’t voting for the same PLAS vice presidential candidates mentioned here, and visa versa because they weren’t in communication before the convention or maybe didn’t know about PLAS.

    That’s a total of 48% plus four votes for a female for president.

    And Cohen, Milnes, Burns, Wrights, Ogle, Smith, Lightfoot, Phillies, Nott together makes a total of 42% plus nine votes for vice president.

    Add up the total of the voters’ tics, and that makes the grand total 91.6% plus eleven votes, thirteen votes over a 11/12ths majority for the PLAS team.

    That’s a total of 91.6% plus thirteen votes who did not want Root, a male for president, nor a non-PLAS candidate for president or vice president, except maybe if it were Jim Burns [Libertarian], Lee Wrights [Libertarian], Bruce Cohen [Libertarian], Christine Smith [Libertarian], Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian], George Phillies [Libertarian], or Cory Nott [Libertarian], who may or may not support PLAS as a strategy. They might be lower in rankings to Milnes’ PLAS idea because of their platforms.

    But when all the votes are counted, Root wins prez with 50% plus one vote because in round one, Ruwart, Nightingale, Barr and Libertarian Girl each lost with 12% plus one vote each, and in rounds two, three and four when their names were eliminated and the voters’ 2nd, 3rd and 4th choice preference tics are single transferred (STV or single transferable vote) to the other female candidates for president, all four female candidates lost the president’s spot with a combined 48% plus four votes.

    Maybe there was an unknown outsider or two who may have been for PLAS but preferred a male for president for example, and those tics didn’t transfer over to the female PLAS team. The male PLAS candidates had split off a few votes that might have otherwise gone to the larger female PLAS team which cost the female PLAS team for president a few of the winning votes needed.

    Female PLAS loses president.

    So now it’s the election for vice president for the 11/12ths plus thirteen voters who wanted a female in a PLAS coalition and they must regroup.

    And pretend that neither Ruwart, Lightfoot, Barr, Milnes, Burns, Ogle, Wrights, Nightingale, Smith, Phillies, Cohen, Libertarian Girl or Nott actually wants to be Root’s VP candidate.

    But the PLAS team, having been broken down after their main plan lost, a female candidate for president, they’re feeling that their strategy isn’t working. Meanwhile, the male PLAS team is doing the same and they aren’t all working together on the same page.

    The female for president PLAS plan is half broken because Root is not a female and he’s not for PLAS.

    And all the pro-PLAS voters have to change their strategy and get aligned between the thirteen PLAS candidates: Ruwart, Lightfoot, Burns, Barr, Wrights, Ogle, Milnes, Nightingale, Smith, Phillies, Cohen, Libertarian Girl, Nott in order to at least win a VP spot (provided the thirteen and the other male PLAS slate, don’t stand down or walk out in protest, as their wishes and the 11/12ths plus thirteen (and the male for president PLAS group) votes of the conventioneers’ wishes are being defeated).

    But the teams are fragmented when the new vote takes place, Root gets the extra time for his usual slander* against the opposition.

    *See rules for elected presidential candidate’s free speech time before VP debate/election and see Root’s usual patterns of slanderous language.

    Being unsure, a few of the convention’s voters forget to rank all thirteen candidates as a team of alternatives for some reason, maybe they’re still not working with the male for PLAS president team, and/or else maybe other outsiders draw a few votes.

    It’s an thirteen-way split, and as each name is eliminated and the STV transferred in each round, and finally no one PLAS candidate gets 50% plus one vote. One of the PLAS names does end up with less than 50% of the total votes.

    Again they are defeated by the anti-PLAS team .

    So the Root choice (another male?) for vice president wins with 50% plus one.
    * * *

    So there you are, when 9/10ths (90%) of the conventioneers arrived, they wanted a PLAS candidacy, and yet with 90% plus eleven votes, instead they get a non-PLAS, Root/male, and no female candidate at all.

    A much bigger majority of 90% plus eleven votes, bigger than the 50% plus one vote required by current rules, *wanted* PLAS, a gender balanced or all-female slate and not Root at all costs, but they lost everything.

    PLAS got nothing.

    The two single winner districts allowed for Root to walk away with both seats.
    * * *

    Like it? Won’t you please help elect the PLAS coalition? Nominate YOUR name (or someone to represent you) now:
    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

  236. GooGoo/Barr Report

    GooGoo/Barr Report
    3/4/2011
    Gold at $1430.57

    http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2011/02/parliamentary-elections.php

    1. Special Bulletin Announces PacificNW Super-state Parliament Election

    The Free Parliamentary Party secretary James Ogle announces tentative plans to release a second ballot in 2011. In addition to the Central California Mini-state Parliament Election, a second ballot will most likely be released to include the PacificNW Super-state Parliament Election. See the Special Bulletin below for a few of the details.

    PacificNW Super State Parliament Circuit #12
    Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington and Wyoming

    Special Bulletin 3/4/2011
    http://usparliament.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=265&p=296#p296

  237. GooGoo/Barr Report

    To: Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]
    Prime Minister Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian]
    Prime Minister Chelene Nightingale [Constitution]
    Secretary Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist]
    Cc: All Voters and Non Voters
    From: Secretary James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Subject: USA-PAR: Special Bulletin 3/4/2011
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss12.php

    Special Announcement!

    1. PLAS: How 50% Plus One Vote Unjustly Defeats Larger Majority of 91.6% Plus One Vote
    2. PacificNW Super-state Parliament Election Likely to Take Place in 2011
    * * *

    1. PLAS: How 50% Plus One Vote Unjustly Defeat Larger Majority of 91.6% Plus One Vote

    How Does a 91.6% (11/12ths) PLAS Majority Lose at Libertarian Party (LP)
    Convention?
    (PLAS=progressive libertarian alliance strategy)

    By James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Stop the Tyranny of the Segregating Homogenizers!

    The American Libertarian Party’s rules state that the presidential and
    vice presidential candidates will be chosen at their national convention
    in Las Vegas Nevada in May of 2012 by using preference voting, i.e.
    ranking names with “tics” #1, #2, #3, #4, etc., etc.

    That’s where the first candidate that receives a majority tics (50% plus
    one vote) wins. When no name has 50% plus one vote, the names with fewer
    tics are eliminated one at a time (rounds) and the voters’ next choices
    are single transferred to the next highest ranked name round by round,
    until a winner has 50% plus one vote and is the elected presidential
    candidate.

    The process is repeated for vice president.

    How can it happen that a 11/12ths majority (91.6%) plus thirteen votes of
    the Libertarian Party’s conventioneers’ voters *LOSE* to a smaller
    majority of 50% plus one vote?

    In the following imaginary example, the majority of voters who might
    support the 91.6%’s names/interest groups could be based on anything:
    liberty to self-categorize, gender, PLAS, liberal vs conservative, Reagan
    Libertarian, Bush Libertarian or Gingrich Libertarian vs Anarchist/Left
    Libertarian, libertarian Constitutionalist, American Libertarian, Paul
    Libertarian etc., etc.

    Here’s how:

    What if 11/12ths plus thirteen of the voters (91.6%+) preferred an
    all-female or gender balanced PLAS coalition as their top and only
    priority?

    Example:

    Say 12% plus one vote preferred Mary J. Ruwart [Libertarian], 12% plus one
    vote preferred libertarian Chelene Nightingale [Constitution], 12% plus
    one vote preferred libertarian Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] and
    12% plus one vote preferred Libertarian Girl [Libertarian]. Total: 48%
    plus four votes.

    For vice president 10% plus one vote preferred James Burns [Libertarian],
    10% plus one vote preferred libertarian Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist], 5%
    plus one vote preferred Bruce Cohen [Libertarian], 5% plus one vote
    preferred Lee Wrights [Libertarian], 5% plus one vote preferred
    libertarian James Ogle [Free Parliamentary], 3% plus one vote preferred
    Christine Smith [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred Gail Lightfoot
    [Libertarian], 1% plus one vote preferred George Phillies [Libertarian],
    and 1% plus one vote preferred Cory Nott [Libertarian]. Total: 42% plus
    nine votes.

    Pretend they and their supporters all deplored Wayne Root [Libertarian]
    and their voters did not give Root any lower rankings at all.

    But also pretend that voters for the PLAS presidential candidates weren’t
    voting for the same PLAS vice presidential candidates mentioned here, and
    visa versa because they weren’t in communication before the convention or
    maybe didn’t know about PLAS.

    That’s a total of 48% plus four votes for a female for president.

    And Cohen, Milnes, Burns, Wrights, Ogle, Smith, Lightfoot, Phillies, Nott
    together makes a total of 42% plus nine votes for vice president.

    Add up the total of the voters’ tics, and that makes the grand total 91.6%
    plus thirteen votes, thirteen votes over a 11/12ths majority for the PLAS
    team.

    That’s a total of 91.6% plus thirteen votes who did not want Root, a male
    for president, nor a non-PLAS candidate for president or vice president,
    except maybe if it were Jim Burns [Libertarian], Lee Wrights
    [Libertarian], Bruce Cohen [Libertarian], Christine Smith [Libertarian],
    Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian], George Phillies [Libertarian] or Cory Nott
    [Libertarian], who may or may not support PLAS as a strategy. They might
    be lower in rankings to Milnes’ PLAS idea because of their platforms.

    But when all the votes are counted, Root wins prez with 50% plus one vote
    because in round one, Ruwart, Nightingale, Barr and Libertarian Girl each
    lost with 12% plus one vote each, and in rounds two, three and four when
    their names were eliminated and the voters’ 2nd, 3rd and 4th choice
    preference tics are single transferred (STV or single transferable vote)
    to the other female candidates, all four female candidates
    lost the president’s spot with a combined 48% plus four votes.

    Maybe there was an unknown outsider or two who may have been for PLAS but
    preferred a male for president for example, and so those tics didn’t transfer
    over to the female PLAS team. The male PLAS candidates had split off a few
    votes that might have otherwise gone to the larger female PLAS team which
    cost the female PLAS team for president a few of the winning votes needed.

    Female PLAS loses president.

    So now it’s the election for vice president for the 11/12ths plus thirteen
    voters who wanted a female in a PLAS coalition and they must regroup.

    And pretend that neither Ruwart, Lightfoot, Barr, Milnes, Burns, Ogle,
    Wrights, Nightingale, Smith, Phillies, Cohen, Libertarian Girl or Nott
    actually wants to be Root’s VP candidate.

    But the PLAS team, having been broken down after their main plan lost, a
    female candidate for president, they’re feeling that their strategy isn’t
    working. Meanwhile the male PLAS team is doing the same and they aren’t
    all working together on the same page.

    The female for president PLAS plan is half broken because Root is not a
    female and he’s not for PLAS.

    So all the pro-PLAS voters have to change their strategy and get aligned
    between the thirteen PLAS candidates: Ruwart, Lightfoot, Burns, Barr,
    Wrights, Ogle, Milnes, Nightingale, Smith, Phillies, Cohen, Libertarian
    Girl, Nott in order to at least win a VP spot (provided the thirteen and
    the other male PLAS slate don’t stand down or walk out in protest, as
    their wishes and the 11/12ths plus thirteen (and the male for president
    PLAS group), and the votes of the conventioneers’ wishes are being defeated.

    But the teams are fragmented when the new vote takes place and Wayne
    A. Root (W.A.R.) gets the extra time for his usual slander* against the opposition.

    *See rules for elected presidential candidate’s free speech time before VP
    debate/election and see Root’s usual patterns of slanderous language.

    Being unsure, a few of the convention’s voters forget to rank all thirteen
    candidates as a team of alternatives for some reason. Maybe they’re still
    not working with the male for PLAS president team, and/or else maybe other
    outsiders draw a few votes.

    It’s an thirteen-way split, and as each name is eliminated and the STV
    transferred in each round, and finally no one PLAS candidate gets 50% plus
    one vote. One of the PLAS names does end up with less than 50% of the
    total votes.

    Again they are defeated by the anti-PLAS team.

    The Root choice (another male?) for vice president wins with 50% plus one.
    * * *

    A much bigger majority of 91.6% (11/12ths) plus thirteen votes, bigger
    than the 50% plus one vote required by current rules, *wanted* PLAS, a
    gender balanced or all-female slate and not Root at all costs, but they
    lost everything.

    PLAS got nothing.

    The two single winner districts allowed for W.A.Root to walk away with both
    seats.
    * * *

    Like it? Won’t you please help elect the PLAS coalition? Nominate YOUR
    name (or someone to represent you) now:
    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php
    * * *

    2. PacificNW Super-state Parliament Election Likely to Take Place in 2011
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss12.php

    The PacificNW Super-state Parliament’s (ss12) nominations have reached 94
    members and are climbing quickly to 100 appointments (see below).

    The 8th USA Parliament can easily conduct two elections this year in 2011,
    and elect the new PacificNW Super-state Parliament (ss12), and this is a
    unique opportunity for a secretarial type of a person to gain training as
    the USA Parliament “makes like a cell and divides”, and conducts two
    elections simultaneousely this year.

    If anyone is interested in the PacificNW election project, please phone or
    email this author James Ogle at 415-686-1996 ASAP to start learning how to
    take over secretarial responsabilities for ss12. The ballot preparation
    and everything will be done for you, but you will at least need your name nominated
    to eventually make sure your name gets elected as secretary or prime minister.
    * * *

    The current 94 nominees for member of super-state parliament (MSPs) are:

    PacificNW Super State Parliament Circuit #12
    Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South
    Dakota, Washington and Wyoming

    Mike Hunt [Alaskan Independence], Brent Mooneyham [Independent], Jerrett
    Crews [Party], Zambla [None], Diane Wehman [Info. Not Avail.], Emory
    Rogers [Hemp], Alfred Keys Allen [Info. Not Avail.], Marcellius Smith
    [Parliament], Amanda R. [Green], Paul Go [Green], Mary Kelsen [Pot], Kieth
    Ray Elam [Forever], Charles Bruce Stewart [Green Libertarian], Megan Ross
    [Pot], Frank Skroh [Libertarian], Anthony Zenobi [Libertarian], Craig
    Groves [Democratic], Peter Stone [Democratic], Barbara Whitt [Democratic],
    Christopher Rose [Christian Falangist], Grady Brown [Independent], John
    Richardson [Independent], Philip Noriega [Labor], Jeffrey Beaman
    [Marijuana], Travis Johnson [Pot], Mike Malchant [Republican], Shawn
    Nichols [Socialist], Dylan Wiles [Socialist], Mike Jones [Republican],
    Evil Dude [Pot], Quinton Price [Anarchist], James Nelson [National
    Veterans Freedom], Vincent Portulano [Democratic], Kevin Clark [Green
    Libertarian], Jennifer Pentland [Info. Not Avail.], Becky Richardson
    [Info. Not Avail.], Helen Barr [Info. Not Avail.], Geraldine Barr [Info.
    Not Avail.], Brandi Brown [Info. Not Avail.], Jessica Oronoz [Info. Not
    Avail.], Marcia Ray [Info. Not Avail.], Ruth Mccartney [Info. Not Avail.],
    Angie Mccartney [Info. Not Avail.], Lauren Korba [Info. Not Avail.], Cathy
    Bilsky [Info. Not Avail.], DJ Tenn. [Info. Not Avail.], Lisa Clampitt
    [Green Tea], Tina Fay [Info. Not Avail.], Robert Greenwald [Info. Not
    Avail.], Cathy Obrien [Info. Not Avail.], Mark Phillips [Info. Not
    Avail.], Dr.Colin Ross [Info. Not Avail.], Noam Chomsky [Info. Not
    Avail.], Scott Pelligrino [Info. Not Avail.], Randy Credico [Info. Not
    Avail.], Madea Benjamin [Info. Not Avail.], Yehuda Berg [Info. Not
    Avail.], Jim Cortez [Info. Not Avail.], Blossom Eaglefeather [Info. Not
    Avail.], Alice Walker [Info. Not Avail.], Laura Wells [Green], Gary G.
    Kreep [Info. Not Avail.], Michael “Savage” Weiner [Info. Not Avail.], Todd
    M. Palin [Info. Not Avail.], Roy Moore [Info. Not Avail.], Sheriff Mack
    [Info. Not Avail.], Barry Goldwater Jr. [Info. Not Avail.], Tom Tancredo
    [Constitution], Chuck Baldwin [Constitution], Bob Barr [Libertarian],
    Virgil Goode [Constitution], Starchild [Libertarian], Randy Eshelman
    [Libertarian], Sam Goldstein [Libertarian], Doug Craig [Libertarian],
    Jerome Corsi [Constitution], Darrell Castle [Constitution], Mary Starrett
    [Constitution], Ed Vallejo [Libertarian], Bruce Majors [Libertarian], Matt
    Cholko [Libertarian], Bruce Cohen [Libertarian], Libertarian Girl
    [Libertarian], Teri Owens [Constitution], Janine Hansen [Constitution],
    Mary Hunt [Info. Not Avail.], Jane Caputi [Info. Not Avail.], JZ Knight
    [Info. Not Avail.], Jane Fonda [Info. Not Avail.], Colleen Camp [Info. Not
    Avail.], Alana Stewart [Info. Not Avail.], Joan Dangerfield [Info. Not
    Avail.], Cher [Info. Not Avail.] and Dessa Jaconson [Green]

    Updated on 3/3/2012
    94 Total
    * * *

    Ad for GoNott Search!
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html
    *Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted*
    * * *

  238. The Genius

    I have to hand it to Milnes and I think he’s actually a genius. At least his math looks pretty solid.

    Just imagine piles of bodies on Normandy Beach, and then Milnes comes along and by using the two-prong system, he suggests a plan to beat the bunker.

    The sad part, is we’re all pretty much dead at the gate anyway, as this strategy needs to be throttled ASAP to be used.

    And it really didn’t help to have our generals pretty much ordering us on this shore, when Sword Beach is the one where we’d excel.

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/12/us-parliament-open-thread/comment-page-8/#comment-329420

  239. The Genius

    “…And it really didn’t help to have our generals pretty much ordering us on this shore, when Sword Beach is the one where we’d excel….”

    Sorry, typo. Those are the IPR generals.

    The USA Parliament people respect all voters of every party/category as equals, and we ARE on Sword Beach.

  240. The Genius

    Paulie wrote:
    “Socialist Party USA: ‘Stop the Right Wing Attack on Women!’
    March 4th, 2011 · written by paulie ·…”

    Nope, Paulie didn’t write this. That’s just an automatic slug that IPR adds to whoever the IPR writer is who posts it to IPR. I’ve been at IPR long enough to know this, so I’m just making trouble.

    This article is by by Andrea Pason, Co-Chair Socialist Party USA and Kristin Schall, Chair NYC Local.

    I also know better than to keep posting as “Milnes the Genius” or any other name that leads anyone to think I am one of the other people that posts at IPR. Since I’ve been warned about this several times before, my posts will now be reviewed prior to being posted.

  241. The Gineous

    …and quit saying you’re not being paid to post, that’s probably just a smokescreen.

    You’re probably just trying to make us look dumb!

    Why don’t you chill out Paulie (or whoever you are?) and let people converse? You don’t have to frikken comment on everything under the sun.

    Everyone is dead at the D-Day lander gate in plurality elections anyway, and it’s not just the Libertarian Party.

    I mean get a grip on reality, the LP had 700+ candidates last year, and wins 0% in partisan elections year after year.

  242. Joe F.

    To: Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]
    Prime Minister Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian]
    Prime Minister Chelene Nightingale [Constitution]
    Secretary Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist]
    Cc: All Voters and Non Voters
    From: Secretary James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Subject: USA-PAR: Call for Nominations (ss12)
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss12.php

    1. HEAR YE! HEAR Ye! Call for nominations for the
    PacificNW Super-state Parliament Election (ss12) of 2011.
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss12.php

    Nominate here:
    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

    PacificNW Super State Parliament Circuit #12
    Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South
    Dakota, Washington and Wyoming

    Note: Due to the nominations and self appointments of
    more than 100 names, it is precedence to call for nominations and
    elect 100 members, executives and rules of the PacificNW Super-state
    Parliament. Need not be a resident of the ten states to qualify.

    * * *
    Ad for GoNott Search!
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html
    *Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted*
    * * *
    There are two US Parliament email lists;
    1) US-PAR: All voters, non-voters and news media
    (approx. 195 subscribers).
    2) GoNott Search Team (approx. 73 subscribers).
    -*-
    Please feel free to engage or disengage to list #s
    1) or 2) by sending the message “subscribe” or
    “unsubscribe” to joogle@gonott.com.
    * * *
    end

  243. How Does a 93.3% (14/15ths) PLAS Majority Lose at Libertarian Party (LP) Convention?

    How Does a 93.3% (14/15ths) PLAS Majority Lose at Libertarian Party (LP) Convention?
    (PLAS=progressive libertarian alliance strategy)

    By James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Stop the Tyranny of the Segregating Homogenizers!

    The LP’s rules state that the presidential and vice presidential candidates will be chosen at their national convention in Las Vegas Nevada in May of 2012 by using preference voting, i.e. ranking names with “tics” #1, #2, #3, #4, etc., etc.

    That’s where the first candidate that receives a majority tics (50% plus one vote) wins. When no name has 50% plus one vote, the names with fewer tics are eliminated one at a time (rounds), and the voters’ next choices are single transferred to the next highest ranked name round by round, until a winner has 50% plus one vote and is the elected presidential candidate.

    The process is repeated for vice president.

    How can it happen that a 14/15ths majority (93.33%) plus sixteen votes of the Libertarian Party’s conventioneers’ voters *LOSE* to a smaller majority of 50% plus one vote?

    In the following imaginary example, the majority of voters who might support the 93.33%’s names/interest groups could be based on anything: liberty to self-categorize, gender, PLAS, liberal vs conservative, Reagan Libertarian, Bush Libertarian or Gingrich Libertarian vs Anarchist/Left Libertarian, libertarian Constitutionalist, American Libertarian, Paul Libertarian, Green Libertarian, etc., etc.

    Here’s how:
    What if 14/15ths plus sixteen of the voters (93.33%+) preferred an all-female or gender balanced PLAS coalition as their top and only priority?

    Example:

    Say 12% plus one vote preferred Mary J. Ruwart [Libertarian], 12% plus one vote preferred libertarian Chelene Nightingale [Constitution], 12% plus one vote preferred libertarian Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] for president and 12% plus one vote preferred Libertarian Girl [Libertarian]. Total: 48% plus four votes.

    For vice president 10% plus one vote preferred James Burns [Libertarian], 7% plus one vote preferred libertarian Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist], 5% plus one vote preferred Bruce Cohen [Libertarian], 5% plus one vote preferred Lee Wrights [Libertarian], 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian James Ogle [Free Parliamentary], 3% plus one vote preferred Christine Smith [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian], 1% plus one vote preferred George Phillies [Libertarian], and 1% plus one vote preferred Charles Bruce Stewart [Green Libertarian], and 1% plus one vote preferred Kevin Clark [Green Libertarian], and 1% plus one vote preferred libertarian Casey Campbell [Green], and 1% plus one vote preferred Cory Nott [Libertarian]. Total: 42% plus twelve votes.

    Pretend they and their supporters all deplored Wayne Root [Libertarian] and their voters did not give Root any lower rankings at all.

    But also pretend that voters for the PLAS presidential candidates weren’t voting for the same PLAS vice presidential candidates mentioned here, and visa versa because they weren’t in communication before the convention or maybe didn’t know about PLAS.

    That’s a total of 48% plus four votes for a female for president.

    And Cohen, Milnes, Burns, Wrights, Ogle, Smith, Lightfoot, Phillies, Campbell, Stewart, Clark, Nott together makes a total of 42% plus twelve votes for vice president.

    Add up the total of the voters’ tics, and that makes the grand total 93.33% plus sixteen votes, sixteen votes over a 14/15ths majority for the PLAS team.

    That’s a total of 93.33% plus sixteen votes who did not want Root, a male for president, nor a non-PLAS candidate for president or vice president, except maybe if it were Jim Burns [Libertarian], Lee Wrights [Libertarian], Bruce Cohen [Libertarian], Christine Smith [Libertarian], Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian], George Phillies [Libertarian] Charles Bruce Stewart [Green Libertarian], Kevin Clark [Green Libertarian], Casey Campbell [Green], or Cory Nott [Libertarian], who may or may not support PLAS as a strategy. They might be lower in rankings to Milnes’ PLAS idea because of their platforms.

    But when all the votes are counted, Root wins prez with 50% plus one vote because in round one, Ruwart, Nightingale, Barr and Libertarian Girl each lost with 12% plus one vote each, and in rounds two, three and four when their names were eliminated and the voters’ 2nd, 3rd and 4th choice preference tics are single transferred (STV or single transferable vote) to the other female candidates for president, all four female candidates lost the president’s spot with a combined 48% plus four votes.

    Maybe there was an unknown outsider or two who may have been for PLAS but preferred a male for president for example, and those tics didn’t transfer over to the female PLAS team. The male PLAS candidates had split off a few votes that might have otherwise gone to the larger female PLAS team which cost the female PLAS team for president a few of the winning votes needed.

    Female PLAS loses president.

    So now it’s the election for vice president for the 14/15ths plus sixteen voters who wanted a female in a PLAS coalition and they must regroup.

    And pretend that neither Ruwart, Lightfoot, Barr, Milnes, Burns, Ogle, Wrights, Nightingale, Smith, Phillies, Cohen, Libertarian Girl, Campbell, Clark, Stewart or Nott actually wants to be Root’s VP candidate.

    But the PLAS team, having been broken down after their main plan lost, a female candidate for president, they’re feeling that their strategy isn’t working. Meanwhile, the male PLAS team is doing the same and they aren’t all working together on the same page.

    The female for president PLAS plan is half broken because Root is not a female and he’s not for PLAS.

    And all the pro-PLAS voters have to change their strategy and get aligned between the thirteen PLAS candidates: Ruwart, Lightfoot, Burns, Barr, Wrights, Ogle, Milnes, Nightingale, Smith, Phillies, Cohen, Libertarian Girl, Campbell, Clark, Stewart, Nott in order to at least win a VP spot (provided the sixteen and the other male PLAS slate, don’t stand down or walk out in protest, as their wishes and the 14/15ths plus sixteen (and the male for president PLAS group) votes of the conventioneers’ wishes are being defeated).

    But the teams are fragmented when the new vote takes place, Root gets the extra time for his usual slander* against the opposition.

    *See rules for elected presidential candidate’s free speech time before VP debate/election and see Root’s usual patterns of slanderous language.

    Being unsure, a few of the convention’s voters forget to rank all sixteen candidates as a team of alternatives for some reason, maybe they’re still not working with the male for PLAS president team, and/or else maybe other outsiders draw a few votes.

    It’s an sixteen-way split, and as each name is eliminated and the STV transferred in each round, and finally no one PLAS candidate gets 50% plus one vote. One of the PLAS names does end up with less than 50% of the total votes.

    Again they are defeated by the anti-PLAS team .

    So the Root choice (another male?) for vice president wins with 50% plus one.
    * * *

    A much bigger majority of 93.33% (14/15ths) plus sixteen votes, bigger than the 50% plus one vote required by current rules, *wanted* PLAS, a gender balanced or all-female slate and not Root at all costs, but they lost everything.

    PLAS got nothing.

    The two single winner districts allowed for Root to walk away with both seats.
    * * *

    Like it? Won’t you please help elect the PLAS coalition? Nominate YOUR name (or someone to represent you) now:
    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

  244. How Does a 93.3% (14/15ths) PLAS Majority Lose at Libertarian Party (LP) Convention?

    How Does a 93.3% (14/15ths) PLAS Majority Lose at Libertarian Party (LP) Convention?
    (PLAS=progressive libertarian alliance strategy)

    By James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Stop the Tyranny of the Segregating Homogenizers!

    The LP’s rules state that the presidential and vice presidential candidates will be chosen at their national convention in Las Vegas Nevada in May of 2012 by using preference voting, i.e. ranking names with “tics” #1, #2, #3, #4, etc., etc.

    That’s where the first candidate that receives a majority tics (50% plus one vote) wins. When no name has 50% plus one vote, the names with fewer tics are eliminated one at a time (rounds), and the voters’ next choices are single transferred to the next highest ranked name round by round, until a winner has 50% plus one vote and is the elected presidential candidate.

    The process is repeated for vice president.

    How can it happen that a 14/15ths majority (93.33%) plus sixteen votes of the Libertarian Party’s conventioneers’ voters *LOSE* to a smaller majority of 50% plus one vote?

    In the following imaginary example, the majority of voters who might support the 93.33%’s names/interest groups could be based on anything: liberty to self-categorize, gender, PLAS, liberal vs conservative, Reagan Libertarian, Bush Libertarian or Gingrich Libertarian vs Anarchist/Left Libertarian, libertarian Constitutionalist, American Libertarian, Paul Libertarian, Green Libertarian, etc., etc.

    Here’s how:
    What if 14/15ths plus sixteen of the voters (93.33%+) preferred an all-female or gender balanced PLAS coalition as their top and only priority?

    Example:

    Say 12% plus one vote preferred Mary J. Ruwart [Libertarian], 12% plus one vote preferred libertarian Chelene Nightingale [Constitution], 12% plus one vote preferred libertarian Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] for president and 12% plus one vote preferred Libertarian Girl [Libertarian]. Total: 48% plus four votes.

    For vice president 10% plus one vote preferred James Burns [Libertarian], 7% plus one vote preferred libertarian Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist], 5% plus one vote preferred Bruce Cohen [Libertarian], 5% plus one vote preferred Lee Wrights [Libertarian], 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian James Ogle [Free Parliamentary], 3% plus one vote preferred Christine Smith [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian], 1% plus one vote preferred George Phillies [Libertarian], and 1% plus one vote preferred Charles Bruce Stewart [Green Libertarian], and 1% plus one vote preferred Kevin Clark [Green Libertarian], and 1% plus one vote preferred libertarian Casey Campbell [Green], and 1% plus one vote preferred Cory Nott [Libertarian]. Total: 42% plus twelve votes.

    Pretend they and their supporters all deplored Wayne Root [Libertarian] and their voters did not give Root any lower rankings at all.

    But also pretend that voters for the PLAS presidential candidates weren’t voting for the same PLAS vice presidential candidates mentioned here, and visa versa because they weren’t in communication before the convention or maybe didn’t know about PLAS.

    That’s a total of 48% plus four votes for a female for president.

    And Cohen, Milnes, Burns, Wrights, Ogle, Smith, Lightfoot, Phillies, Campbell, Stewart, Clark, Nott together makes a total of 42% plus twelve votes for vice president.

    Add up the total of the voters’ tics, and that makes the grand total 93.33% plus sixteen votes, sixteen votes over a 14/15ths majority for the PLAS team.

    That’s a total of 93.33% plus sixteen votes who did not want Root, a male for president, nor a non-PLAS candidate for president or vice president, except maybe if it were Jim Burns [Libertarian], Lee Wrights [Libertarian], Bruce Cohen [Libertarian], Christine Smith [Libertarian], Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian], George Phillies [Libertarian] Charles Bruce Stewart [Green Libertarian], Kevin Clark [Green Libertarian], Casey Campbell [Green], or Cory Nott [Libertarian], who may or may not support PLAS as a strategy. They might be lower in rankings to Milnes’ PLAS idea because of their platforms.

    But when all the votes are counted, Root wins prez with 50% plus one vote because in round one, Ruwart, Nightingale, Barr and Libertarian Girl each lost with 12% plus one vote each, and in rounds two, three and four when their names were eliminated and the voters’ 2nd, 3rd and 4th choice preference tics are single transferred (STV or single transferable vote) to the other female candidates for president, all four female candidates lost the president’s spot with a combined 48% plus four votes.

    Maybe there was an unknown outsider or two who may have been for PLAS but preferred a male for president for example, and those tics didn’t transfer over to the female PLAS team. The male PLAS candidates had split off a few votes that might have otherwise gone to the larger female PLAS team which cost the female PLAS team for president a few of the winning votes needed.

    Female PLAS loses president.

    So now it’s the election for vice president for the 14/15ths plus sixteen voters who wanted a female in a PLAS coalition and they must regroup.

    And pretend that neither Ruwart, Lightfoot, Barr, Milnes, Burns, Ogle, Wrights, Nightingale, Smith, Phillies, Cohen, Libertarian Girl, Campbell, Clark, Stewart or Nott actually wants to be Root’s VP candidate.

    But the PLAS team, having been broken down after their main plan lost, a female candidate for president, they’re feeling that their strategy isn’t working. Meanwhile, the male PLAS team is doing the same and they aren’t all working together on the same page.

    The female for president PLAS plan is half broken because Root is not a female and he’s not for PLAS.

    And all the pro-PLAS voters have to change their strategy and get aligned between the thirteen PLAS candidates: Ruwart, Lightfoot, Burns, Barr, Wrights, Ogle, Milnes, Nightingale, Smith, Phillies, Cohen, Libertarian Girl, Campbell, Clark, Stewart, Nott in order to at least win a VP spot (provided the sixteen and the other male PLAS slate, don’t stand down or walk out in protest, as their wishes and the 14/15ths plus sixteen (and the male for president PLAS group) votes of the conventioneers’ wishes are being defeated).

    But the teams are fragmented when the new vote takes place, Root gets the extra time for his usual slander* against the opposition.

    *See rules for elected presidential candidate’s free speech time before VP debate/election and see Root’s usual patterns of slanderous language.

    Being unsure, a few of the convention’s voters forget to rank all sixteen candidates as a team of alternatives for some reason, maybe they’re still not working with the male for PLAS president team, and/or else maybe other outsiders draw a few votes.

    It’s an sixteen-way split, and as each name is eliminated and the STV transferred in each round, and finally no one PLAS candidate gets 50% plus one vote. One of the PLAS names does end up with less than 50% of the total votes.

    Again they are defeated by the anti-PLAS team .

    So the Root choice (another male?) for vice president wins with 50% plus one.
    * * *

    A much bigger majority of 93.33% (14/15ths) plus sixteen votes, bigger than the 50% plus one vote required by current rules, *wanted* PLAS, a gender balanced or all-female slate and not Root at all costs, but they lost everything.

    PLAS got nothing.

    The two single winner districts allowed for Root to walk away with both seats.
    * * *

    Like it? Won’t you please help elect the PLAS coalition? Nominate YOUR name (or someone to represent you) now:
    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

  245. Pluralist Idea vs Proportionalist Idea

    Pluralist: Presidential Package 2011

    Jim Duensing
    Lee Wrights
    James L. Burns
    Wayne Root

    Proportionalist: 1/12th Presidential Package 2011

    Parliament Circuit #12
    Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington and Wyoming

    Mike Hunt [Alaskan Independence], Brent Mooneyham [Independent], Jerrett Crews [Party], Zambla [None], Diane Wehman [Info. Not Avail.], Emory Rogers [Hemp], Alfred Keys Allen [Info. Not Avail.], Marcellius Smith [Parliament], Amanda R. [Green], Paul Go [Green], Mary Kelsen [Pot], Kieth Ray Elam [Forever], Charles Bruce Stewart [Green Libertarian], Megan Ross [Pot], Frank Skroh [Libertarian], Anthony Zenobi [Libertarian], Craig Groves [Democratic], Peter Stone [Democratic], Barbara Whitt [Democratic], Christopher Rose [Christian Falangist], Grady Brown [Independent], John Richardson [Independent], Philip Noriega [Labor], Jeffrey Beaman [Marijuana], Travis Johnson [Pot], Mike Malchant [Republican], Shawn Nichols [Socialist], Dylan Wiles [Socialist], Mike Jones [Republican], Evil Dude [Pot], Quinton Price [Anarchist], James Nelson [National Veterans Freedom], Vincent Portulano [Democratic], Kevin Clark [Green Libertarian], Jennifer Pentland [Info. Not Avail.], Becky Richardson [Info. Not Avail.], Helen Barr [Info. Not Avail.], Geraldine Barr [Info. Not Avail.], Brandi Brown [Info. Not Avail.], Jessica Oronoz [Info. Not Avail.], Marcia Ray [Info. Not Avail.], Ruth Mccartney [Info. Not Avail.], Angie Mccartney [Info. Not Avail.], Lauren Korba [Info. Not Avail.], Cathy Bilsky [Info. Not Avail.], DJ Tenn. [Info. Not Avail.], Lisa Clampitt [Green Tea], Tina Fay [Info. Not Avail.], Robert Greenwald [Info. Not Avail.], Cathy Obrien [Info. Not Avail.], Mark Phillips [Info. Not Avail.], Dr.Colin Ross [Info. Not Avail.], Noam Chomsky [Info. Not Avail.], Scott Pelligrino [Info. Not Avail.], Randy Credico [Info. Not Avail.], Madea Benjamin [Info. Not Avail.], Yehuda Berg [Info. Not Avail.], Jim Cortez [Info. Not Avail.], Blossom Eaglefeather [Info. Not Avail.], Alice Walker [Info. Not Avail.], Laura Wells [Green], Gary G. Kreep [Info. Not Avail.], Michael “Savage” Weiner [Info. Not Avail.], Todd M. Palin [Info. Not Avail.], Roy Moore [Info. Not Avail.], Sheriff Mack [Info. Not Avail.], Barry Goldwater Jr. [Info. Not Avail.], Tom Tancredo [Constitution], Chuck Baldwin [Constitution], Bob Barr [Libertarian], Virgil Goode [Constitution], Starchild [Libertarian], Randy Eshelman [Libertarian], Sam Goldstein [Libertarian], Doug Craig [Libertarian], Jerome Corsi [Constitution], Darrell Castle [Constitution], Mary Starrett [Constitution], Ed Vallejo [Libertarian], Bruce Majors [Libertarian], Matt Cholko [Libertarian], Bruce Cohen [Libertarian], Libertarian Girl [Libertarian], Teri Owens [Constitution], Janine Hansen [Constitution], Mary Hunt [Info. Not Avail.], Jane Caputi [Info. Not Avail.], JZ Knight [Info. Not Avail.], Jane Fonda [Info. Not Avail.], Colleen Camp [Info. Not Avail.], Alana Stewart [Info. Not Avail.], Joan Dangerfield [Info. Not Avail.], Cher [Info. Not Avail.], Dessa Jacobson [Green], Lloyd Llewellyn [Flying Saucer], Zachary Scott Gordon [American Libertarian], J.R. Myers [Constitution], Scott Kohlaas [Libertarian], Jim Burns [Libertarian], Roseanne Barr [Green Tea], Dashas Christ [Roseannarchist], John Argent [Roseannearchist], PJ [Roseannearchist], Lady Jane Green [Roseannearchist], Tippy Canoe [Roseannearchist], Jane Violet [Roseannearchist], Tina [Roseannarchist], Dizzy Loo [Constitutional Monarchist] and Carey Campbell [Green]

    Updated on 3/5/2012
    109 Total

  246. Pluralists: "Hurry up and don't work together..."

    Paulie wrote: “At least he gets face time on the news talk shows and gets money for doing his “Obama thing,” what do the Root critics at IPR get for doing their “Root Thing”? A warm feeling in the dark? A goatse award?”

    Me: What do we get? We get to define and elect the team players to the cool team.

  247. Pluralists: "Hurry up and don't work together..."

    GooGoo/Barr Report
    3/8/2011
    Gold at $1427.10
    http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2011/02/parliamentary-elections.php#comments-content

    PLAS: Wanted, Your Name for President

    Like-minded Roseannearchists, Green Teas, Free Parliamentarians, Anarchists, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, Independents, etc., etc., are being called on to run for US President and/or Vice President with Labor Minister Angela Keaton [Ordinary Anarchist].

    Please reply to this post to self-nominate.

    –James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    volunteer vote counter

  248. Pluralists: "Hurry up and don't work together..."

    Jordon Greene:
    “1. Reduce the number of signatures a new political party would need to obtain ballot access by eliminating the percentage based requirement and instituting a flat number requirement of 10,000 signatures for access to the ballot.”

    Me: Translation: “call me when you’re 10,000 people.”

  249. How Does a 96% (24/25ths) PLAS Majority Lose?

    How Does a 96% (24/25ths) PLAS Majority Lose at Libertarian Party (LP) Convention?
    (PLAS=progressive libertarian alliance strategy)

    By James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Stop the Tyranny of the Segregating Homogenizers!

    The LP’s rules state that the presidential and vice presidential candidates will be chosen at their national convention in Las Vegas Nevada in May of 2012 by using preference voting, i.e. ranking names with “tics” #1, #2, #3, #4, etc., etc.

    That’s where the first candidate that receives a majority tics (50% plus one vote) wins. When no name has 50% plus one vote, the names with fewer tics are eliminated one at a time (rounds), and the voters’ next choices on the marked ballots are single transferred to the next highest ranked name round by round, until a winner has 50% plus one vote and is the elected presidential candidate.

    The process is repeated for vice president.

    How can it happen that a 24/25ths PLAS majority (96%) plus twenty-four votes of the Libertarian Party’s conventioneers’ voters *LOSE* to a smaller majority of 50% plus one vote?

    In the following imaginary example, the majority of voters who might support the 96%’s names/interest groups could be based on anything: liberty to self-categorize, gender, PLAS, liberal vs conservative, Reagan Libertarian, Bush Libertarian or Gingrich Libertarian vs Anarchist/Left Libertarian, libertarian Constitutionalist, American Libertarian, Paul Libertarian, Green Libertarian, etc., etc.

    Example:

    Say 5% plus one vote preferred Mary J. Ruwart [Libertarian], 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian Chelene Nightingale [Constitution], 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] for president, 5% plus one vote preferred Libertarian Girl [Libertarian], 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian Dashas Christ [Roseannarchist], 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian Dizzy Loo [Constitutional Monarchist], 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian Angela Keaton [Ordinary Anarchist], 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian Vanessa Moreley [Defender of the Republic] and 4% plus one vote preferred libertarian Stephanie Burns [Republican] . Total: 49% plus nine votes.

    For vice president 8% plus one vote preferred James Burns [Libertarian], 8% plus one vote preferred libertarian Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist], 3% plus one vote preferred Bruce Cohen [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred Lee Wrights [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred libertarian James Ogle [Free Parliamentary], 2% plus one vote preferred Christine Smith [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred George Phillies [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred Charles Bruce Stewart [Green Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred Kevin Clark [Green Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred libertarian Casey Campbell [Green], 2% plus one vote preferred Cory Nott [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred David Bell [Commonwealth], 2% plus one vote preferred Mark Hinkle [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred Darryl Perry [Boston Tea], 2% plus one vote preferred Jim Doyle [Republican], and 2% plus one vote preferred David Olkkola [Democratic]

    Total: 47% plus seventeen votes.

    Pretend they and their supporters all deplored Wayne Root [Libertarian] and their voters did not give Root or any lower rankings at all, but Wayne Root [Libertarian] does have 50% plus one vote support, when all other non-PLAS candidates are eliminated.

    Of course, there were other candidates that weren’t on the same page or plan, but they aren’t included here for simplicity.

    So, that’s a total of 49% plus nine votes for a female for president.

    And all the PLAS candidates total 47% plus seventeen votes for vice president.

    Add up the total of the voters’ tics, and that makes the grand total 96% plus twenty-five votes, well over a 24/25ths (or 96%) majority for the PLAS team.

    That’s a total of 96% plus twenty-five votes who did not want Root, a male for president, nor a non-PLAS candidate for president or vice president.

    But when all the votes are counted, Root wins prez with 50% plus one vote because in round one, all the female candidates for president each lost with 2% plus one vote each, and in the rounds that followed, as each of their names were eliminated one by one, and the voters’ 2nd, 3rd and 4th (and so on) choices of preference ranked tics are single transferred (STV or single transferable vote) to the other female candidates for president, all nine female candidates lost the president’s spot with a combined 49% plus nine votes.

    Female PLAS loses president.

    So now it’s the election for vice president for the 24/25ths plus twenty-five voters who wanted a female in a PLAS coalition and they must regroup, but none actually wants to be Root’s VP candidate. The female for president PLAS plan is half broken because Root is not a female and he’s not for PLAS.

    And all the pro-PLAS voters have to change their strategy and get aligned between the thirteen PLAS candidates in order to at least win a VP spot (provided the twenty-five of the PLAS slate don’t stand down or walk out in protest, as their wishes and the 96% plus twenty-five votes of the conventioneers’ wishes for PLAS are being defeated.

    But the teams are fragmented when the new vote takes place, Root gets the extra time for his usual slander* against the opposition.

    *See rules for elected presidential candidate’s free speech time before VP debate/election and see Root’s usual patterns of slanderous language.

    Being unsure, a few of the convention’s voters forget to rank all twenty-five candidates as a team of alternatives for some reason, maybe they’re still not working with the male for PLAS president team, and/or else maybe other outsiders draw a few votes.

    It’s an twenty-five split, and as each name is eliminated and the STV transferred in each round, no one PLAS candidate gets 50% plus one vote. One of the PLAS names does end up with less than 50% of the total votes.

    Again they are defeated by the anti-PLAS team .

    So the Root choice (another male?) for vice president wins with 50% plus one.
    * * *

    In sum, a much bigger majority of 96% (24/25ths) plus twenty-five votes, bigger than the 50% plus one vote required by current rules, *wanted* PLAS, a gender balanced or all-female slate and not Root at all costs, but they lost everything.

    PLAS got nothing.

    The two single winner districts allowed for Root to walk away with both seats.
    * * *

    Like it? Won’t you please help elect the PLAS coalition? Nominate YOUR name (or someone to represent you) now:
    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

  250. How Does a 96% (24/25ths) PLAS Majority Lose?

    GooGoo/Barr Report
    3/11/2011
    Gold at $1411.03

    1. Queen Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] Elected
    2. Cabinet to be Doubled to Twenty-four Full Ministers
    3. Shadow Consulate Diplomats Ambassador of Tahiti
    * * *

    1. Queen Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] Elected
    http://www.usparliament.org/c-v-1.php

    Members of parliament; MP Ralph Hoffmann [Democratic-Republican], MP Lawrence Samuels [Libertarian] and MP PRAVDA McCroskey [Democratic] approved rules by ranking them 1-34 on 3/10/2011, thus electing the USA Parliament’s Royalty, Queen Roseanne the First.

    Coronation will take place on April 1st, 2011.
    * * *

    2. Cabinet to be Doubled to Twenty-four Full Ministers

    Members of parliament; MP Ralph Hoffmann [Democratic-Republican], MP Lawrence Samuels [Libertarian] and MP PRAVDA McCroskey [Democratic] approved rules by ranking them 1-34 on 3/10/2011, thus paving the way for doubling all Cabinets from twelve full ministers to twenty-four, effective April 1st, 2011.
    * * *

    3. Shadow Consulate Diplomats Ambassador of Tahiti

    A Shadow Consulate of Ambassadors has been created, with Honorable Ambassador Dizzy Loo [Constitutional Monarchist] appointed as first Ambassador.
    http://www.usparliament.org/foreignministry.php
    * * *

  251. VH Re: PLAS

    How Does a 96% (24/25ths) PLAS Majority Lose at Libertarian Party (LP) Convention?
    (PLAS=progressive libertarian alliance strategy)

    By James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Stop the Tyranny of the Segregating Homogenizers!

    The LP’s rules state that the presidential and vice presidential candidates will be chosen at their national convention in Las Vegas Nevada in May of 2012 by using preference voting, i.e. ranking names with “tics” #1, #2, #3, #4, etc., etc.

    That’s where the first candidate that receives a majority tics (50% plus one vote) wins. When no name has 50% plus one vote, the names with fewer tics are eliminated one at a time (rounds), and the voters’ next choices on the marked ballots are single transferred to the next highest ranked name round by round, until a winner has 50% plus one vote and is the elected presidential candidate.

    The process is repeated for vice president.

    How can it happen that a 24/25ths PLAS majority (96%) plus twenty-four votes of the Libertarian Party’s conventioneers’ voters *LOSE* to a smaller majority of 50% plus one vote?

    In the following imaginary example, the majority of voters who might support the 96%’s names/interest groups could be based on anything: liberty to self-categorize, gender, PLAS, liberal vs conservative, Reagan Libertarian, Bush Libertarian or Gingrich Libertarian vs Anarchist/Left Libertarian, libertarian Constitutionalist, American Libertarian, Paul Libertarian, Green Libertarian, etc., etc.

    Example:

    Of the PLAS friendly candidates’ names, say 5% plus one vote preferred Mary J. Ruwart [Libertarian], 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian Chelene Nightingale [Constitution], 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] for president, 5% plus one vote preferred Libertarian Girl [Libertarian], 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian Dashas Christ [Rose-anarchist], 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian Dizzy Loo [Constitutional Monarchist], 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian Angela Keaton [Ordinary Anarchist], 5% plus one vote preferred libertarian Vanessa Moreley [Defender of the Republic] and 4% plus one vote preferred libertarian Stephanie Burns [Republican] . Total: 49% plus nine votes.

    The PLAS friendly name for vice president 8% plus one vote preferred James Burns [Libertarian], 8% plus one vote preferred libertarian Robert Milnes [Left Anarchist], 3% plus one vote preferred Bruce Cohen [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred Lee Wrights [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred libertarian James Ogle [Free Parliamentary], 2% plus one vote preferred Christine Smith [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred George Phillies [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred Charles Bruce Stewart [Green Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred Kevin Clark [Green Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred libertarian Casey Campbell [Green], 2% plus one vote preferred Cory Nott [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred David Bell [Commonwealth], 2% plus one vote preferred Mark Hinkle [Libertarian], 2% plus one vote preferred Darryl Perry [Boston Tea], 2% plus one vote preferred Jim Doyle [Republican], and 2% plus one vote preferred David Olkkola [Democratic].

    Total: 47% plus seventeen votes.

    Pretend they and their supporters all deplored Wayne Root [Libertarian] and their voters did not give Root or any lower rankings at all, but Wayne Root [Libertarian] does have 50% plus one vote support, when all other non-PLAS candidates are eliminated as Root gets their lower ranked numbers.

    Of course, there were other candidates that weren’t on the same page or plan, but they aren’t included here for simplicity.

    So, that’s a total of 49% plus nine votes for a female for president.

    And all the PLAS candidates total 47% plus seventeen votes for vice president.

    Add up the total of the voters’ tics, and that makes the grand total 96% plus twenty-five votes, well over a 24/25ths (or 96%) majority for the PLAS team.

    That’s a total of 96% plus twenty-five votes who did not want Root, a male for president, nor a non-PLAS candidate for president or vice president.

    But when all the votes are counted, Root wins prez with 50% plus one vote because in round one, all the female candidates for president each lost with 2% plus one vote each, and in the rounds that followed, as each of their names were eliminated one by one, and the voters’ 2nd, 3rd and 4th (and so on) choices of preference ranked tics are single transferred (STV or single transferable vote) to the other female candidates for president, all nine female candidates lost the president’s spot with a combined 49% plus nine votes.

    Female PLAS loses president.

    So now it’s the election for vice president for the 24/25ths plus twenty-five voters who wanted a female in a PLAS coalition and they must regroup, but none actually wants to be Root’s VP candidate. The female for president PLAS plan is half broken because Root is not a female and he’s not for PLAS.

    And all the pro-PLAS voters have to change their strategy and get aligned between the twenty-five PLAS candidates in order to at least win a VP spot (provided the twenty-five of the PLAS slate don’t stand down or walk out in protest, as their wishes and the 96% plus twenty-five votes of the conventioneers’ wishes for PLAS are being defeated).

    But the teams are fragmented when the new vote takes place, Root gets the extra time for his usual slander* against the opposition.

    *See rules for elected presidential candidate’s free speech time before VP debate/election and see Root’s usual patterns of slanderous language.

    Being unsure, a few of the convention’s voters forget to rank all twenty-five candidates as a team of alternatives for some reason, maybe they’re still not working with the male for PLAS president team, and/or else maybe other outsiders draw a few votes.

    It’s a twenty-five-way split, and as each name is eliminated and the STV transferred in each round, no one PLAS candidate gets 50% plus one vote. One of the PLAS names does end up with less than 50% of the total votes.

    Again they are defeated by the anti-PLAS team .

    So the Root choice (another male?) for vice president wins with 50% plus one.
    * * *

    In sum, a much bigger majority of 96% (24/25ths) plus twenty-five votes, bigger than the 50% plus one vote required by current rules, *wanted* PLAS, a gender balanced or all-female slate and not Root at all costs, but they lost everything.

    PLAS got nothing.

    The two single winner districts allowed for Root to walk away with both seats.
    * * *

    Like it? Won’t you please help elect the PLAS coalition? Nominate YOUR name (or someone to represent you) now:
    http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php

  252. GooGoo/Barr Report

    GooGoo/Barr Report
    3/13/2011
    Gold at $1419.60

    1. “Roseannearchist” Party Correct Spelling
    2. Roseannearchists Situation Not Good
    * * *

    1. Roseannearchist Party Correct Spelling

    After flirting with the new spelling, the US Parliament’s spelling of Roseannarchist Party will revert to original spelling.
    * * *

    2. Roseannearchists Situation Not Good

    The situation is not good for Roseannearchist Party in 2011 and 2012.

    The party will hold the top six of the twenty-four Full Ministries, and the Ordinary Anarchist make seven:

    Speaker Minister John Argent [Roseannearchist]
    Secretary of State Minister PJ [Roseannearchist]
    PLAS Minister Dashus Christ [Roseannearchist]
    Senate Minister Lady Jane Green [Roseannearchist]
    IRS Minister Tippy Canoe [Roseannearchist]
    Foreign Minister Jane Violet [Roseannearchist]
    Labor Minister Angela Keaton [Ordinary Anarchist]

    However the reality on the ground is that at current pace, Battle of the Bulge is not expected for 175,000 years in the future.

    Too Little, Too Late

    While the Full Cabinet Ministers’ names will likely qualify and be on the ballot for the national 8th USA Parliament Election, elected to the national BoD of the 9th USA Parliament and thus be eligible to be voting members of the ruling coalition, it’s a case of “too little, too late”.

    The only possible scenario for going faster at this time for the Roseannearchist Party will be in 2011, to somehow become a viable voter registration drive perhaps with the All Party System (and independents).

    So far that’s not happening and so all other routes must be explored.
    * * *

  253. GooGoo/Barr Report

    GooGoo/Barr Report
    3/15/2011
    Gold at $1397.66
    http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2011/02/parliamentary-elections.php

    1. Butte County Micro-state Parliament
    2. Central California Mini-state Parliament
    * * *

    1. Butte County Micro-state Parliament

    Three Self Appointments to Butte County Micro-state Parliament
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss11-1-2.php

    Reverend Chuck Duncan [Green], Virgil Hales [Green-Pot-Christ], James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    * * *

    2. Central California Mini-state Parliament

    Music, sound and free speech permits secured by Monterey County Libertarian Party chair MP Lawrence Samuels [Libertarian] for the July 4th picnic.

    Nominee Peck the Town Crier is expected to perform. Please see his song “Underwear”:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ded4kp5BWsE
    * * *

  254. Constitution/Greene National Coalition

    GooGoo/Barr Report
    3/17/2011
    Gold at $1399.50

    1. Nominations to the Central California Parliament Mini-state Parliament (ss11-1)

    Mary Starrett [Constitution] nominated by Nathan Johnson on 3/16/2011
    Darrell Castle [Constitution] nominated by Nathan Johnson on 3/16/2011
    Virgil Goode [Constitution] nominated by Nathan Johnson on 3/16/2011

    Get more information at:
    http://www.roseanneworld.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=e8d4f7c3d6b1842e17376f22898d6d4f

  255. Steven R Linnabary

    WOW!! Just wow.

    This whole thread takes the “rambling incoherent statement” to a whole new level!

    PEACE

  256. The Promise of Democracy

    GooGoo/Barr Report
    3/22/2011
    Gold at $1426.76

    http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2011/02/parliamentary-elections.php#comment-11294

    1. AIP Chair Self Nominates for Prez/VP
    2. Comments from Queen2B Roseanne the First
    * * *

    1. AIP Chair Self Nominates for Prez/VP
    Jordon Greene ,
    Chelene Nightingale ,
    Nathan Sorenson ,
    Prime Minister Gail Lightfoot ,
    Gary Odom ,
    “MP Don J. Grundmann” ,
    MSP Don Lake
    dateTue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:06 AM
    subjectPacificNW AIP Presidential Nominee Self Nominates
    mailed-bygmail.com
    hide details 8:06 AM (4 minutes ago)
    To: Jordon Greene [Free the Vote], chair
    Prime Minister Chelene Nightingale [Constitution]
    Spectrum Minister Nathan Sorenson [Christian Independent]
    Prime Minister Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian]
    Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]
    Gary Odom [Constitution]
    Prime Minister Don J. Grundmann [Constitution]
    Prime Minister Don Lake [American Independent]
    From: Secretary James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Subject: PacificNW AIP Presidential Nominee Self Nominates
    Greetings!
    I wasn’t sure if the email got through, so I’m sending another.
    Spectrum Minister Nathan Sorenson [Christian Independent], US Presidential candidate and chair of
    the nation’s largest splinter group, the California American Independent Party (417,000+ members)
    has self nominated his name for president/vice president of the PacificNW Super-state Parliament.
    The PacificNW Super-state Parliament is one of twelve population balanced regions of the USA Parliament,
    with states of Hawaii, Oregon, Nevada and nine others states of the US.
    It is hoped that Jordon Greene’s Free the Vote Party will distribute the reproducible ballot at the
    national Constitution Party’s convention.
    AIP presidential/vice presidential candidate Gary G. Kreep [American Independent] has not
    been nominated, and could not be reached at his office (760-787-9907).
    For additional nominations, corrections and/or improvements, please contact parliament
    secretary James Ogle [Free Parliamentary] at 415-686-1996.
    April first 2011 represents a big day for the 8th USA Parliament, the Coronation of Queen Roseanne the First [Green Tea] and the release of the shiny new currency,
    the QRN (Queen Roseanne Note) will both be implemented.
    We look forward to the new year.
    Best,
    –James
    * * *
    2. Comments from Queen2B Roseanne the First
    PM Barr [Green Tea] wrote:
    Genesis 1:3
    “??????????? ????????, ????? ?????? ?????? ?????????”,
    “and God separated the light from the darkness”
    The secret of this verse is in Genesis 1:5
    “?????????? ???????? ?????? ????, ??????????? ????? ???????; ???????-????? ???????-?????, ???? ????? ”
    “And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.”
    Light and darkness were separated on the first day but for the purpose of creating a world of Tikkun, for us to work in bringing them together as one.
    Morning is Abraham, right column and light of Chessed. Evening is Isaac, left column and Gevurah.
    “One day” is the aspect of the central column that represents the unity of the right and the left.
    In our reality we can’t have day without night. Our work is to bring the light of the day into the night, darkness, and make them “One day”, which is continuous presence of the Light. When we do so we create a key to the door that separates above and below and lets the Shechinah, the Queen of Malchut, gain access to the King above.
    * * *

  257. USA Parliament: Last Call for Nominations 3/31/2011

    To: Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]
    Prime Minister Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian]
    Prime Minister Chelene Nightingale [Constitution]
    Secretary Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist]
    Cc: All Voters and Non Voters
    From: Secretary James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Subject: USP: Absolutely the Last Call for Nominations
    * * *

    Note: Please feel free to engage or disengage
    from this communication link by sending the message “subscribe” or “unsubscribe” to joogle@gonott.com.
    OK to “reply all”.
    New: Anonymous forwarder now available upon request.
    http://www.usparliament.org/
    415-686-1996
    * * *

    1. Absolutely the Last Call for Nominations
    2. Many Nominations Disqualified
    3. All Parties Working Together
    * * *

    1. Absolutely the Last Call for Nominations

    Hear YE! HEAR Ye! HEAR ye!

    This is absolutely the last call for nominations for the Central California Mini-state Parliament (ss11-6) and PacificNW Super-state Parliament’s (ss12) Elections of 2011. Please email your nomination before April 1st 2011 to joogle@gonott.con, call 415-686-1996 or click on Vote Here at http://www.usparliament.org/votehere.php to nominate.

    Here are samples of nominees thus far. Be sure to nominate your name now, to get a spot on the pure proportional representation (PR) 8th USA
    Parliament election!

    Sample nominations for ss11-6:
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss11-6.php
    ___ Herb [affiliated]
    ___ Rob Pace [All of the Above]
    ___ George Raptis [All of the Above]
    ___ Kyle Buchoff [Alpha-Strike Squared]
    ___ Nathan Johnson [American Independent]
    ___ Zachary Scott Gordon [American Libertarian]
    ___ Colipse Dekrin [Bong]
    ___ Darryl W. Perry [Boston Tea]
    ___ Kayla Maiorana [Buddha]
    ___ Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist]
    ___ Daniel David Gentry [Catholic Trotskyist]
    ___ KeyKay Fisher [Celtic Green Team]
    ___ Nathan Sorenson [Christian Independent]
    ___ Anthony Morris [Chronic]
    ___ Damian Wallace [Chronic]
    ___ John Buchanan [Citizen Candidate]
    ___ Peck the Town Crier [Common Thread]
    ___ Don J. Grundmann [Constitution]
    ___ Chelene Nightingale [Constitution]
    ___ Don Grundmann [Constitution]
    ___ J.R. Myers [Constitution]
    ___ Mary Starrett [Constitution]
    ___ Darrell Castle [Constitution]
    ___ Virgil Goode [Constitution]
    ___ Dizzy Loo [Constitutional Monarchist]
    ___ Vanessa Morley [Defender of the Republic]
    ___ Dale Rutledge [Democratic]
    ___ Ron Slack [Democratic]
    ___ Jim Winter [Democratic]
    ___ Chad Van Schoelandt [Discordian]
    ___ Joshua Norton [Discordian]
    ___ Anthony W. Robinson [Environmentalist]
    ___ Patrick Seats [Environmentalist]
    ___ Maria LeBlanc [Environmentalist Marijuana]
    ___ Mike Bogatirev [Environmentalist]
    ___ Lloyd Llewellyn [Flying Saucer]
    ___ Robert Bruce [Four-twenty]
    ___ James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    ___ Laura Booth [Free Parliamentary]
    ___ Daniel Penisten [Free Parliament]
    ___ Darren Courtney [Free Democratic]
    ___ Alex Bogatirev [Fungus]
    ___ Erik Langslet [Goodness of Ganja]
    ___ Pat Conlan [Goodness of Ganja]
    ___ Oliver Bates [Green]
    ___ Shasta McDowell [Green]
    ___ Gwen Green [Green]
    ___ Kephas Haines [Green]
    ___ Dan Homer [Green]
    ___ Carolyn L. Miller [Green]
    ___ Rachel Kupperman [Green]
    ___ Kim Corbin [Green]
    ___ Madea Benjamin [Green]
    ___ Dessa Jacobson [Green]
    ___ Carey Campbell [Green]
    ___ Kevin Clark [Green Libertarian]
    ___ Virgil Hales [Green-Pot-Christ]
    ___ Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]
    ___ Lisa Clampitt [Green Tea]
    ___ Heather McLeskey [Hemp]
    ___ Kristine Goodwin [Hempess]
    ___ Andrew Lamb [Huffle Puffel]
    ___ Bob Friedman [Independent]
    ___ Mathew Hellinger [Independent]
    ___ Richard Chereton [Info Not Avail.]
    ___ Laura [Info Not Avail.]
    ___ Don Barletta [Info Not Avail.]
    ___ James Carl [Info Not Avail.]
    ___ Jennifer Pentland [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Becky Richardson [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Helen Barr [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Geraldine Barr [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Brandi Brown [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Jessica Oronoz [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Tina Fay [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Alice Walker [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Marcia Ray [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Ruth Mccartney [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Blossom Eaglefeather [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Yehuda Berg [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Angie Mccartney [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Lauren Korba [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ DJ Tenn [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Cathy Bilsky [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Robert Greenwald [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Cathy Obrien [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Mark Phillips [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Cher [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Alana Stewart [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Jane Fonda [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Dr.Colin Ross [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Dorah Nesoba [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian]
    ___ Brandon Smith [Libertarian]
    ___ Cory Nott [Libertarian]
    ___ James Freedner [Libertarian]
    ___ Marie Huynh [Libertarian]
    ___ Lazarus [Libertarian]
    ___ Kevin Takenaga [Libertarian]
    ___ Daniel Imperato [Libertarian]
    ___ Loretta Nall [Libertarian/Marijuana]
    ___ Jane Heider [Libertarian]
    ___ Lawrence Samuels [Libertarian]
    ___ David Henderson [Libertarian]
    ___ Scott Kohlaas [Libertarian]
    ___ Jim Burns [Libertarian]
    ___ David L. Wetzell [LT Party Movement]
    ___ Kevin Cruz [Marijuana]
    ___ Eric Myrtle [Marijuana]
    ___ Kevin Fitzgerald [Marijuana]
    ___ Michael Gruber [Marijuana]
    ___ Ben Sanders [Marijuana]
    ___ Curtis Rivers [Marijuana]
    ___ Eldridge Shelton [Marijuana]
    ___ Kyle Good [Musician]
    ___ JR Damon [Musician/Skateboard]
    ___ Jason Baker [N/A]
    ___ Dr. Loveless [National Barking Spider Resurgence]
    ___ Joseph Love [NE14AJ]
    ___ Noam Chomsky [New]
    ___ Lori Bobko [None]
    ___ Jared Casias [Nonpolitical]
    ___ Ron Coolidge [Non-pot-smoking Christians]
    ___ Michael Savage [Old Testament]
    ___ Sonne Reyna [One World]
    ___ Angela Keaton [Ordinary Anarchist]
    ___ Norma Harrison [Peace and Freedom]
    ___ Christine Woyatzky [Peace and Freedom]
    ___ Susan Cruz [Peace and Freedom]
    ___ Lucian Myron [Polyglot]
    ___ David Frey [Populist Socialist]
    ___ Jason Sherry [Pot/Anarchist]
    ___ Cecelia Barajas [Pot]
    ___ Jorge Gonzalez [Pot]
    ___ Elizabeth Torrez [Pot]
    ___ Edlyn Alanis [Pot]
    ___ Michael Bailey [Pot]
    ___ Mario Castellaros [Pot]
    ___ David Coronado [Pot]
    ___ Lucille Fowler [Pot]
    ___ Mike Schoennoehl [Pot]
    ___ Matt Skipwith [Pot]
    ___ Richie Childers [Pot]
    ___ Andrea Cruz [Pot]
    ___ Kristine Danska [Pot]
    ___ Josh Francis [Pot]
    ___ Memo Gonzales [Pot]
    ___ Nate Brown [Pot]
    ___ Ron Paul [Republican]
    ___ Jim Doyle [Republican]
    ___ Sarah Palin [Republican]
    ___ John Argent [Roseannearchist]
    ___ Tippy Canoe [Roseannearchist]
    ___ Tina [Roseannearchist]
    ___ Lady Jane Green [Roseannearchist]
    ___ Tony De Renzo [Teapot]
    ___ John Cena [WWE]
    ___ Umaga [WWE]

    Sample nominations for ss12:
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss12.php
    ___ Mike Hunt [Alaskan Independence]
    ___ Zachary Scott Gordon [American Libertarian]
    ___ Quinton Price [Anarchist]
    ___ Christopher Rose [Christian Falangist]
    ___ Tom Tancredo [Constitution]
    ___ Chuck Baldwin [Constitution]
    ___ Virgil Goode [Constitution]
    ___ Jerome Corsi [Constitution]
    ___ Darrell Castle [Constitution]
    ___ Mary Starrett [Constitution]
    ___ Teri Owens [Constitution]
    ___ Janine Hansen [Constitution]
    ___ J.R. Myers [Constitution]
    ___ Dizzy Loo [Constitutional Monarchist]
    ___ Craig Groves [Democratic]
    ___ Peter Stone [Democratic]
    ___ Barbara Whitt [Democratic]
    ___ Vincent Portulano [Democratic]
    ___ Jim Winter [Democratic]
    ___ Lloyd Llewellyn [Flying Saucer]
    ___ Kieth Ray Elam [Forever]
    ___ Amanda R. [Green]
    ___ Paul Go [Green]
    ___ Madea Benjamin [Green]
    ___ Laura Wells [Green]
    ___ Dessa Jacobson [Green]
    ___ Carey Campbell [Green]
    ___ Charles Bruce Stewart [Green Libertarian]
    ___ Kevin Clark [Green Libertarian]
    ___ Lisa Clampitt [Green Tea]
    ___ Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]
    ___ Emory Rogers [Hemp]
    ___ Brent Mooneyham [Independent]
    ___ Grady Brown [Independent]
    ___ John Richardson [Independent]
    ___ David Bell [Independent]
    ___ Diane Wehman [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Alfred Keys Allen [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Jennifer Pentland [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Becky Richardson [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Helen Barr [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Geraldine Barr [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Brandi Brown [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Jessica Oronoz [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Marcia Ray [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Ruth Mccartney [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Angie Mccartney [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Lauren Korba [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Cathy Bilsky [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ DJ Tenn. [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Tina Fay [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Robert Greenwald [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Cathy Obrien [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Mark Phillips [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Dr.Colin Ross [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Scott Pelligrino [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Randy Credico [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Yehuda Berg [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Jim Cortez [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Blossom Eaglefeather [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Alice Walker [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Gary G. Kreep [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Michael “Savage” Weiner [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Todd M. Palin [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Roy Moore [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Sheriff Mack [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Barry Goldwater Jr. [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Mary Hunt [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Jane Caputi [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ JZ Knight [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Jane Fonda [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Colleen Camp [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Alana Stewart [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Joan Dangerfield [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Cher [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Dorah Nesoba [Info. Not Avail.]
    ___ Philip Noriega [Labor]
    ___ Frank Skroh [Libertarian]
    ___ Anthony Zenobi [Libertarian]
    ___ Jeffrey Beaman [Marijuana]
    ___ Noam Chomsky [New]
    ___ Zambla [None]
    ___ Jerrett Crews [Party]
    ___ Bob Barr [Libertarian]
    ___ Starchild [Libertarian]
    ___ Randy Eshelman [Libertarian]
    ___ Sam Goldstein [Libertarian]
    ___ Doug Craig [Libertarian]
    ___ Ed Vallejo [Libertarian]
    ___ Bruce Majors [Libertarian]
    ___ Matt Cholko [Libertarian]
    ___ Bruce Cohen [Libertarian]
    ___ Libertarian Girl [Libertarian]
    ___ Scott Kohlaas [Libertarian]
    ___ James Burns [Libertarian]
    ___ James Nelson [National Veterans Freedom]
    ___ Marcellius Smith [Parliament]
    ___ Cindy Sheehan [Peace and Freedom]
    ___ Mary Kelsen [Pot]
    ___ Megan Ross [Pot]
    ___ Travis Johnson [Pot]
    ___ Evil Dude [Pot]
    ___ Mike Malchant [Republican]
    ___ Mike Jones [Republican]
    ___ Dashas Christ [Roseannearchist]
    ___ John Argent [Roseannearchist]
    ___ PJ [Roseannearchist]
    ___ Lady Jane Green [Roseannearchist]
    ___ Tippy Canoe [Roseannearchist]
    ___ Jane Violet [Roseannearchist]
    ___ Tina [Roseannearchist]
    ___ Shawn Nichols [Socialist]
    ___ Dylan Wiles [Socialist]
    * * *

    2. Many Nominations Disqualied

    Many nominations were disqualied (from ss11-6 ballot only) because some people nominated more than three names:

    Scott Pelligrino [Info. Not Avail.]
    Randy Credico [Info. Not Avail.]
    Jim Cortez [Info. Not Avail.]
    Laura Wells [Green]
    Gary G. Kreep [Info. Not Avail.]
    Michael “Savage” Weiner [Info. Not Avail.]
    Todd M. Palin [Info. Not Avail.]
    Roy Moore [Info. Not Avail.]
    Sheriff Richard Mack [Libertarian]
    Barry Goldwater Jr. [Info. Not Avail.]
    Tom Tancredo [Constitution]
    Chuck Baldwin [Constitution]
    Bob Barr [Libertarian]
    Starchild [Libertarian]
    Randy Eshelman [Libertarian]
    Sam Goldstein [Libertarian]
    Doug Craig [Libertarian]
    Jerome Corsi [Constitution]
    Ed Vallejo [Libertarian]
    Bruce Majors [Libertarian]
    Matt Cholko [Libertarian]
    Bruce Cohen [Libertarian]
    Libertarian Girl [Libertarian]
    Teri Owens [Constitution]
    Janine Hansen [Constitution]
    Mary Hunt [Info. Not Avail.]
    Jane Caputi [Info. Not Avail.]
    JZ Knight [Info. Not Avail.]
    Colleen Camp [Info. Not Avail.]
    Joan Dangerfield [Info. Not Avail.]
    Dashas Christ [Roseannearchist]
    PJ [Roseannearchist]
    Jane Violet [Roseannearchist]
    Patricia Burns [Republican]
    Cindy Sheehan [Peace and Freedom]
    Carey Campbell [Green]
    * * *

    3. All Parties Working Together

    Many exciting things are happening with the All Party System (and independents) and many people of differing parties (and independents) are working together in practice for 2012
    presidential elections.

    For example, current chair of probably the largest splinter party in California, Spectrum Minister Nation Sorenson [Christian Independent] of the American Independent Party (417,000+ voters) has nominated 2008 presidential candidate and USA Parliament 21st Prime Minister Mary J. Ruwart [Libertarian], as a potential Constitution/Libertarian Coalition.
    Spectrum Minister said her book was highly prized to him, and that he considered her like-minded and a genious.

    Hon. Ruwart has since requested that her name be removed from the ballot.
    Current Independent Green Party of Virginia chair Carey Campbell [Green] is interested in a Constitution/Green ticket in 2012. Campbell has self-nominated his name for Minister of Energy of Prime Minister Chelene Nightingale’s Cabinet, and may attend the national Constitution Party convention on April 29th in PA.

    It ‘s exciting to see diverse people cross nominating. Keep up with the action on Prime Minister Roseasnne Barr’s [Green Tea]
    blog where daily announcements are being made:
    http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2011/02/parliamentary-elections.php
    * * *

    Ad for GoNott Search!
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html
    *Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted*
    * * *
    There are approximately 215 subscribers to the USA Parliament’s email list, including more than 35 news reporters waiting to see when all parties and independents will start working together.
    -*-
    Please feel free to engage or disengage to the email list by sending the message “subscribe” or
    “unsubscribe” to joogle@gonott.com.
    * * *
    end

  258. USP: Special Bulletin Re: Green Tea/Free for Prez

    To: Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]
    Prime Minister Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian]
    Prime Minister Chelene Nightingale [Constitution]
    Secretary Jacob Covich [Catholic Trotskyist]
    Cc: All Voters and Non Voters
    From: Secretary James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Subject: USP: Special Bulletin Re: Green Tea/Free for Prez
    * * *

    Note: Please feel free to engage or disengage
    from this communication link by sending the message
    “subscribe” or “unsubscribe” to joogle@gonott.com or
    by telephone at 415-686-1996.

    OK to “reply all”.

    New: Anonymous forwarder now available upon request.
    http://www.usparliament.org/
    * * *

    1. Green Tea/Free Parliamentary for Prez
    2. Three Cabinet Members Elected
    * * *

    This is a very important special bulletin, regarding the Prime Minister, her Majesty the Queen Roseanne the First [Green Tea], and myself Secretary James Ogle [Free Parliamentary].

    I will be spearheading our names for US President and Vice President in the United States of America, under the banner of the American Independent Party:
    http://aipca.org/

    We are making this a special bulletin, so everyone in all 49 states other than California can have advance notice, that we will be campaigning for ballot access with the California American Independent Party, and we will be trying to get state affiliates in all 50 state and US territories as well.

    We will continue to use the 8th USA Parliament’s voting system and decisions-making system, and we will build all Cabinet and state super-states, mini-states and county micro-states as the American Independent Party, where every voter may self categorize as they wish.

    With all due respect to honorable President Ron Paul [Republican] and Vice President Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian], we will be vying for the positions of president and vice president in the Parliament as well. These positions are defined as the initial contacts for the ruling coalition.

    In addition, if we do not succeed in our quest to be elected as president and vice president of the 9th USA Parliament, we will happily support the actual winners.

    Thank you in advance for your interest and support. If you’d like to be a part of our team, please consider doing one or more of the following things over the next nineteen months:

    1) Sign up with the USA Parliament under any party/category you wish.
    http://www.usparliament.org/signup.php

    2) Register to vote in your state with the American Independent Party.

    3) Contact your state’s election office to find out how you can help get the Barr/Ogle team for US president on the ballot, with the American Independent Party or any other party or independent.

    Again, thank you for very much for your interest, we really appreciate it.

    We thank you for working with the 8th USA Parliament.

    –James Ogle, volunteer vote counter
    * * *

    2. Three Cabinet Members Elected
    http://www.usparliament.org/cab-1.php

    Higher Education Minister Daniel David Gentry [Catholic Trotskyist]
    Education Minister Lisa Clampitt [Green Tea]
    Energy Minister Carey Campbell [Green]
    * * *

    Ad for GoNott Search!
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html
    *Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted*
    * * *
    US-PAR: All voters, non-voters and news media
    (approx. 217 subscribers).
    -*-
    Please feel free to engage or disengage to this
    email list by sending the message “subscribe” or
    “unsubscribe” to joogle@gonott.com.
    * * *
    end

  259. Go Barr/Ogle

    Rank Candidate Name Party/Category
    _2__ _James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]__(write in)
    _7__ __Rachel Hawkridge [Libertarian]____ (write in)
    _4__ _Michael H. Wilson [Libertarian http://evergreenlibertarian.blogspot.com/ _ (write in)
    _109__ Mike Hunt [Alaskan Independence]
    _6__ Zachary Scott Gordon [American Libertarian]
    _110__ Quinton Price [Anarchist]
    __28_ Daniel David Gentry [Catholic Trotskyist]
    _111__ Christopher Rose [Christian Falangist]
    _108__ Tom Tancredo [Constitution]
    _49__ Chuck Baldwin [Constitution]
    _107__ Virgil Goode [Constitution]
    __97_ Jerome Corsi [Constitution]
    _91__ Darrell Castle [Constitution]
    _29__ Mary Starrett [Constitution]
    _106__ Teri Owens [Constitution]
    _90__ Janine Hansen [Constitution]
    _30__ J.R. Myers [Constitution]
    _27__ Dizzy Loo [Constitutional Monarchist]
    ___ Craig Groves [Democratic]
    ___ Peter Stone [Democratic]
    ___ Barbara Whitt [Democratic]
    ___ Vincent Portulano [Democratic]
    _26__ Jim Winter [Democratic]
    _24__ Lloyd Llewellyn [Flying Saucer]
    _81__ Kieth Ray Elam [Forever]
    _82__ Amanda R. [Green]
    _83__ Paul Go [Green]
    _25__ Madea Benjamin [Green]
    _21__ Laura Wells [Green]
    _23__ Dessa Jacobson [Green]
    _20__ Carey Campbell [Green]
    _47__ Charles Bruce Stewart [Green Libertarian]
    _22__ Kevin Clark [Green Libertarian]
    __5_ Lisa Clampitt [Green Tea]
    _1__ Roseanne Barr [Green Tea]
    _46__ Emory Rogers [Hemp]
    _105__ Brent Mooneyham [Independent]
    _79__ Grady Brown [Independent]
    _77__ John Richardson [Independent]
    _32__ David Bell [Independent]
    _78__ Diane Wehman [Info. Not Avail.]
    _85__ Alfred Keys Allen [Info. Not Avail.]
    _80__ Jennifer Pentland [Info. Not Avail.]
    _84__ Becky Richardson [Info. Not Avail.]
    _31__ Helen Barr [Info. Not Avail.]
    _33__ Geraldine Barr [Info. Not Avail.]
    _86__ Brandi Brown [Info. Not Avail.]
    _88__ Jessica Oronoz [Info. Not Avail.]
    _76__ Marcia Ray [Info. Not Avail.]
    _74__ Ruth Mccartney [Info. Not Avail.]
    _72__ Angie Mccartney [Info. Not Avail.]
    _56__ Lauren Korba [Info. Not Avail.]
    _45__ Cathy Bilsky [Info. Not Avail.]
    _34__ DJ Tenn. [Info. Not Avail.]
    _35__ Tina Fay [Info. Not Avail.]
    __73_ Robert Greenwald [Info. Not Avail.]
    _48__ Cathy Obrien [Info. Not Avail.]
    _75__ Mark Phillips [Info. Not Avail.]
    _36__ Dr.Colin Ross [Info. Not Avail.]
    _87__ Scott Pelligrino [Info. Not Avail.]
    _71__ Randy Credico [Info. Not Avail.]
    _70__ Yehuda Berg [Info. Not Avail.]
    _89__ Jim Cortez [Info. Not Avail.]
    _64__ Blossom Eaglefeather [Info. Not Avail.]
    _68__ Alice Walker [Info. Not Avail.]
    _69__ Gary G. Kreep [Info. Not Avail.]
    _67__ Michael “Savage” Weiner [Info. Not Avail.]
    _93__ Todd M. Palin [Info. Not Avail.]
    _96__ Roy Moore [Info. Not Avail.]
    _98__ Barry Goldwater Jr. [Info. Not Avail.]
    __66_ Mary Hunt [Info. Not Avail.]
    _92__ Jane Caputi [Info. Not Avail.]
    _37__ JZ Knight [Info. Not Avail.]
    _39__ Jane Fonda [Info. Not Avail.]
    _62__ Colleen Camp [Info. Not Avail.]
    _94__ Alana Stewart [Info. Not Avail.]
    _60__ Joan Dangerfield [Info. Not Avail.]
    _41__ Cher [Info. Not Avail.]
    _54__ Dorah Nesoba [Info. Not Avail.]
    _63__ Philip Noriega [Labor]
    _61__ Frank Skroh [Libertarian]
    _57__ Anthony Zenobi [Libertarian]
    _65__ Jeffrey Beaman [Marijuana]
    _59__ Noam Chomsky [New]
    _58__ Zambla [None]
    _95__ Jerrett Crews [Party]
    _38__ Bob Barr [Libertarian]
    _14__ Starchild [Libertarian]
    _102__ Randy Eshelman [Libertarian]
    _101__ Sam Goldstein [Libertarian]
    _103__ Doug Craig [Libertarian]
    _99__ Ed Vallejo [Libertarian]
    _104__ Bruce Majors [Libertarian]
    _100__ Matt Cholko [Libertarian]
    _44__ Bruce Cohen [Libertarian]
    _3__ Libertarian Girl [Libertarian]
    _55__ Scott Kohlaas [Libertarian]
    _8__ James Burns [Libertarian]
    _18__ Sheriff Richard Mack [Libertarian]
    _16__ David L. Wetzell [LT Party Movement]
    _53__ James Nelson [National Veterans Freedom]
    _40__ Noam Chomsky [New]
    _12__ Marcellius Smith [Parliament]
    _43__ Cindy Sheehan [Peace and Freedom]
    _50__ Mary Kelsen [Pot]
    _52__ Megan Ross [Pot]
    _51__ Travis Johnson [Pot]
    _42__ Evil Dude [Pot]
    ___ Mike Malchant [Republican]
    ___ Mike Jones [Republican]
    _9__ Dashas Christ [Roseannearchist]
    _10__ John Argent [Roseannearchist]
    __19_ PJ [Roseannearchist]
    _17__ Lady Jane Green [Roseannearchist]
    _15__ Tippy Canoe [Roseannearchist]
    _13__ Jane Violet [Roseannearchist]
    _11__ Tina [Roseannearchist]
    __113_ Shawn Nichols [Socialist]
    _112__ Dylan Wiles [Socialist]

  260. Go Barr/Ogle

    The USA Parliament Cabinet Updated on 6/13/2011

    The Forty-eight Full Cabinet Ministers

    Propaganda Minister Savva Vassiliev [Progressive Libertarian]
    Interior Minister Lucifer Sam [Info. Not Avail.]
    Peace Minister Sallie Elkordy [Peace]
    BATF Minister Jeannette O’Neal [Non-partisan]
    Crown Minister Colleen Camp Goldwyn [Info. Not Avail.]
    Federal Communications Commissioner Minister Hal Ginsberg [Info. Not Avail.]
    Soil and Water Conservation Minister Anita Stewart [Green]
    Health and Human Services Minister Randy Hicks [Green]
    NASA Minister Joe Paul Manship [Libertarian]
    Chaos CHON Minister Seth Wetmore [Green Chaos]
    Platform Minister J.R. Myers [Constitution]
    Veterans Affairs Minister Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian]
    FBI Minister April Flint [Democratic]
    Chief of Staff Minister Helen Caldicott [Info. Not Avail.]
    National Security Minister Jodell Bumatay [Republican]
    CIA Minister Tippy Canoe [Roseannarchist]
    Families, Housing, Community and Indigenous People Minister Vicky Holte Takamine [Info. Not Avail.]
    Defense Minister Tina [Roseannarchist]
    Civil Rights Minister Robert Redford [Info. Not Avail.]
    Communications Minister Cynthia McKinney [Green]
    Truth Minister Grace Lee Boggs [Info. Not Avail.]
    Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Minister Marcy Kaptur [Democratic]
    Inspiration Minister Diane Wilson [Info. Not Avail.]
    Treasury Secretary Catherine Austin Fitts [Info. Not Avail.]
    Government Accountability Office Minister Annie Leonard [Info. Not Avail.]
    Government Reduction Minister Greg Cipes [Info. Not Avail.]
    Environmental Minister Judy Chicago [Info. Not Avail.]
    Press Secretary Minister Christine Blosdale [Info. Not Avail.]
    FEMA Minister JZ Knight [Info. Not Avail.]
    Commerce Minister Loren Korba [Info. Not Avail.]
    Arts and Culture Minister Sandra Bernard [Info. Not Avail.]
    Federal Elections Commission Minister Iyesha Sands [Info. Not Avail.]
    Attorney General Minister Link K. Scwartz [Info. Not Avail.]
    Campaign Minister Tom Maris [Democratic]
    Marketing Minister David Bell [Independent]
    Higher Education Minister Daniel David Gentry [Catholic Trotskyist]
    Education Minister Lisa Clampitt [Green Tea]
    Energy Minister Carey Campbell [Green]
    Speaker Minister John Argent [Roseannearchist]
    Secretary of State Minister PJ [Roseannearchist]
    PLAS Minister Dashus Christ [Roseannearchist]
    Senate Minister Lady Jane Green [Roseannearchist]
    Foreign Minister Jane Violet [Roseannearchist]
    Labor Minister Angela Keaton [Ordinary Anarchist]
    Transportation Minister Nathan Johnson [American Independent]
    Economics Minister Jim Burns [Libertarian]
    States Rights Minister Rene` Jean [Free Parliamentary]
    IRS Minister Don J. Grundmann [Constitution]

    The Sixty-four Deputy Cabinet Ministers

    Deputy Civil Rights Minister Angela Davis [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy Peace Minister Marianne Williamson [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy Civil Rights Minister Rosie O’Donnell [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy Inspiration Minister Marianne Williamson [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy Inspiration Minister Jocelyn Elders [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy Treasury Secretary Elizabeth Warren [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy Treasury Secretary C. Michael Ward [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy Treasury Secretary Natalie Ward [Independent]
    Deputy Treasury Secretary Karen [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy Environmental Minister Adella Miketta [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy Press Secretary Mona Lisa Fortenberry [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy Press Secretary Shannon Hughy [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy Health and Human Services Minister Marsha Gold [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy Health and Human Services Minister Linda Evans [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy Health and Human Services Minister Harriet Bookstein [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy FEMA Minister Lisa Carlson [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy FEMA Minister Melissa Nelson [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy Arts and Culture Minister Hilary Liu [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy Attorney General Minister Diane Templin [American Independent]
    Deputy Chief of Staff Minister David Frey [Populist Socialist]
    Deputy Communications Minister Vanessa Morley [Defender of the Republic]
    Deputy Arts and Culture Minister Zachary Scott Gordon [American Libertarian]
    Deputy Truth Minister Gary Swing [Green]
    Deputy Veterans Affairs Minister Don Lake [American Independent]
    Deputy Communications Minister Tony De Renzo [Teapot]
    Deputy Speaker Minister James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Deputy Senate Minister Jan Tucker [Peace and Freedom]
    Deputy Labor Minister Starchild [Libertarian]
    Deputy Foreign Minister Orion Karl Daley [Balanced]
    Deputy Foreign Minister Aarde Atheian [Libertarian]
    Deputy Environmental Minister Kristi Stone [Libertarian]
    Deputy Communications Minister Jim Doyle [Republican]
    Deputy Economics Minister Lawrence Samuels [Purple Libertarian]
    Deputy Economics Minister Byron Stephens [Libertarian]
    Deputy Inspiration Minister David Olkkola [Democratic]
    Deputy Government Reduction Minister Richard Winger [Libertarian]
    Deputy Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Minister Mike Bogatirev [Environmentalist]
    Deputy Civil Rights Minister Fox Grigor [Democratic]
    Deputy Economics Minister Ralph Hoffmann [Republican]
    Deputy Veterans Affairs Minister Cory Nott [Libertarian]
    Deputy Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Minister Rob Elliott [Independent]
    Deputy Economics Minister Dr. Loveless [National Barking Spider Resurgence]
    Deputy Health and Human Services Minister Casper Leitch [Independent]
    Deputy Health and Human Services Minister Robert S. [Pot]
    Deputy Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Minister Marie Phillips [Democratic]
    Deputy Communications Minister Alex Plewniak [Libertarian]
    Deputy Foreign Minister Dennis Davidsmeyer [Democratic]
    Deputy Foreign Minister Tony Dunsworth [Libertarian]
    Deputy Economics Minister William Johnson [Republican]
    Deputy Attorney General Minister Marge Buckley [Green]
    Deputy Civil Rights Minister C.L. Gannon [Liberty First]
    Deputy Secretary of State Josh Ondich [Coffee]
    Deputy Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Minister Mable Kovach [Democratic]
    Deputy Arts and Culture Minister Jorge Sanchez [Progressive Democrat/Green]
    Deputy Labor Minister Rhys Scarlett [United Socialism]
    Deputy Veterans Affairs Minister John Coffey [Unity08]
    Deputy Truth Minister Bill Palmer [Info. Not Avail.]
    Deputy Health and Human Services Minister Kurt Brown [Pot]
    Deputy Press Secretary Eric Stevenson [Pizza]
    Deputy Economics Minister Kirk Joseph [Independent]
    Deputy Labor Minister Matt Lemmons [United Socialism]
    Deputy Communications Minister Markham Burton [Democratic]
    Deputy Health and Human Services Minister Joseph Rogers [Green]
    Deputy Environmental Minister Thomas Leavitt [Green]
    Deputy Speaker Minister James Anthony [LEAP]
    Deputy Communications Minister Michael A. Cluley [America First]

    Nominate a new Cabinet Minister
    joogle@gonott.com

  261. Free Speech Question

    GooGoo/Barr Report
    6/22/2011
    Gold at $1544.80

    1. National Defense Ministry: Marine General Elected
    2. California Super-state Parliament Interior Minister Elected
    * * *

    1. National Defense Ministry: Marine General Elected

    Marine General Mahgum Eric Thorson [We Like Women] Elected
    http://usparliament.org/defenseministry.php

    Int Min Thorson said; “We Like Women Pride! Our enemies don’t like women.”
    http://www.welikewomenpoliticalparty.webs.com/
    * * *

    2. California Super-state Parliament Interior Minister Elected

    Interior Minister Mahgum Eric Thorson [We Like Women] Elected
    http://usparliament.org/cab-ss11.php
    * * *

    Repost From:
    http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2011/06/parliamentary-election.php#comment-16252

  262. Free Speech Question

    GooGoo/Barr Report
    6/24/2011
    Gold at $1501.60

    1. Full Cabinet Minister Elected
    2. Commentary by James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    * * *

    1. Full Cabinet Minister Elected
    http://usparliament.org/cab-1.php

    Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Minister Mounir Hilmi [The People's Party] Elected on 6/24/2011
    * * *

    2. Commentary by James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    When you’re being decimated on Normandy Beach on June 6th, 1944, do you want your
    team players to say; “I don’t know anything about what’s going on?”

    Or do you want your team players to say; “I want to try to coordinate?”

    Well that’s the situation now with the US Parliament, because
    year after year it’s like minute after minute on Normandy Beach and
    we’re going so slow that at current pace Battle of the Bulge is not
    expected for 175,000 years into the future.

    Many of our units want to pretend like they don’t know what to do.

    We don’t want our team players to pretend dumb and say; “I don’t know
    what’s going on.”, and to feign responsibility with the excuse that
    they’re new here.

    We want them to say; “What can I do to participate and learn more?”

    Very good news everyone, he accepted the election of his name as full minister,
    and he wants to learn and do more.

    In fact our new Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Minister Mounir Hilmi [The People's Party]
    is in Long Beach California working at a coffee shop and trying to
    start a new political party, The People’s Party of California:

    http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_f_non.htm

    Mounir is a very cool person, friendly, and interested in participating
    as a team. Even though he’s never even heard of our way of ranked voting, the
    8th USA Parliament, and the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution
    system.

    In D-Day time, he’s only just “stepped on the beach”, just as
    our first team members “stepped on the beach” when, like Minter
    Hilmi [The People's Party], MP Mike Bogatriev [Environmentalist]
    founded the Environmentalist Party in 1983 in Carmel California
    and was new to the scene.

    They both didn’t know what’s going on, but yet now they both want to
    somehow work as a team and learn together within the Agriculture,
    Fisheries and Forestry Ministry.

    Welcome Mounir, and welcome to our comedy of errors.
    * * *

  263. That's One More Internet Cafe Bumped Off

    GooGoo/Barr Report
    July 4th, 2011
    Gold at $1497.10

    1. USA Parliament’s 2011 Convention A Success
    2. Foreign Ministry: Ambassador Elected
    3. Defense Ministry: General Elected
    4. Monterey County Micro-state Parliament Self Appointment
    5. Photos of Convention to be Posted
    * * *

    1. USA Parliament’s 2011 Convention A Success

    MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Located near the white sandy beach
    of the deep Pacific Ocean, the convention floor being natural
    grass, the climate mostly sunny with a spot of fog, the 2011
    USA Parliament convention was a big success.

    Surrounded by cypress groves, picnicking and dancing families,
    everything went smoothly.

    There were no technical difficulties, we signed up new members,
    and the bands Mead and Tiffany played very well.

    Approximately 150 to 200 people attended. The candidacy
    of Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] for president was announced.
    Parliamentary voting systems were discussed.

    New and old participants voted on the PacificNW Super-state
    and Central California Mini-state Parliament Elections, as well
    as Int Min Lucifer Sam’s direct democracy (DD) paper ballot.

    Final results will be made known on August 6th, 2011.

    Princess Jane [Libertarian] attended and voted.

    Estimated number of people present: 150 to 250
    Percent of those attending who voted: 2% to 5%
    * * *

    2. Foreign Ministry: Ambassador Elected
    http://usparliament.org/foreignministry.php

    Ambassador to Canary Islands Julieanne Oberg [Life of the Party] Elected
    * * *

    3. Defense Ministry: General Elected
    http://usparliament.org/defenseministry.php

    Army General Seth Wetmore [Green Chaos] Elected
    * * *

    4. Monterey County Micro-state Parliament Self Appointment
    http://usparliament.org/ss11-6-8.php

    MCMP Mark Shuler [Decline to Say] Self Appointed
    * * *

    5. Photos of Convention to be Posted

    Deputy Economics Minister Lawrence Samuels [Purple
    Libertarian] and MCMP Harry Snell [Democratic] attended
    and took photos which will be posted here as soon as available.
    * * *

    Re-posted from:
    http://www.roseanneworld.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=74619#74619

  264. Go Barr/Ogle

    GooGoo/Barr Report
    7/6/2011
    Gold at $1529.30

    1. Mid-West Super-state Parliament Self Appointment
    2. Monterey County Micro-state Parliament Self Appointment
    3. National Cabinet Ministries Re-organization Expected
    4. RoseanneWorld.com Old Forum Politics
    * * *

    1. Mid-West Super-state Parliament Self Appointment
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss8.php

    MSP Josua-Paul Angell [Green Tea] Self Appointed
    MSP=member of super-state parliament
    * * *

    2. Monterey County Micro-state Parliament Self Appointment
    http://usparliament.org/ss11-6-8.php

    MCMP Mark Shuler [Decline to Say] Self Appointed
    * * *

    3. National Cabinet Ministries Re-organization Expected

    Several full cabinet ministries are expected to undergo reorganization
    and improvements between July 6th and July 8th, 2011.

    If you’re interested in leading a full cabinet ministry, please
    go to the sign up page, indicate which ministry you’re
    interested in representing, and send the message to our
    volunteers.
    * * *

    Notice:
    Due to the recent web site move to a faster server, the
    sign up link and email address had been terminated for more than
    two weeks sometime between June 23rd and July 6th, 2011.

    If you had signed up and did not receive a response, please
    re-sign up on the US Parliament’s sign up page now.

    Make sure your name receives the highest open position available
    on any region you wish, national, super-state, mini-state or
    micro-state, within the US Parliament’s sphere.

    Your name may serve in multiple regions, as anonymous or as an avatar, and
    you may switch party/category at any time you wish, without penalty or
    regard to your actual state’s political affiliation.

    Any improvements, suggestions, corrections and/or requests are always
    welcomed, and you may use the “Contact Us” link or the “Sign Up” link:

    http://www.usparliament.org/contact.php
    http://www.usparliament.org/signup.php
    * * *

    4. RoseanneWorld.com Old Forum Politics

    Be sure to visit and/or sign up to the US Parliament’s interactive free speech political forum in the Old Forum section linked to http://www.roseanneworld.com and read comments and/or make your comments heard before the Green Tea, RoseanneArchist, Constitutional Monarchist, all parties, independents, voters and no voters on the Queen’s site:
    http://www.roseanneworld.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=f1f114d08b768843b73ca1c762d5979e
    * * *

    Re-posted from USParliament.org Forum:
    http://usparliament.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=368&p=917#p917

  265. paulie

    (Shrug)

    What else to expect from off-his-meds nut? It’s too funny to be sad, too sad to be funny, and too in character to be either one.

  266. Jed Ziggler

    Ogle/Milnes ’14. For a bat shit insane America.

    Let’s not forget though, James Ogle has won an election. The 2012 Missouri Libertarian primary. He beat Uncommitted. Barely. Nevertheless, he did win. It meant nothing, but give the man his due.

Leave a Reply