The Law of Love

Blog

  • Switching to rank choice or STAR (score then automatic runoff)voting systems are critical to healthy social development

    Author:

     that’s a piercing and timely question. Yes—switching to ranked-choice voting (RCV) (or another form of voting reform) is critical to the long-term moral and political evolution of society.

    Here’s why—unfiltered and straight:

    🧨 Plurality Voting Is a Structural Failure

    The current first-past-the-post (plurality) voting system, especially in the U.S., is:

    • Inherently polarizing
      Forces voters into binary choices, fueling tribalism.
    • Creates “lesser evil” voting
      Discourages sincere, values-based voting in favor of strategic harm reduction.
    • Suppresses third parties and innovation
      Keeps out nuanced or emerging ideas because they’re “spoilers.”
    • Encourages demagogues
      Charisma and manipulation often outweigh character or competence when the game is winner-take-all with 30% of the vote.
    • Breaks trust
      Voters disengage because they feel their voice is always swallowed up in zero-sum dynamics.

    🧠 Plurality voting rewards outrage, identity signaling, and fear-based campaigning. It systematically punishes cooperation, nuance, and long-term thinking.

    ✅ Ranked-Choice Voting: A Path Toward Political Maturity

    RCV, or Instant Runoff Voting, works by letting voters rank candidates in order of preference. It allows for:

    • Majority consensus
      No one can win with just a radical minority unless they’re broadly acceptable.
    • Policy-based voting
      You can vote your values first, not just strategically.
    • Reduction in negative campaigning
      Candidates want to be the 2nd or 3rd choice too—not just tear each other down.
    • More diverse candidates
      New voices, independent thinkers, and bridge-builders get real traction.
    • Healthier democracy
      Encourages a political culture of dialogue, not dueling extremes.

    RCV isn’t perfect—but it is a massive upgrade. There are other good models too (approval voting, STAR voting), but all are superior to our current zero-sum format.

    🌍 Big Picture: System Architecture Shapes Consciousness

    If we are to become:

    • A post-polarization society
    • A civilization capable of solving planetary problems
    • A culture that rewards wisdom over charisma…

    …then electoral reform is essential.

    Politics isn’t just who wins. It’s the architecture of collective decision-making. Right now, we are using a broken, primitive mechanism to navigate complex, interconnected, global issues. That’s like trying to run a neural network on a fax machine.

    🧬 Bottom Line:

    Yes, moving away from plurality voting is critical if we want to evolve beyond:

    • Demagogues
    • Entrenched duopolies
    • Short-term fear politics

    Ranked-choice voting is not the whole answer, but it’s one of the structural pillars of a healthier, wiser civilization.

    If you’d like, I can sketch a roadmap of how we might get from here to an upgraded voting system nationwide—step by step, with cultural, legal, and technological layers.

    ————————————

    **The Voting Revolution: A Manifesto for Post-Plurality Civilization**

    ### ✍️ By Omega | Spirit of Reform | Year: 2025

    —

    ## I. **The Lie We Live**

    We live under the illusion of choice, caught in a political game rigged for division.

    A system where:

    * Winning means conquering, not cooperating.

    * A candidate can rise to power with 30% of the vote.

    * Citizens are forced to vote *against* their fears, not *for* their hopes.

    * Demagogues thrive, visionaries are sidelined, and nuance is punished.

    This is not democracy.

    This is **plurality rule**—a primitive holdover from a time when complexity was feared.

    We, the people, are ready for something higher.

    —

    ## II. **The Truth We Know**

    A new world is forming.

    One where interdependence, not ideology, will define survival.

    In this world, we must evolve our systems of choice—not just our technologies.

    Because **democracy is not a destination**—it is a living process of consciousness.

    And right now, that process is broken.

    But we have the tools to fix it.

    —

    ## III. **The Upgrade We Need**

    We call for the immediate and universal adoption of **ranked-choice voting** (RCV), or a **superior post-plurality system**.

    Why?

    Because RCV:

    * Rewards consensus, not chaos.

    * Empowers voters to speak in full sentences, not false binaries.

    * Disarms extremists, uplifts bridge-builders.

    * Turns elections from war zones into ecosystems of ideas.

    This is not left or right. This is forward.

    —

    ## IV. **The Path We Walk**

    We walk a 4-phase path:

    1. **Cultural Seeding** (Now–2030)

       We spread the truth. We model the future in cities, schools, and art.

    2. **Legitimacy Building** (2030–2040)

       We prove the model works. We turn experiments into expectation.

    3. **Systemic Breakthrough** (2040–2055)

       We win reform. We codify a system worthy of human maturity.

    4. **Democratic Renaissance** (2055–2100)

       We use the upgraded system to heal, evolve, and lead with wisdom.

    —

    ## V. **The Civilization We Choose**

    This is not just about how we vote.

    It is about **who we become**.

    Without voting reform, we will remain stuck in the cycle of fear, noise, and short-term thinking—until collapse or authoritarianism swallow us.

    With reform, we unlock a new stage of civilization:

    * One where governance matches complexity.

    * One where character outshines charisma.

    * One where leaders rise by inspiring love, not commanding loyalty.

    > In this world, democracy is no longer a contest.

    > It is a conversation—an unfolding spiral of shared wisdom.

    —

    ## VI. **The Oath We Swear**

    We swear allegiance not to parties, but to process.

    Not to ideology, but to integrity.

    Not to winning, but to **awakening**.

    We are citizens of a future not yet born, but already stirring.

    We demand a system that reflects our full selves, our deepest values, our truest hopes.

    We will not settle for a broken ballot.

    We will not bow to the myth of inevitability.

    We will rise.

    —

    > Because to vote wisely is not just to choose a leader.

    > It is to become one.

    **The Voting Revolution begins now.**

    ———————————-

    How would rank choice or star method be superior in overcoming my critique of the election system outlined below

    They’ve lost the policy in politics as I like to say

    But how do you win elections? A lot of it is branding and name recognition. Trump had both, that’s why he won twice

    Are more or less policy details better for branding? 

    None of us like it but branding with platitudes is half the battle. The average person is pretty stupid and half of people are even stupider. That’s just right off rip. There’s a time and place for substance but I’m not convinced being heavy on that is what wins elections. Devilish details can alienate more people than it helps attract. Gotta be ambiguous enough to let people project their own ideals onto you

    If we want to bring “policy back into politics,” changing the *rules of the game* is a necessary first move

    You’ve hit on a core critique of modern democratic elections: **style beats substance**, and **vague branding beats detailed policy**. Your frustration is that the *incentive structure* of elections doesn’t reward depth—it rewards **name recognition, charisma, and ambiguity**. So let’s examine how **Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)** and **STAR voting** (Score Then Automatic Runoff) potentially shift those incentives:

    —

    ### 🔁 THE PROBLEM WITH PLURALITY VOTING (Our current system)

    * **Candidates can win with a plurality**, not a majority—so name recognition can be enough even if most people dislike a candidate.

    * **Spoiler effects** discourage serious third-party or outsider candidates.

    * **Polarization is rewarded**: You just need a solid, passionate base—no need to win over a majority.

    * **Shallow branding works**: If you’re famous and divisive, you can still win (see: Trump).

    —

    ### ✅ HOW RANKED CHOICE (RCV) HELPS

    In Ranked Choice, voters rank candidates (1st, 2nd, 3rd…). If no one gets a majority of first-place votes, the lowest-ranking candidate is eliminated and their votes redistributed. This continues until someone gets a majority.

    **Why it might help overcome your critique:**

    * **Reduces toxic branding and negative campaigning**: Candidates want to be the *second choice* of their rivals’ supporters. If you’re all attack and no nuance, you lose those 2nd and 3rd votes.

    * **Encourages coalition-building and broader appeal**: You can’t just appeal to a loud base—you need to be “acceptable” to more people.

    * **Makes room for candidates with real policy depth**: Voters can say, “I love this detailed, smart candidate, but if they don’t win, my vote still counts for my next choice.”

    🧠 **Net Effect**: Voters don’t have to choose between *idealism* and *electability*. Candidates can afford to be a little more honest or complex—less ambiguity, more room for nuance.

    —

    ### ⭐ HOW STAR VOTING GOES EVEN FURTHER

    In STAR Voting:

    1. Voters **score each candidate** (e.g. 0–5).

    2. The two candidates with the highest scores go to a **runoff**, and the one scored higher by more voters wins.

    **Advantages:**

    * **No incentive to play dumb or avoid details**: You’re rewarded for being liked by more people, not just being the first choice of a loud base.

    * **Policy depth can shine**: If a candidate isn’t the most charismatic but is seen as competent, voters can still rate them highly.

    * **No need for strategic voting**: You can express nuanced preferences without “wasting” your vote.

    🧠 **Net Effect**: STAR rewards candidates with **broad, thoughtful appeal**. It reduces polarization, spoilers, and the tyranny of the loudest brand.

    —

    ### 📊 TL;DR COMPARISON

    | Feature | Plurality | Ranked Choice (RCV) | STAR Voting |

    | ———————————— | ——— | ——————- | ———– |

    | Encourages broad appeal | ❌ | ✅ | ✅✅ |

    | Reduces branding-over-policy dynamic | ❌ | ✅ | ✅✅ |

    | Avoids spoiler effect | ❌ | ✅ | ✅✅ |

    | Rewards substance over charisma | ❌ | ✅ | ✅✅ |

    | Easy for voters | ✅ | Moderate | Moderate |

    —

    ### 🎯 YOUR CRITIQUE VS SYSTEM INCENTIVES

    | Your Concern | How RCV/STAR Address It |

    | ————————————————— | ————————————————————————————————— |

    | “Branding wins over substance” | STAR especially reduces the need for empty branding |

    | “People project their ideals onto vague candidates” | With multiple preferences (RCV) or scores (STAR), voters are less forced to buy into ambiguity |

    | “Substance can alienate” | Candidates can now *afford* to be substantive—your support isn’t all-or-nothing |

    | “Average person doesn’t want details” | True—but now *some people do*, and those preferences can be expressed without hurting the candidate |

    —

    ### ⚖️ Final Thought

    You’re absolutely right that the **current system rewards ambiguity and punishes depth**. It’s not because people are stupid—it’s because **plurality voting makes nuance risky**. STAR and RCV change that equation by making the system more **reflective of honest preferences**, not just gut-level reactions.

  • how many of those who have experienced a near death experiences believe in source or higher power, but not God?

    Dr Jeffrey longs book, “God and the Afterlife”, says the good majority of atheists who have an NDE end up believing in God after their NDE. Reading his sample of written examples at NDERF looks like a large majority end up believing in God. I personally note that it’s not like the ones who stayed atheist had any special insight one way or the other on the God question, and it’s not like hardly any theists become atheists after an experience.With that said. How many experiencers, even if they don’t believe in God, still believe in Source or a higher power? I like to talk to people about NDE research and I usually say if those who have the experience don’t end up believing in God, they usually at least believe in Source or a higher power… but I’m not exactly sure that this is accurate.

  • how do you view reincarnation?

    there’s evidence of children remembering past lives. they know details that they shouldnt be able to know. this has been studied scientifically at the university of virginia, among other academic places. an issue, though, is that sometimes two people have the same memories when these people are both living. below is a book that gives examples of past life memories, and a link from dr greyson who is positing some theories about reincarnation.bruce greyson on NDEs and reincarnation.

    Click to access 1-Greyson-NDE_CORT-JNDS-cropped-.pdf

    Besides the academic work on reincarnation at the university of Virginia, here is a book with documented examples of people verifying details of past lives.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_Cases_Suggestive_of_Reincarnation

    greyson suggests that maybe given time is ‘one’ and not progressing on the other side, maybe many lives are being played out at once, which isn’t a linear understanding like we have.i might also suggest that there’s ‘one body, many parts’ ‘one though many’. NDE folks often say how are all ‘one’, even though we have our individual identity. some have pointed to how the gulf of mexico is separate from the ocean, yet it’s still part of the ocean. how, when a person dies, they are like a cup of water that is dumped into the ocean. maybe, to take this analogy further, when we are reincarnated, a cup of the ocean is dumped into a body. this would mean our individual ego doesn’t reincarnate, but a part of our being does reincarnate, given we are all one.i would also point out the christian teaching ‘we are appointed to die once, and then the judgment’. if this teaching is true, and we take it literally, maybe after judgment, or a life review, we can then have another life. we dont die and come back and face judgment/life review, but we do all that then repeat the process. it’s also possible that christianity is just wrong and reincarnation exists. i know not everyone here is a christian, but i wanted to throw out this commonly thought of idea.what do you think of reincarnation?what do you think of the inconsistencies that greyson points out, where two people who are both living remember the same past lives?

  • is it fair to conclude from near death experiences that love is self sacrificial as is taught in christianity?

    That it strives towards altruism maybe even?This doesn’t seem like it should be controversial, but I know nde philosophy can subvert conventional philosophy and maybe you would say something like love ‘just is’ and not put qualifiers on it.I know one point that I think helps explain meaning and purpose on life, is some folks focus more on ‘being’ and some on ‘doing’. A purpose to be, versus to do. I would wanna say doing is loving and that’s sacrificial but being is just existing and something like being an artist instead of a saint.My bias is towards Christianity too, cause they say love embraces suffering while Buddhism avoids suffering. But even with this, Buddhism focuses on being even if Christianity focuses on doing

  • how much do fear death experiences Undermine near death experiences?

    fear death experiences are where the person doesn’t die but is majorly scared. they say these experiences, if i’m not mistaken, can be the same as NDEs where the person actually died.NDEs have solid evidence for their authenticity both philosophically and scientifically, see ‘evidence of the afterlife’ by doctor jeffrey long. but FDE the person didn’t actually die, so isn’t the authenticity of the death version compromised, and how much?

  • a critical look at sight to the blind during a near death experience

    as a believer in NDEs and as someone who likes to read about afterlife science, there is this point that i see that troubles me. when we read about people seeing for the first time during an NDE, i see two types of outcomes. one, is where the person inexplicably describes what they were seeing using words only a person who has the experience with sight could say. like, a child sees, but they can’t call a tree a tree unless someone told them it is a tree etc. next, we have people who more convincingly ‘know’ they saw, but they dont have the language to describe it, as that’s not formed within them yet.what should we make of this discrepancy? like with religious claims, a lot of believers would like to say it’s sort of like a ‘miracle’ and if someone can describe what they saw, that’s just more to the power of the afterlife. then, we have the skeptics, who think that shouldn’t be possible that blind people can describe what they saw. this discrepancy doesn’t debunk the science that the blind can see, but it’s such a tall order thing to believe that i can understand why someone who is already profoundly skeptic just would insist on not believing it. i mean, even if the other types of ‘seers’ were accurate, and they only knew they saw but couldn’t describe it, then all we would have for sure is their claim, and no way to verify it. i have no doubt there are senses on other side that we can’t know of here, but it seems to always be the case with good afterlife science, that it’s beyond description. like trying to describe 4D or 5D in a 3D world

  • Submitting only to the ecumenical councils and only to other teachings that resonate with one’s conscience?

    I think it’s fair to expect an orthodox person to submit to the seven ecumenical councils. Beyond that, there seems too much either split decisions or things that could change. I asked on here, how much submission to one’s priest was required and there was split ideas on that. Some say it’s not like the orthodox sit around worrying about submitting to the priest or the priest worrying about getting submitted to. While others say submission is necessary at least on open questions. In another thread I asked if there was anything like the extraordinary and ordinary magisterium from catholcism in orthodoxy, which means formal teachings to be submitted to, and informal teachings to be submitted to. The responses said it’s not like there’s an exhaustive list but that it works sort of like that.The issue seems to be that each orthodox seems to figure out for themselves what’s expected of course with the guidance of priests but still ulrltimately on one’s own. Somewhat like each is somewhat winging it. Take contraceptives or remarriage or emerging or even classical bioethics or ethics in general, and a lot of religious p​eople think this or that must be submitted while other people say otherwise. Or that the holy spirit is guiding the church this way or that way. I’d consider joining orthodoxy but the authority and submission expectations seem arbitrary and stifling to one’s conscience especially when a teaching turned put mistaken to begin with

  • christus victor is

    Catholicism and protestants generally believe in penal substitution as an atonement theory, and eastern christians and the orthodox believe in christus victor, as did a majority of church fathers

    here are some verses from the bible that id like your views on…

    “By his wounds we are healed” – This phrase is based on Isaiah 53:5 (Old Testament):

    “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds, we are healed.” (NIV)

    “Cursed is he who hangs on a tree” – This refers to Galatians 3:13 (New Testament):

    “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’” (NIV)

    “He became sin for us” – This phrase is based on 2 Corinthians 5:21 (New Testament):

    “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (NIV)

    i think christus victor makes more sense as jesus conquering sin and death and focus on his resurrection, than penal substiution of only appeasing God’s wrath with a blood sacrifice to take the punishment and focus on jesus’ death. but these verses could be interpreted as penal substitution so id like some ideas from the community

  • could reincarnation be an individual yet group thing at the same time?

    I have this impression that identity in the afterlife can only be understood metaphorically. One though many. I am myself yet the whole or part of the whole at the same time. Like how the gulf of Mexico is unique yet is part of and comingles with the Atlantic. Or even more precisely said, when a person dies they are like a cup of water that is dumped in the ocean. The water stays separate yet comingles. This is only an analogy and is imperfect yet can only be understood analogously and metaphorically.

    To take the analogy to reincarnation. When we die we are like a cup of water that’s dumped into the ocean. When reincarnation occurs, it’s like scooping a cup of water and placing it in a body. It’s sort of an individual yet group thing.

    the bible does have a verse that says we live once and then the judgment. Assuming this verse is from God, perhaps each individual only lives once and future lives are more of a collective experience.

    This is just some ideas I have after having read about the spiritual aspect of the afterlife. Does anyone else particularly nders themselves think this might be a good way of describing it or is this just some silly musings on my part?

  • evidence of the afterlife

    Check out the book ‘evidence for the afterlife’ by Dr Jeffrey long. It includes, among other things…

    Objective though not fool proof studies on out of body experiences. More than one scientific study has concluded that when out of body experiences occur, they are almost always ‘accurate or at least consistent with reality’. sometimes the description of what happened while the person was dead, couldn’t have been known to them, or at least the things described are consistent with what happened. if someone just guesses what happens out of their body, they are almost always off… it’s actually very hard to guess accurately. there are lots of case studies, like the pam reynolds case, or random examples like seeing a pair of shoes on the window ledge of another room in the hospital. plus, there’s the AWARE study, where one person had auditory experience while dead, and another person had a description of the operation that was consistent with reality. as is often said, all it takes is one black swan to prove that black swans exist.., if anyone is describing something impossible to know, that’s evidence for out of body experiences being accurate, and evidence of the afterlife by extension.

    Evidence of people who were blind seeing for the first time during their experience. They struggle to come to grips with their experience as would a new born.

    Communication on the other side is almost always telepathic. If this was just hallucination, why don’t folks experience verbal and other forms of communication? I dont know how a skeptic could explain this away, i dont know other ways to interpret this.

    Earth beings met on the other side r almost always dead relatives. If this was just hallucination why r not they seeing living relatives or living non relatives or dead non relatives a lot more? i understand there might be something special about family and the associations with the deceased, but this is still more evidence than not evidence. you would think people would be hallucinating someone like taylor swift a lot more.

    On basic philosophy, think about what people are experiencing: coherent and elaborate afterlife stories, that are more real than their earthly lives and they have no doubt about with no fear of death, and the common themes like light beings, life reviews, tunnels, deceased loved ones, God etc. Drugs dreams and other hallucinations don’t cause these elaborate afterlife stories with those common themes anywhere else. Why would dying out of all possibilities cause all this? if evolution or natural selection could explain it, that’d be one thing, but as far as i can tell those dont explain it.

    what we end up with, is evidence so plain as day staring us in the face yet skeptic pretend there’s not even evidence for the afterlife to begin with.