Liz @ Liz @midwest.social

Posts

5

Comments

1,119

Joined

2 yr. ago

I wrote a whole thing, but honestly Wikipedia does a pretty good job on this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon?wprov=sfla1

I mean that username tho....

Gotta start local and work your way up. The system is fundamentally flawed. There are many problems, but the most fixable is the voting and representation systems, which can usually be changed at the local level through referendum. Approval Voting is an easy fix with big impact and when applied to multi-winner elections you can use a proportional variant to get proportional results in the legislature. Both of these changes would reduce polarization and make it easier for third parties to get in office. With more than two parties in power, the parties have to start working together and compromising on things, instead of just obstructing until they're the majority and then jamming through partisan bullshit. But you gotta start local. Run a referendum campaign, switch your local elections to Approval, and work your way up.

All I want for Christmas is Approval Voting and proportional representation.

If I could fucking ban pesticides and antibiotics for agricultural use I absolutely would.

Depends on the weapon.

Buck-twenty-Gs, baby!

💀

Gay people are generally fairly slutty. Image if ever guy's dream slut was also just another guy. Well, they all have the same attraction to sluts, so they all end up being sluts for each other. Sluts for sluts.

Generalizations cannot be applied to the individual.

Slut.

Beans do be pretty good though.

I'm pretty sure it's ridiculously hard to stop government projects in your backyard there. The best you can do is refuse to sell your land.

"okay, we're not gonna have political parties, right guys?"

Immediately form federalist and anti-federalist factions

If you're referring to the House of Representatives, single-member districts is a federal law, not a constitutional requirement. Congress could simply pass another law changing the old one, no constitutional amendment required. The method of representation in the Senate is codified fairly narrowly into the Constitution, but the House requirements are more lax and doesn't forbid multi-seat representation. Technically the federal law allows for it too, but only if your state is grandfathered in. I'm not sure when the bill was passed or why that specific exception was put in.

If you're talking about lower levels, multi-seat representation happens at the local level all the time. There's a few states that have at-large districts in their legislatures, but single-member is way more common.

That's fine if you don't want to respond, I just want to make sure people reading have an opportunity to follow these links and realize that we do have plenty of multi-winner elections in the US.

The Florida reprocessing plant was an absolute mess. So many people were getting ridiculous exposure levels from that place and dying young.

The entire theory depends on ignoring the actual ideology on the ground and assuming Palin voters would just as soon vote for a Democrat.

It literally says the opposite, and there's no assumption, it's right there in the voting data. Begich beats Palin and Peltola one-on-one. I'm sorry that you've heard other people talk about this particular election in bad faith, but that's not what I'm doing. We can talk about other particular RCV elections that had spoilers, if you like.

And you haven't mentioned any other type of approval voting until now so yes that's what was assumed.

I mentioned both regular approval and SPAV in my first comment. Maybe that's where some of this confusion is coming from.

STV is also a multiple winner election system. Which is also incompatible with our Constitution.

Can you quote the section that prohibits multi-winner elections? At this point some of the things you've said have me believing you might an inauthentic account, unfortunately. I apologize if you're an earnest American, but I have now have my doubts.

The entire theory depends on ignoring the actual ideology on the ground and assuming Palin voters would just as soon vote for a Democrat.

It literally says the opposite, and there's no assumption, it's right there in the voting data. Begich beats Palin and Peltola one-on-one. I'm sorry that you've heard other people talk about this particular election in bad faith, but that's not what I'm doing. We can talk about other particular RCV elections that had spoilers, if you like.

And you haven't mentioned any other type of approval voting until now so yes that's what was assumed.

I mentioned both regular approval and SPAV in my first comment. Maybe that's where some of this confusion is coming from.

STV is also a multiple winner election system. Which is also incompatible with our Constitution.

Can you quote the section that prohibits multi-winner elections? At this point some of the things you've said have me believing you might an inauthentic account, unfortunately. I apologize if you're an earnest American, but I have now have my doubts.

The entire theory depends on ignoring the actual ideology on the ground and assuming Palin voters would just as soon vote for a Democrat.

It literally says the opposite, and there's no assumption, it's right there in the voting data. Begich beats Palin and Peltola one-on-one. I'm sorry that you've heard other people talk about this particular election in bad faith, but that's not what I'm doing. We can talk about other particular RCV elections that had spoilers, if you like.

And you haven't mentioned any other type of approval voting until now so yes that's what was assumed.

I mentioned both regular approval and SPAV in my first comment. Maybe that's where some of this confusion is coming from.

STV is also a multiple winner election system. Which is also incompatible with our Constitution.

Can you quote the section that prohibits multi-winner elections? At this point some of the things you've said have me believing you might an inauthentic account, unfortunately. I apologize if you're an earnest American, but I have now have my doubts.

I dunno why you're bringing back SPAV into this, the discussion has had very little to do with it. There are local races that use STV, which is a bigger change to the voting and representation system than SPAV is.

You should just skip down to the part that explains that yes, Palin was a spoiler. You don't seem to be particularly interested in actually having a discussion, I'm not here to score wins or attack one system or another. I'm here to provide and receive a better understanding of how voting and representation systems work. You don't seem to be particularly interested in that.

I didn't tell you to trust Wikipedia, I told you to follow through to the linked sources in that section. Also, that talk page suffers from the same problem you're having, which is assuming that the RCV results are the same thing as the public opinion. The entire point of analysing the data is to look past the voting system used and try to understand what people's preferences are. Here's another (very long) source that summarizes the full ballot data and explains that, yes, Palin was a spoiler. Justifying this as acceptable by saying that RCV followed its own rules (which it must do, by definition) is the same as saying Ralph Nader spoiling the 2000 election was the correct outcome because those people had Nader as their favorite.

Look I don't hate RCV. It's certainly better than FPTP. I just don't want people to have false ideas about its function. Spoilers can and do happen, they just behave differently than FPTP. And, I will add, they behave in a much more acceptable way, with RCV spoilers being much more likely to be competitive candidates compared to FPTP. Plus, RCV has less center-squeeze than FPTP. Mathematically, Approval doesn't have spoilers nor does it have a center-squeeze effect, and I would argue that it's better than both RCV and FPTP for this and other reasons, but I do want to re-confirm that FPTP is the worst.

Most make next to nothing and give up quickly. I don't see the option to give up on being under surveillance.