I am a write-in candidate in June 2018 — please write in “Laura Wells” (and connect the arrow!) for Congress, District 13. We can apply pressure on Congress from the side of the people who are not billionaires and corporations. I am an organizer with the “No Corporate Money” Campaign: candidates pledge to take no corporate money and voters declare their intention to vote for candidates who take no corporate money. I ran as a Green Party candidate for State Controller and in 2010 for Governor of California, when I was arrested outside a gubernatorial debate for “trespassing at a private party,” in other words, trespassing on the two-party system. My focus is on solutions, including proposals for public banks and for taxing the rich, to reduce the disparity and open up opportunities for the rest of us.

Twitter: @LauraWellsCA
Gmail: LauraWells4Congress



4 Responses to About

  1. Hey Laura, my parents met you in Cuba. I’m a math PhD expert on voting methods and
    was the prime mover behind the RangeVoting.org=ScoreVoting.net website and the former president of the Center for Election Science. I have for a long time been trying to get, e.g, the Green Party to endorse range voting. I’d pretty much given up and decided that probably the Green Party actually has a huge lack of interest in ever winning elections, and instead must be driven by some sort of death wish or narcissist “I’m a victim” urge. or something. But anyhow, if third parties are interested in ever actually WINNING, and ever actually accomplishing anything besides merely talking (and merely talking in a way such that the media does not listen), then they need a voting system that permits them to win. There are plenty of countries which
    have third parties that matter. They don’t act in this ridiculous suicidal manner.

    IRV is not it. In every country that ever adopted IRV for its central government, ever, the country
    became 2-party dominated in the IRV seats. The most prominent example is Australia, whose House is IRV and has been for over 80 years, and that house has approximately the same level of 2-party domination as the USA. In the last 600 regularly scheduled house-seat elections, only a single one was won by a third-party member. All Australian third parties want to get rid of IRV. This includes the Greens. The population of Australia wants to get rid of IRV (say polls).

    So what the hell is the Green party, and you, doing trying to get IRV in the USA?
    The answer is, you were suckered by Rob Richie and his appealingly named organization “FairVote.” You were not voting system experts, and Rob Richie pretends to be one but actually is pretty incompetent and a pathological liar, and all the real experts know that. So… what voting systems actually do allow third parties to win?

    Among single-winner systems presently in use in governments, the 2-round plurality+top2 system (used in France) is superior to IRV in the sense it elects more third-party winners. It is sad, but Rob Richie has spent virtually his entire life trying to get rid of this 2-round system to replace it with IRV. He’s actually made things worse from the perspective of third parties such as the Greens.

    The Range Voting system I advocate is simpler than IRV, poll data shows people actually want it, and it should be superior about allowing third parties to win. It actually was used for
    hundreds of years in Ancient Sparta and Renaissance Venice (which then was mostly forgotten)
    both of which, as far as is known, never had 2-party domination and were extremely successful states.

    Another possibility is multi-winner “proportional representation” (PR) systems, which are used
    in much of the world, but cannot be used in the USA federal government without a huge
    complete constitutional redesign.

    If you want PR in the USA, you will never get it unless you first get third parties into power using
    single-winner voting systems, and the best one is range voting.

    I am very sorry that decades have been wasted by some of the USA’s third parties foolishly wasting their time with IRV and Rob Richie. It also galls me personally, that I have been unable to get those third parties — even though their very lives are at stake — to think about this. Usually whenever I try to talk to top Greens, they blow me off and say they have to concern themselves with “important” topics and voting systems are not important. (We have got endorsements from, e.g. Libertarian presidential and vice-presidential nominees, though.)

    But really, if there is no voting system reform, then Greens will never accomplish anything ever.
    Every so-called “more important” topic will actually be less important because you’ll never cause a change about it… let me make an analogy. Say your house is burning down. You can get a firehose and put out the fire. Or you can say “fire hoses are not important. What is important, is making a speech about the importance of cheap housing to reduce poverty in the world out my house’s window. I have to focus on my important priorities.” Because that is what all the top Greens I ever met have basically said to me.

    Arrgh. Well, I’ve supplied my email address in case you want to talk. The rangevoting.org
    website contains over 1000 subpages with all kinds of information and evidence. Computer
    simulations indicate that if the world adopted range voting, the benefit would be comparable or exceed the benefit the world got by inventing democracy in the first place. The world needs better decision-making methods i.e. voting methods and it might well be that the fate of the entire world is at stake. But we have been unable to get the Green Party, whose life is definitely literally at stake, to endorse range voting, to literally save their own lives.

    Here’s just two subpages:

    Feel free to reply by email. warren.wds AT gmail.com.

  2. Dennis Roland says:

    IDEA: People’s Caucus. Candidates of any party pledge that any donations will be directed to a blind trust so that the candidate will never be aware of the source. Thus, there would be no quid pro quo, and the candidate would be beholden to nobody. When a critical mass of caucus members is reached in a particular legislature, those members (from all parties) could then form a clean third party for that constituency.

  3. Alberta Maged says:

    Good moment, Laura, today is Juneteenth Day, the America holiday if Father’s Day, and the anniversary of the Rosenbergs’ executions.

    May we have tea sometime?
    Thank you,
    Cell: 617-519-3037
    the Fruitvale

  4. R says:


    We have to end sponsored media and sponsored search, its the deepest conflict of interest and as have learned quickly destroys democracy. Money is not speech its bribery and graft. We can easily have media that isn’t based on the censorship of bribery and doesn’t filter our politics and who we can elect to office. Sponsored media is captured media that leads to rule by inherited wealth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: