OK, but that’s the answer he gives when he doesn’t know the answer. Are we sure he understands what contraception is?
OK, but that’s the answer he gives when he doesn’t know the answer. Are we sure he understands what contraception is?
I don’t believe for a second that Trump doesn’t know the situation, but how is that lie better? “Here’s a picture of you endorsing a self-styled Nazi.” Well, I’m out of the loop on that one. “You endorsed him.” Yeah, but they just tell me what to say and do. I don’t ask a lot of questions. “Would you denounce him now?” I’m really not sure what I’m supposed to say here. Let me check with Vlad and see what he wants me to do. I’ll get back to you.
The headline makes it sound like she was saying that Tucker was serving human flesh and blood at his event.
Lol, it would be nice if it were true, but it’s not.
It’s not bullying, it’s simple math. Harris wins or Trump wins. Harris isn’t perfect, but Trump is unacceptable. Voting for neither is a choice, but it’s choice that says you don’t care which one wins. You don’t care if a fascist bigot who wants to abuse his power to control women and line his pockets wins the election. Anyone that’s OK with that is either themselves a fascist bigot who wants Project 2025, or they’re stupid.
So saying you don’t care if Trump wins tells me you might be a fascist bigot, or you might be stupid. If you’re just stupid, that’s fine, vote your conscience. But if you’re a fascist bigot pretending, you might as well admit it to the world and admit you’re supporting Trump.
Either way, it’s not a persuasive argument to make anyone think you have anything of value to say.
At least now they know where to send the data to get it published.
Moderation is not inherently virtuous, and compromise is not always the best path forward. Have you read Project 2025? As an American, that shit is terrifying, and the idea that we should find a middle ground with Christian nationalists is abhorrent. Trending toward moderation encourages extremism and obstructionism, because you get more leverage on the center from the edges. Look at what is happening in France right now, where they use simple ballots but will have runoff elections until majority candidates are elected. Moderation, cooperation, and compromise on the left led to failure.
The biggest problem opponents are using to block or roll back RCV is transparency and time. Hand counts take longer and may get vastly different results if there are discrepancies. But those concerns are mostly smokescreen from groups that benefit from the status quo. Any hand recount takes time, and if you fully tabulate the entire vote, it’s easy to locate potential problems with the computer count.
My concerns are transparency and honesty, and both stem from the fact that only your first remaining choice counts in each round, and one candidate is eliminated in each round. Because only your first preference counts, the most important selection is your first choice. Everyone’s second choice gets no votes in the first round and will be eliminated, even if they get 100% of the second choice selections.
Several candidates from the same ideological neighborhood split and dilute the vote from those voters for the first round. If everyone doesn’t rally around one specific candidate, all of those candidates could be eliminated in instant runoffs as the lowest vote getter. You have to vote strategically to make sure that the spoiler candidate on your side is eliminated before the spoiler candidate on their side.
Like, let’s say we have five fictional candidates, and arbitrarily assign them Green, Blue, Purple, Red, and Nazi. Blue and Red are the front runners, Green is the spoiler for Blue and Nazi is the spoiler for Red. Purple is a third centrist party
Blue voters assume Green voters will pick Blue or Purple as their second choice, and Red voters assume Nazi voters will pick Red or Purple as their second choice. It’s in both Blue and Red’s interest to see Nazi and Green beat Purple in the first round and then have their opponent’s spoiler beat their spoiler in the second round. This creates a scenario where strong Blue supporters are strategically voting for Nazi as their first choice, even though that would be there last preference.
So let’s say the preferences roughly break down into 6 categories
30 BPG 30 RPN 15 GPB 15 NPR 5 PGB 5 PNR
With a FPTP election, Blue and Red would convince everyone that Green, Nazi, and Purple have no chance of winning, and therefore voters should pick a frontrunner. And they’d be right, because FPTP sucks balls. But the winner would be whichever frontrunner can convince enough voters to pick their third choice.
With RCV, it is better but still not great. This scenario would be deadlocked at the second round, so Red attempts to convince a few Nazis that their candide cannot win and switch their vote from NPR to RNP. Blue tries a different strategy, and takes some of their own voters to switch from BPG to NBP. Both frontrunner candidates are still vying to convince some of the Purple supporters to change their minds. Anyone that picks some combination of GNP risks having their ballot expire, so they have to pick R or B even if they hate both equally.
So there’s still almost no chance that a third party will win, only now it’s more complicated. Plus if there’s a hand recount, a few votes one way or the other can dramatically change the final tally by changing who comes in last. A better name for RCV is Last Past the Post. It’s better, but it’s still not representing the true will of the voters, and it’s not encouraging campaigns to win hearts and minds. It promotes gamesmanship and back-room deals over voter outreach and turnout.
Approval voting is pretty good, someone else mentioned that one. The only problem I have with that is that it encourages negative campaigning. Every campaign would be attacking Purple, and promoting party purity and loyalty as an ideology. Compromise becomes the enemy, because you have to control the ball.
Star Voting is fair. Every vote counts, and every vote is an accurate representation of the voter’s preference. There’s only one instant runoff, so a recount might change who is included, but there’s no reason to be strategic with your votes. Negative campaigning is discouraged, and candidates are rewarded for finding common ground because ratings are not mutually exclusive. And the best advantage, there’s no way for the frontrunners to use demagogeury or political maneuvering to box out new candidates with their clout.
My biggest concern with RCV is that its flaws are dampening enthusiasm for change. People recognize that the current system sucks balls, but if RCV ends up disappointing those who were on the fence about change, they aren’t going to look for new solutions. They are going to retreat to the devil they know.
Oh, you sweet summer child.
The way they are doing it is horrifying.
Sure, but not just generally “charity.” You pick and choose who you donste to, and you donate to charitable organizations that you think do good work. If they started smelting orphans, you’d probably stop writing checks.
I mean, I can also understand the knee jerk reaction, but I cannot imagine that he hasn’t had a new phone with a new number since the moment they knew their data was compromised.
Sort of, but also it hasn’t gone to the SCOTUS yet. Plus:
There is a difference between communicating a passcode to police and physically providing an unlocked phone to police, the court said. Though these two acts “may be functionally equivalent in many respects, this functional equivalency is not dispositive under current Fifth Amendment jurisprudence,” the court said. “We conclude that the act-of-production analytical framework makes sense only where law enforcement compels someone to perform an act to unlock an electronic device.”
The Utah case was an officer demanding to know the passcode. A court in New York might decide that the defendant can be compelled to enter his password and hand over an unlocked phone.
But if he’s forgotten the password, then the phone is simply locked until somebody hacks into it.
Ok, that made me chuckle.
Your system sounds fine. The benefits of STAR over OPV is just the two situations you described. One, you can rank two choices the same, and two, you can modify your preferences by adding or erasing stars.
The downside to Star voting is that you should have at least as many stars as candidates. But if there were 100 options, that’s going to be a massive ballot no matter what you do.
Lol, I’m from Philly, that’s not a riot.
So, basically what you would have gotten from the white pages, and an incomplete social security number. Is he worried someone is going to try to steal his identity? Mail him anthrax? Text or email him dick pics? Wasn’t he already concerned about those things? He’s the nominee for VP, and his running mate tried to have his predecessor killed on national television. He has tied to Russian oligarchs who defenestrate judges, and he’s the target of international spies who want his access to state secrets. He’s worried about half his social security number?
Approval voting counts all “approve” votes equally, which doesn’t eliminate the spoiler effect or create a more fair system than FPtP. Star voting eliminates the benefits of strategic voting and creates the most fair and accurate system possible. Genuinely voting your truth is the only measure of a fair election.
Authentication tokens - Some heirloom jewelry or letter of permission from the local royal family used to prove you are on their mission.
Gap analysis - when your party finds a crevasse or pit and determines if they can jump across.
Buffer - party member who casts buffs, usually a bard.
Microservices - when you barter with gnomes to repair your gear.