True Voting Principle proves Koopman wrong

The True Voting Principle proves Roger Koopman, Chuck Baldwin, Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keepers, and John Birch Society are morally and logically wrong on how to vote. – Ed

by Dr. Ed Berry

EXB150Roger Koopman weighed in on my article “Chuck Baldwin is wrong about Ryan Zinke” but he provided no rebuttal. His whole argument consists of stating his opinion. He speaks for many Libertarian voters in Montana.

Koopman cannot dispute the True Voting Principle that contradicts his immoral, illogical, and suicidal voting position.

The True Voting Principle (tm) has unanimous support of at least six major Christian religions and it serves as the fundamental moral guide for our voting decisions:

  • True Voting Principle: “Our moral duty is to vote to achieve the most possible good, which eliminates voting for candidates who cannot win.”
  • True Voting Principle Example: “It is legitimate to vote for a more restrictive law regarding abortion over a less restrictive law. This action does not represent support of an unjust law. Rather it is a legitimate and proper attempt to limit evil aspects and to prevent worse legislation from being adopted.”

The True Voting Principle has nothing to do with political parties. It lets us decide which candidate represents the greater good. It only tells us to vote for the greater good for ourselves, our state, and our nation according to our own conscience.

The True Voting Principle requires we vote relative rather than absolute.

The True Voting Principle requires us to vote for the “greater good” among the choices available to us. “Greater” is relative, not absolute. This requires us to fairly compare the candidates who can win and to choose the one whom we believe will produce the most possible good.

The True Voting Principle prohibits personal “mandatory” conditions.

Some self-described Christians and cult preachers state “mandatory” conditions they require of a candidate in order to get their vote. Their mandatory conditions conflict with the True Voting Principle and are, therefore, immoral.

The True Voting Principle is the fundamental principle that must guide our vote. It trumps all other conditions we set for our vote. It applies to conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats because it lets each of us decide what candidate will produce the greater good, not just for us but for America.

All six major Christian religions affirm the True Voting Principle. Therefore, those who argue and vote against the True Voting Principle on moral grounds have joined a religious voting cult.

The only case Koopman made is that he is part of the religious voting cult that is taking down America. He made his opinions very clear:

  1. “I will never, under any circumstances, ever vote for a RINO Republican — period.  End of subject.”
  2. “By pledging to never violate my conscience in the votes I cast, this not only means I won’t vote for a liberal Republican, but that I won’t vote for a liberal Democrat, either.  I will either vote third party or skip the race entirely.”
  3. “The Democrats-in-Republican-Clothing will never allow that to happen, as long as we keep violating our sacred consciences and voting them into office as the ‘lessers of evil.’”

Unfortunately, Koopman makes the following moral errors:

  1. His mandatory condition that the Republican not be a “RINO” or “liberal” prevents him from the compromise necessary to achieve the greater good. – The True Voting Principle requires us to compromise on our conditions in order to achieve the “greater good.”
  2. His absolute condition that the Republican not be a “RINO” or “liberal” prevents him from comparing the Republican to the Democrat to evaluate which is the greater good. – The True Voting Principle requires us to compare candidates so we can vote to achieve the “greater good.”
  3. He lets his “conscience” override the True Voting Principle. – The True Voting Principle trumps all our conditions because our “conscience” can lead us astray, as Koopman’s conscience does when it causes him to help elect the greater evil.

The True Voting Principle requires us to vote on the basis of the possible good a candidate may do if elected rather than to reject a candidate based upon our subjective claims about a candidate, like “liberal” or “RINO” or “neocon” that could, in fact, be wrong.

In addition to moral errors, Koopman makes these factual and logical errors:

  1. He claims not voting for a Republican helps the conservative cause in America. – In fact, by helping to elect a Democrat, Koopman is tearing down the conservative cause in America.
  2. He claims he will not vote for a “liberal Democrat.” – In fact, by not voting for the liberal Republican, Koopman is “voting” for a liberal Democrat.
  3. He thinks we can wait a long time before we try to elect the greater good. – In fact, we have no time for Koopman’s imaginary “long-term” solutions. Obama’s progressives are taking America down very fast and China can own America in less than 10 years.
  4. He thinks America’s problems result from electing RINOs. – In fact, more of America’s problems have resulted from voters who reject the True Voting Principle and thereby elect Progressive Democrats.
  5. He thinks we will always be drifting further and further away from the free society that once was our heritage. – In fact, we would be recovering if all conservatives followed the True Voting Principle.
  6. He says “I have dedicated myself to hunting down the RINOs.” – In fact, the first and best solution to America’s problems is to forget RINO hunting and use the True Voting Principle to gradually make America more conservative.

It does not matter how “moral” we think we are, if our vote conflicts with the True Voting Principal, our vote is not “moral.” Those who say we should not vote for the “lesser of two evils” are immoral because their Evil Mantra promotes the greater evil.

Koopman, like Pastor Chuck Baldwin and others, falls for the false Mantras:

  1. The Evil Mantra ™: “A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.”
  2. The Moron Mantra ™: “There’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats
  3. The Suicide Mantra ™: “People will never wake up until it gets much worse.

The false Mantras are negatives and they produce evil. The True Voting Principle is positive and it produces good. Always seek the positives

Koopman writes in his attempt to justify voting against the Republican nominees in final elections,

“In the short-term, would the Republicans lose some races? Sure. Would the GOP likely lose the numerical majority in Congress and in some state legislatures?  Probably.”

Koopman falls for the deadly Suicide Mantra. The fact is, if you vote to lose in the short term, you will also lose in the long term, and if you want to win in the long term then you better start winning in the short term.

America has serious enemies who plan to enslave us as soon as the Obama Progressives weaken us. Unless we stop them now by rejecting the false Mantras and following the True Voting Principle, China may topple America within ten years and make us their slaves. They will not have to fire a shot because their economy and war machine will so overpower America that we will surrender.

Koopman’s plan is the American suicide President Lincoln referred to in his Lyceum Address,

“If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

Those who side with Koopman better wake up now or they will be the authors of America’s suicide.

Koopman writes in his attempt to blame RINOs for his perceived problems,

“But as we all know, conservatives long ago lost the ideological majority in these bodies anyway, precisely because of the corrupted, RINO-ridden nature of the GOP.”

No, I don’t know that. In fact, radical conservatives on Koopman’s side have their chance to nominate their candidate in every primary election … but they continue to blow it. If radical conservatives can’t get their act together to win a primary election, it is immoral of them to sabotage the duly-nominated Republicans in the final election.

Koopman concludes from the failures of his own group that

“Conservatives long ago lost the ideological majority in these bodies anyway, precisely because of the corrupted, RINO-ridden nature of the GOP.”

Wrong. Conservatives lost the ideological majority because foolish immoral radical voters on Koopman’s side vote against duly-nominated Republican candidates in final elections. In doing so, they give Progressive Democrats power to select liberal judges, veto conservative bills, make executive orders, flood America with illegal aliens, shut down our energy production, control our education system, destroy our military, and steal our land and our water.

By the way, there are radical conservatives in Montana who are rightfully concerned about the federal government taking Montana’s water rights via the CSKT Water Compact. But they don’t “get it” that they must vote for Daines and Zinke if they hope to save Montana’s water.

It’s not Koopman’s “RINO-ridden nature of the GOP” that is causing America’s suicide. It’s Koopman’s radical contingent of “RINO hunters” who are causing America’s suicide. A RINO who votes Republican is a better patriot than a self-proclaimed “freedom fighter” who does not vote Republican.

Koopman’s own charts prove him wrong. Here’s Koopman’s 2013 TAB scores for Montana legislators.


Whatever we think of his scoring system, it does define the Democrats very well: 100% of the Democrats score less than 10%. About 12% of Republican are aligned with the Democrats and the rest are scattered with a mean near 40%. We should not expect all Republicans to score 100% because there will be bills that Republicans and Democrats will legitimately agree upon. So some of the spread of Republicans across the scale may show Koopman’s personal bias rather than any deficiency in the character of Republicans. In fact, many very good Republicans score between 30% and 50% in Koopman’s scores.

Let’s assume for argument’s sake that Koopman’s scores are meaningful. This means the higher scores are better conservative scores than lower scores.

Koopman’s own data show that a Republican with a score over 10% has a 100% probability of being more conservative than all Democrats. Yet Koopman writes he will not vote for any Republican with a score lower than 35%, which is his arbitrary definition of “liberal.”

For the record, US Congressional candidate Ryan Zinke scored 34% on Koopman’s 2011 TAB scores. Zinke’s opponent Lewis has no TAB score because he has had a government job in Washington all his life but it is safe to assume he would score near zero %.

From personal knowledge, I know that Ryan Zinke has moved to the right since he left the Montana Senate. Zinke was exposed to considerable conservative input when he ran for Lt. Governor under very-conservative Neil Livingstone in 2012. Zinke also spent time talking to me about climate change. He is a fast learner and he changed his view on climate change as a result of our conversations. This change shows in his positions on energy and economy. I estimate Ryan Zinke would score about 60% on Koopman’s tests today.

Koopman assumes Ryan Zinke has not become more conservative since he was in the Montana Senate in 2011. This is like assuming Dick Morris has not become more conservative since he quit working for Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Even if Zinke had not become more conservative, Koopman is still irrational because he says he will not vote for a candidate who scored 34% rather than 35% to be above Koopman’s arbitrary “liberal” boundary. Koopman’s “conscience” tells him it is better to send Democrat Lewis to Congress than Ryan Zinke. Is this insane? Is not 34% on Koopman’s TAB scores much better than zero %? Koopman’s “conscience” is wrong.

Koopman displays the extreme rightwing position that has caused the conservative decline of America. Those who vote like Koopman help elect the Communist Progressive Democrats who now control America and Montana.

Oath Keepers National Chaplain Chuck Baldwin has gone completely over the fence to support Democrat John Lewis over Republican Ryan Zinke when it is clear that Zinke is the far better choice for conservatives. Either Baldwin has lost it or he is evil. I don’t understand how any conservative can support Oath Keepers or Baldwin’s Liberty Fellowship because, to me, doing so is like saying “Amen” to Obama’s Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America” speeches.

Montana’s conservatives – who do not vote for Republicans – elected by default Democrat Tester to the US Senate, Democrat Bullock as Governor, other Democrats who now serve on Montana’s critical Land Board. They focus on shooting down good duly-nominated Republicans. These conservatives are worse than the RINOs they criticize because RINOs at least vote Republican.


Roger Koopman has provided no critique of the True Voting Principle or of my article “Chuck Baldwin is wrong about Ryan Zinke”. Koopman has only stated his personal opinions that show he is part of the irrational religious voting cult.

D’Souza’s America (BlueRay DVD, Kindle, and hardcover) should be a wake-up call to Americans. We have elected a president whose vision is to change America into a third-world country because he believes America deserves to be destroyed. We elected Progressive Communist Democrats to Congress who vote lock-step to support Obama in his goal.

America’s decline is not caused by the mainstream Republicans. It’s caused by conservatives who do not vote for Republicans.

No third party can ever beat the well-organized Progressive Communist Democrat Party. The only way to stop Obama and his puppet Democrats is to elect enough Republicans to dominate the Democrats.

We should not expect “perfection” from Republicans. That won’t happen. We are not perfect beings. But as a group, ONLY Republicans will fight against Obama’s planned destruction of America.

So when we vote in the 2014 election and beyond, let us choose candidates who will do the “greater good” for America. Here are the essential parameters:

  1. The “greater good” candidates will not be Democrats because even good Democrats will vote lock-step with the Democrat majority and Obama on every key issue.
  2. The “greater good” candidates will not be Libertarians because Democrats will ALWAYS beat Libertarians. Therefore, a vote for a Libertarian is a vote for a Democrat, which is a vote for the greater evil.
  3. The only “greater good” candidates in today’s world will be Republicans, whether we like it or not. If you don’t vote Republican, plan to tell your kids and grandkids that you voted to put them into slavery.

The key to voting for the “greater good” is to evaluate the Republican vision versus the Democrat vision for America. The Progressive Democrat vision is to take down America. The Republican vision is to build up America. Republicans may not be perfect but they have the only vision that will save America.

Copyright (c) 2014 by Edwin X Berry

True Voting Principle, Evil Mantra, Moron Mantra, Suicide Mantra are Trademark (tm) 2014 by Edwin X Berry

6 thoughts on “True Voting Principle proves Koopman wrong”

  1. Didn't I see Zinke down at Waffle Wednesday at JB's. He has changed his positions to fit the audience. If we can't trust Zinke on issues how can we trust him in Congress. This election should be about the direction of this country not whether Democrats or Republicans win. In the end those two parties will be down at the capitol bar having drinks talking about the failures of this country. How many opportunities do we give one party or another to get us back on track. Why should we vote for socialist candidates whether, Republican or Democrat just because they have an (R) behind their name. We know that Republicans love to spend just like Democrats when in power. 2000 to 2007 is a good example where the debt increased, spending increased and government increased all under Republican leadership. In the 2013 Montana Legislature spending increased over 13 percent under Republican leadership. Let's vote for good candidates who won't waffle and leave the parties out of the equation.

  2. Dear Roger, I am beginning to think you cannot focus on a problem long enough to find a solution. For example, the Wall Street Journal just reported that Obama plans to issue a massive unilateral executive amnesty after the election. You must understand that if Obama is successful in this, he will permanently change the face of America.

    Given that Americans were stupid enough to reject Romney who would never have done this, we are in a real fix. The only way we can hope to slow down Obama's planned destruction of America this year is to elect as many Republicans as possible to Congress.

    And you sit there and complain about some imperfection in Ryan Zinke. Are you out of your frickin' mind? The future of America is at stake and all you can do is complain about Ryan Zinke not being "good enough for you" when the fact is Zinke will be a whole lot better for you and America than Lewis.

    The only fact before you is whether you want Lewis or Zinke to vote for you in Congress. Your diatribe above indicates you are completely confused about how to save America. In that case, your only solution is to separate yourself from the source of your confusion.

    I am showing you the way. Someone else is showing you the path to your own demise.

  3. John Lewis is a liberal democrat staffer who will follow the democrats and President Obama 100% of the time. That would be shameful for Montana. I am voting for Ryan Zinke. It is not a complicated contest.

  4. Consider . . .

    "FB Comrade David, a hard-core Republican, pointed me to this American Thinker article written by Doub Thorburn. Doug is a lifelong Libertarian who has seen enough spoiled elections to know the Libertarian Party is failing the country. He make the case for voting for the "less evil" in his article, Why it's time for Libertarians to Vote for Republicans. He is donating to many of the campaigns across the States, so this isn't just words.
    Voting for Libertarian Party candidates today serves only to divide the vote between those who would slow (Republicans) or reverse (libertarians) the trend towards increasing statism. Splitting the vote allows those who would accelerate that trend to win by default. We need to support — dare I say it? — the lesser of the evils. While most votes require me to hold my nose, I get lucky now and then and truly support a candidate. I would love the opportunity to vote for a Rand Paul, a Ted Cruz, a Marco Rubio — and suspect I will soon have such an opportunity. But we need to ensure Republicans — even those we would never vote for in a sane world – win the Senate so that we can hold the line in the interim. We can’t afford to give another seat on the Supreme Court to a pseudo-liberal. The reign of Harry Reid, one of the most despicable statists ever to hold elected office, must end.

    And, to be fair, here is a blog post from Comrade K over at III Percent Patriots. He is making the case for just the opposite: Why voting is not a viable means of course correction… If you leave a comment, be polite. He's just one of those like-minded comrades who values dissent more.

    Bottom line: we need to pull votes from the Democrats. Not all of them like Ebola, inflation, unemployment and bad healthcare."

  5. Scott Orr and Roger Koopman , Tab scores on Montana Legislators , was rated on the Constitution. 100% meant your votes were base on the Constitution. 0% means you vote against the Constitution all the time. Every elected official take an OATH to protect the Constitution. 60% of all elected officials are in violation of that oath. I heard the words "For the greater good" , I mite be wrong , but aren't these the words use by the communist. It does not matter what the people want, wants you are elected and take that oath to the Constitution, and that's how you should vote. Americans in the last 40 years , have voted for the welfare state, does this mean I should vote with their wishes, no, vote for the Constitution. The trouble is , on the next election , no one will vote for you. The U.S. Constitution was written to control the federal government, the State Constitution was written to control State government, our problem is trial lawyers conspired to destroyed Montana's Constitution , with the rewriting of our constitution in 1972. This Constitution was never ratified by the people.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.