I'm writing a book about elections and it's going to change everything

Bold claim, I know. I got the receipts...

I’m writing a book about elections and all the manipulation that has been going on. This book will not only breakdown election meddling, voter irregularities, and the rest, it will also provide evidence and understanding to go with it.

What are elections?

What are the rules and laws that govern elections?

Why are these rules and laws valid?

How can we know these rules and laws are valid?

What if these rules and laws aren’t valid or effective at stopping fraud?

What if there was a way to know, and measure, the quality of these rules and laws that govern elections and voting?

Is there such a thing as a law and legal policy yardstick?

Could we use this same law yardstick to measure the quality of any law?

In response to all these questions, the answer is emphatically yes.

We can measure the quality and effectiveness of any law, legal policy, regulation, rule or the like.

This is what the founding fathers discovered over 200 years ago. And it’s what I discovered in seeking for the answers to the above questions.

It’s a bold claim, I know.

I’m saying I have discovered something that can finally explain and reveal—in simple terms—what a truly free, fair, and just system of laws looks like. And to go a step further, we can use the same law yardstick, to coin a term, to measure the quality of any rule, at any time, period.

Now that the humble claims have been taken care of, let me give you a little taste of what I mean.

The Law and Simple Math

One of the most powerful technologies human beings have ever discovered was mathematics. With it, we can render the hyper complex world all around us into simple logical statements and questions that have clear definitive answers.

If I ask you, how many pieces of fruit are on a table that has two apples and two oranges on it, what would the answer be?

The answer is four pieces of fruit. Using the language of math, we’d represent this as:

This holds true every time, without fail. The reason it does is because we define the symbols in such a way that it boils a lot of complex data into a simple representative statement.

We use categories (ontology) to decide that a piece of fruit is something that looks like an apple and something that looks like an orange. Because of this decision, we essentially remove all the other information from the situation, turning the table abd fruit into a simple 2 + 2 equation.

Now some people might try to argue that if we change the fundamental geometry using, for instance, something called taxi cab geometry, we can imagine a place where 2 + 2 = 5. But that breaks with the decision and therefore changes the rules of the game.

In other words, there’s only two reasons why when we ask someone: How many pieces of fruit are on a table with two apples and two oranges they can get an answer other than four. Either a) the person is incompetent in math (they don’t know how to add simple numbers) or b) they are lying, cheating or changing the rules to make it seem like the answer is something else.

We’ve all had situations in our lives where someone tried to take a simple question and spin it on its head. They say that the situation can be looked at from many angles, that the question is more complex when we consider other perspectives, or they otherwise avoid the simple and elementary nature of a properly formed question and proposition. These people tend to spend a lot of time in the halls of power, especially over the past seventy years. This doesn’t change the simple facts—2 + 2 = 4 in any reasonable and logical situation that this math is correctly applied.

True law is this simple. Real law is not so overly complex most of the population can’t understand it. The only reason it seems that way is because some very corrupt and manipulative people benefit from it being this way.

I’m here to tell you that if you can do simple math, if you can answer “four” then you are smart enough to understand law in its fundamental form.

My book about law, elections, and the discoveries I’ve made are so simple I thought I had it wrong.

I thought that surely someone as mildly intelligent as me can’t have figured out what seemingly nations of millions of people don’t know. Surely, the well trained and overpaid lawyers of the world know something I don’t, and this explains why our elections and the laws that govern them are such a mess. What I know now is that, like the kid who tries to claim 2 + 2 doesn’t equal for, he either doesn’t know how to do math or he’s trying to cheat the system.

As a teaser to my book, take a look at this video about Omniology—a big word you’ve never seen before, no doubt.

I won’t explain it now but I will tell you that at the center of what I discovered, the same thing the founding fathers of the United States discovered, is an idea so simple and so powerful, it brought down an empire and raised up one of the freest nations on earth.

I hope the rediscovery of this idea has the same power today as it did back then.

- Justin Deschamps

PS: If you want even more of a teaser, check out the show I did on Knowledge Based about Qualified Voting and Omniology.