aalvare2

RCV doesn’t “solve” the issue though. The fact that third party candidates can sway elections to the least preferred candidate is known as the “Spoiler effect”, and RCV is also subject to it.

RCV seems to be objectively better than plurality (what we use now), but it and any other ranking-based voting system are still subject to spoilers. One thing that can actually “solve” the issue though is rating-based systems, like Approval Voting, Score Voting, or STAR voting.

Good video on the subject

What makes you say that? The brain-worm, or his history of eating rotten flesh?

Again, the bill was a clone of a far right Republican bill from a year before that had even more items that Republicans wanted.

You appear to be conflating bills.

HR 3602, the focus of your first 2 quote blocks AND your first link is a REPUBLICAN bill. It was shot down overwhelmingly by democrats. Even Jerry Nadler, the guy your 2nd quote mentions, is a Democrat badmouthing the bill. (You conveniently cut right through the part of the text that said he was a Dem, which could've clued you in that this doesn't back you.)

HR 3602 IS a clone of HR2, the Republican immigration proposal from last year, but it's the wrong bill. The bipartisan border bill was HR815, before the border provisions were ripped out. BEFORE that happened, your very own 2nd link had this to say about the bill's substance:

Beyond the enforcement measures, the scuttled Senate bill she supports includes 50,000 more green cards for employment and family-based visas for each of the next five years, which would be the first increase to legal immigration since 1990; funding for more asylum officers; government-funded legal representation for migrant children, which would be a first; and a pathway to citizenship for Afghans paroled in after helping the U.S. government during the war. The Democratic Party platform moreover includes plans to strengthen the legal immigration system, address case backlogs, increase digitization of immigration processing, and maintain high levels of refugee resettlement.

Your "thenation" quote acknowledges that it is, in fact, written in part by Republicans. But it otherwise doesn't really get into policy details so as far as I'm concerned it's just prose.

And your "americanimmigrationcouncil" quote conveniently leaves out the very next sentences: "It would expand additional visas and future green card availability and offer a pathway to citizenship to Afghans, while also significantly increasing detention capacity. It is a mixed bag." I wouldn't interpret "mixed bag" to mean "right of fascism".

That's not what I said and that's not why they killed it.

What you said was it's "right of fascists". To me "right of fascists" either means there're Republicans saying "whoa, this might be too extreme" or it means that comparing the democratic proposal and the republican proposal, the democratic proposal goes further right. In this case, HR2 is the republican proposal, HR815 was the bipartisan proposal. Can you come up with substantive differences where HR815 is MORE radical? If not, what you meant by your exaggeration doesn't matter, it's still an exaggeration.

The bill IS farther right than anything that Republicans passed through the house.

We agree that Democrats moved right on immigration. But that'd necessarily mean that this proposal is to the right of previous compromises made in the House. Doesn't mean "to the right of fascists".

As you even admit, they only killed it because Trump didn't want to give Democrats a “win”.

Yes

Then every Republican internally admitted that the border bill was the “best one” they would have ever gotten and gave them everything they wanted and more. Like it or not, that IS running to the right of Republicans. Can the Republicans change their stance and go farther right? Yeah of course, they're fascists. But it doesn't change the fact that Democrats were willing to go farther right than even fascists were proposing.

Slow down a sec. "Every" Republican said it gave them "everything they wanted and more"? Again, you're exaggerating. Yes, "some" Republicans admitted that it was 'the toughest deal they were gonna get', but that just means it was 'the best compromise Dems were willing to give'. (Like your own 2 links said, the substance of the bill contained stuff obviously to the left of Republicans.) From my POV, this was 2 parties meeting in the middle, closer to the right than democrats have ever gone, but still the middle.

So she didn’t substantively say what you’re straight up lying about her saying? Apology accepted.

Lol, you don't have to make it a big deal, just proof-watch your own stuff next time

So “open ended” that she actually said nothing of substance. I’ve been arguing with people on the internet for decades and this is probably the most pathetic attempt to weasel away from a politicians words I’ve EVER seen. It’s a yes or no question and she refused to answer.

Firstly, when you have to say you've been "arguing with people on the internet for decades", either that's true and...something you should reflect on, or you're just a kid lying about his/her age.

Secondly: again, her answer was “that is a decision that doctors will make in terms of what is medically necessary. I'm not going to put myself in a position of a doctor” How is that not equivalent to “we shouldn't be restricting access to gender-affirming care”, gender-affirming care being the specific focus of the question she was asked?

She didn’t say no.

Yay! We agree!

But that’s not how political support works. When you support something you say it loudly and clearly (e.g. “I support M4A”) When you don’t support something you weasel out of it. (“Do you support M4A? - Well I support Americans getting access to the coverage they need as part of an important conversation between themselves and their doctors”). That’s how politics works and only a literal child doesn’t understand that.

Disagree with your analogue. The real question/answer is closer to "Broadly speaking, do you support abortion" - "Well, I belive that Americans should be able to have that conversation with their doctors, and I shouldn't have a say in that". I'm personally fine with that answer to that question.

I never said shut off all fossil fuel tomorrow

No, you said we should be "taking it as seriously as the end of the world doomsday scenario it is". And the most appropriate action combat a threat of that magnitude is to shut off fossil fuels tomorrow. But that's obviously not pracical, because it can lead to backlash and the US doubling down harder on fossil fuels. So the point is: where do we draw the line between urgent climate action and practical, long-term climate action?

you are once again just making up stuff to respond to and get big mad about.

"get big mad about"? Kinda outting yourself further as a kid there, lol

I feel like we're going back and forth as far as the next paragraph is concerned, except for this nugget:

You MIGHT win them over by confronting their world view over a long period of time and making a MORAL case for why fascism is wrong.

I agree with you on that. I think that's what many of those people need - someone to confront them with patience and empathy, who can slowly deradicalize them over time. But it's not Harris' job to deradicalize them, or to show them an "alternate worldview", that's the job of a Trump supporter's loved ones. Harris' first job is to win the election, no matter what she needs to say ('we'll be tougher on immigration going forward') or not say ('we're gonna overhaul the courts'). Her second job is to do the things that need to be done as president. And if Harris gets elected and she neither does anything about the courts, nor does she do anything about the filibuster by end of 2028, then you'll have been right to suspect her of not being "THAT strong" on abortion. But no matter what she says now, we simply won't know that until end-of-term.

What Trump supporters are part of this conversation? This is an online argument between you and me.

Yes, a discussion between you and me...that started with being about Trump supporters. The beliefs that Trump supporters have is relevant to a discussion about Trump supporters.

Yes, it’s the strategy that I PERSONALLY BELIEVE is the best. That is why I am arguing for it, here on the internet. Presumably you don’t believe the same which is why you’re arguing something different.

Not saying I don't want her to BE a progressive candidate. I'm saying it's foolish for her to campaign like she's the polar opposite of Trump. I don't really care how she campaigns, as long as her campaign sits literally anywhere on the spectrum between "unabashedly socialist/communist" and "a little left-of-center". I think she's closer to left of that spectrum than you'll admit, but regardless of how she actually leans, I don't think it's wise for her to campaign to the left side of that spectrum - there are MILLIONS of centrists looking for an excuse not to vote for Trump, and there are WAY MORE of them than progressives who will ONLY vote for her if she campaigns like a radical leftist.

Oh I get it. You literally can’t read anything longer than a tweet. You should have said that before hand. You argue like Ben Shapiro (pejorative). this is probably the most pathetic attempt to weasel away from a politicians words I’ve EVER seen. Why would I respond to you just making new stuff up when there’s so many other places in this conversation that you’re also making stuff up that need to be addressed. Do you not know how arguments work? That’s how conversations work. Jesus Christ, can you even pass the Turing test? You see a turtle in a desert lying on it’s back…

The harder you go on the insults, and the exaggerations, the more convincing it is that you're either too chronically online for your own good, or a kid, or both.

But I'm actually not saying those things to insult you, just trying to point out behaviors that you should consider toning down on. I'm sure flaming can be fun, but it's not very good for your own mental health - it can degrade your ability to empathize and affect your real life relationships more than you might think.

I know I'm just a random internet stranger...but just food for thought.

In an alternate reality, not too different from ours, this guy is gonna be the next president.

Punching left at the guy who attended the RNC?

If there’re no other alternatives, then I propose that going forward the new term for this should be “Crowd Striking”

That is fair lol.

That said if we’re talking less about how awful he is, and more about how absurd his awfulness is, then nothing screams “divorced from the reality of normal people” quite like this quote from his own daughter:

He ran down to the beach with a chainsaw, cut off the whale’s head and then bungee-corded it to the roof of the family minivan for the five-hour haul back to Mount Kisco, New York.

Every time we accelerated on the highway, whale juice would pour into the windows of the car, and it was the rankest thing on the planet. We all had plastic bags over our heads with mouth holes cut out, and people on the highway were giving us the finger, but that was just normal day to day stuff for us.

If even a little of this were true….

Margin of error on this poll is 4.4%. Don’t even bother clicking this. Vote.

But if your argument is that he went to the RNC as an appeal to teamsters who support Trump (aka not lefties), and that he is also choosing not to endorse either candidate on behalf of those teamsters, then that isn’t an appeal to further-left-than-democrats politics, it’s an appeal to centrism.

My point then being

Now she’s the one always punching left

Doesn’t really make sense in this context

Git itself isn't decentralized is about people copying it and sometimes mirroring it.

Not sure what you mean. My understanding is that git itself is decentralized insofar as each clone can develop its own history without ever needing to push to the origin, but that what OP is referring to is actually the “distributed” nature of git, where i.e. it’s easy to copy the entire history of an instance.

I get that this is a strong ticket on paper, but it’s really not the time for this.

Voting for Stein when somebody would’ve otherwise voted Harris basically just hands support to the voter’s least liked candidate.

It’s a well-known phenomenon, see the Spoiler Effect.

Okay, so to anyone who reads this exchange: I’m pretty sure this is a bot.

On top of it being a very botty response to my question, that didn’t even answer my question, they typed out three whole paragraphs with a thesis statement and conclusion, with some bold-face typing…in less than a minute. That’s fucking sketch.

But I’ll respond back at least once more:

Again, if you believe that the “electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate” and you don’t like voting “against your conscience”, then it seems like you value honest voting very highly.

But honest voting goes beyond parties. If you value voting honestly, then you should vote for the person you think is best suited for the presidency. It doesn’t have to be Jill Stein, it can be any of the other hundreds of millions of Americans, as a write-in.

What is your take on that?

I agree with the core of what you’re saying except I disagree that she “doesn’t understand” how slowly politics works. I think her decision to vote for Harris anyway speaks to that kind of understanding, else she’d endorse a third-party candidate/write-in in a poor attempt to speed-run democracy.

If that’s how you feel, then why vote for a particular party at all?

Why not just write in whoever you most desire to be the president? There’s nothing against that, after all…

“Don’t believe initial reporting about any dramatic event. The rush to be first often overrides the responsibility to try to be correct. As with any event like this, some of this information is likely to change as more information becomes available.”

https://youtu.be/sgpYzFTtJug?feature=shared

In any case, I heard about the attempt shortly after I started scrolling through lemmy last night, so from my pov the information had gotten to me in a timely manner.

What version control software in particular do you find better than git?

Your point about users often managing git projects via centralization is taken and valid. I was just pointing out that you don’t have to use git that way - different clones can separately develop their own features - so the earlier claim someone made that “git isn’t decentralized” is still wrong, imo.

This is a very misleading article. A lot of other comments are already touching on the nuance of the argument here, but I just want to break it down the way I understand it.

(Before that, though, I just want to point out that this is a 6-3 decision, but it’s not the usual 6-3, since Kagan and Gorsuch flipped sides. I think that’s telling enough that this isn’t simply a party-lines interpretation.)

It’s not that SCOTUS argued that “and” means “or”, it’s that when you have a statement “a person is eligible if not (a), (b), and (c)”, there is ambiguity in the order of operations between “not” and “and”. The statement could either mean

(1) E = !(A and B and C)

or

(2) E = (!A) and (!B) and (!C)

Demorgan’s law says we can rewrite (1) and (2) as

(1) !E = A and B and C

(2) !E = A or B or C

The court went with interpretation (2), not because one is more “correct” than the other. It seems like (2) was chosen because of the two “statutory difficulties” listed in the syllabus of Pulsifer v. United States.

(1) Pulsifer's reading would render Subparagraph A superfluous because a defendant who has a three-point offense under Subpara-graph B and a two-point offense under Subparagraph C will always have more than four criminal-history points under Subparagraph A. That reading leaves Subparagraph A with no work to do: removing it from the statute would make the exact same people eligible (and inel-igible) for relief. That kind of superfluity, in and of itself, refutes Pul-sifer's reading. When a statutory construction "render[s] an entire subparagraph meaningless," this Court has noted, the canon against surplusage applies with special force. National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense, 583 U.S. 109, 128. That is particularly true when, as here, the subparagraph is so evidently designed to serve a concrete function. Pp. 15-20.

(2) Pulsifer's reading would also create a second problem related to Paragraph (f)(1)'s gatekeeping function. The Guidelines presume that defendants with worse criminal records exhibiting recidivism, lengthy sentences, and violence deserve greater punishment. Under the Government's reading, Paragraph (f)(1) sorts defendants accordingly. When the defendant has committed multiple non-minor of-fenses, he cannot get relief (Subparagraph A). And so too when he has committed even a single serious offense punished with a lengthy prison sentence (Subparagraph B) or one involving violence (Subpara-graph C). Pulsifer's reading, by contrast, would allow safety-valve relief to defendants with more serious records while barring relief to defendants with less serious ones. A defendant with a three-point offense and a two-point violent offense would be denied relief. But a defendant with multiple three-point violent offenses could get relief simply because he happens not to have a two-point violent offense.

Contrary to Pulsifer's view, that anomalous result cannot be ignored on the ground that a sentencing judge retains discretion to impose a lengthy sentence. If Congress thought it could always rely on sentencing discretion, it would not have created a criminal-history requirement in the first instance. Instead, it specified a requirement that allows such discretion to operate only if a defendant's record does not reach a certain level of seriousness. Pulsifer's construction of Paragraph (f)(1) makes a hash of that gatekeeping function. Pp. 20-23.

In summary, this is a ruling that could have gone either way, and the side the court chose isn’t totally ridiculous.

It is the side of giving fewer people just the eligibility for relief, which is pretty shitty. But if the court was stooping to an argument as bad as the headline made it out to be, IMO we’d have MUCH bigger problems.

When the bar is at a reasonable height, sure.

But when the other guy did worse with more documents AND didn’t cooperate, and HE didn’t get charged until after he was caught obstructing the investigation, well then the bar’s in hell.

Source for him being a long time registered republican?

As far as I can tell from here, this guy seems all over the place. He voted for Trump in 2016 but later regretted it. He supported Sanders in 2020, but also Gabbard in 2020 and then Vivek Ramaswamy in 2024. He shows strong support for Ukraine, but he supported Covid conspiracies as late as 2023. Multiple felonies, many of which firearm related, some of which related to theft and traffic violations.

It’s not like I can say I know the guy, but I get the sense that he has severe undiagnosed mental illness, which is perhaps more important than his exact political leaning.

I suspect OP is just saying that she’s probably called him much worse in private, because a lot of us have done that lol

I don’t simply understand ‘left’ to mean ‘democrat’, I’m aware that there are people left of democrats.

Being “Left” encompasses more than just solidarity with the working class, but even specifically in this context, being the first acting teamster president to speak at the conference of a party that is historically anti-worker is…at best, naive. It could be seen as a way to pressure the GOP to care about unions, but they don’t care about unions, and speaking at their conference as a union president just gives a stronger surface-level impression to voters that they might.

Fair enough, thanks for the background. And I didn’t know that was a rule, so thanks.

I did also respond to the user organically in the second part of my post, so hopefully my post stays within the rules.

What about a price hike? If Netflix or Spotify increased their prices, would that be news?

I recently listened to the 4-part Behind the Bastards analysis of RFK Jr.

Not surprised that the man is desperate to get to the WH, considering that he was groomed more than any of his siblings into becoming the next JFK.

Source on him talking about this throughout the pandemic? Only thing I’m aware of is him going on Colbert’s show post-lockdown.

On that occasion, to some extent, I’m pretty sure he was just joking, given that he gives his entire speech in a comedic tone and doesn’t fight Colbert back on mostly anything he replies with.

How am I bot? Feel free to look at my past posts and conversations. lol

My bad, I didn’t know you just had a copy-pasted snippet. That snippet didn’t feel like it answered my question at all, hence my suspicion.

Also, just because someone goes against the mainstream grain about who the vote for, doesn't make them a bot. Just saying...

Again, that suspicion had nothing to do with your apparent views, it was entirely because it didn’t feel like you were responding to my question at all - it was a long, well-written, yet generic, almost immediate response.

But I am sorry for sounding accusatory.

Also, voting for someone who is officially on the ballot gives the party more recognition, influence, and potential access to resources and ballot access in future elections, which wouldn't happen with a write-in vote that doesn't carry the same weight or visibility.

I do generally agree with this sentiment, so don’t get me wrong on that. However, I see this is a strategic/practical consideration in who to vote for. I don’t see it as a valid consideration in an honest vote.

My point is this: it sounds like you are a principled voter, but one who’s not blind to strategic or practical considerations. That’s how I feel as well, but I value the spoiler effect very highly in my strategic/practical consideration. Fighting the political science inches us both closer to our least preferred candidate getting elected.

I wish that your energy of “Consider voting for Jill Stein” was instead put towards “fight for electoral reform, so we can all honestly vote for candidates like Jill Stein without fear”.

Yet to see them on the internet, or in-person in one of the swing states?

Your take is valid, but less than 50,000 votes in swing states separated Trump and Biden from a tie in the EC in 2020. I could believe that there were at least 25,000 “actually swingable” voters in the right states out of 150+ million voters in 2020, and I could believe the same for 2024.

Your*

And it’s based more on timing than anything. Like I said, the feds didn’t move to indict trump until after he obstructed an investigation, after he was subpoena’d, after months of non-cooperation with the national archives.

But all of this happened BEFORE Biden’s documents were discovered. So it sets a precedent.

It’s a really shitty precedent, sure. And it’s obvious that these are rules for thee and not for me (a normal federal employee who did as much as trump or even just biden might be in prison by now). But if Trump is gonna be allowed so much leniency for going so far, then Biden should be given at least as much leniency for doing way less.

While I agree with that sentiment, I think it’s more important push overwhelmingly for electoral process reform first - switching to approval, star, or even ranked choice voting is a step up from first passed the post and encourages more honest voting over strategic voting, at least a little bit.

I think entertaining individual third parties shouldn’t come until that’s a bigger issue that America starts talking about.

He was the first acting teamster president to ever speak at the RNC, that’s a huge deal regardless of whether he was also expecting to speak at the DNC. Especially given how anti-union the republican party generally is.

Either it was an appeal to conservative teamsters, or he himself is quietly moderate or conservative.

I think it just comes down to whether you appreciate more sunlight before school/work, or after.

I don’t really care how much sun there is before 8:30-ish. In fact, I hate when I try to get 1 more hour of sleep and I can’t b/c early dawn’s leaking in, so I actually prefer a later sunrise.

But when I leave work, I freaking LOVE bathing in sunlight for as long as I can, thinking “my biggest responsibilities of the day are done, and the day’s not even over yet”.

Where I’m from, standard time in winter means 6ish is pitch black - I prefer to at least have late dusk by that time.

If the American people choose someone else as president, regardless of who that is, I'm fine with the decision. We're a democracy.

Normally I’d feel the same way, but it sounds like you’re not concerned about a 2nd Trump term. I am VERY concerned.

If Trump wins, he’ll have 4 years with a SCOTUS supermajority, a platform that was written for him that will deal massive damage if even a fraction of it is implemented, and an already promised decision to implement Schedule F which’ll increase the appointive power of the presidency by a factor of 12-100. That’s literally not even the half of it.

We have to send a message that any of that is NOT OKAY. That message cannot be sent if he wins.

I put it towards both. I 100 percent agree with and fight for electoral form.

Perhaps you’re telling the truth, but it just doesn’t feel like that, simply because most of your posts appear to have been about defending third party candidates rather than speaking in favor of reform (I say “appear” because I have not combed through your entire post history or anything, nor will I).

I will say in your defense that recent news in the US doesn’t say anything about electoral reform, so there’d be no recent developments to post. I’m just talking about the impression it leaves that it appears to go unmentioned by you.

Neither party has, nor wants to.

This is not true in general. See this. Ranked choice is slowly being adopted at the local level, and made it to the state level in Alaska and Maine. Yes, it’s banned statewide in several states, but that’s a hell of a long way from being banned everywhere. It’s slow but steady progress, from the ground up.

Although ranked choice isn’t my preferred system, it’s something, and that something sets the precedent that reform is possible.

I think that’s all very reasonable and well-put. That said, I wanna give a little push-back, mainly bc superdelegates.

Sanders lost overwhelmingly on superdelegates, and the difference in number of delegates awarded to each candidate would have been less than half as big if superdelegates weren’t considered (IMO superdelegates were and are stupid).

Also, I recall that for most of the primary, Sanders was usually leading in pledged delegates, but was always behind on total number of delegates due to superdelegates.

I think Hillary got a large upswing of normal voters by the end of the primary bc she was in the lead, voters saw the writing on the wall, and they wanted to make her victory decisive. But I think voting for Bernie would’ve been more palatable if he was the one who constantly looked to be in the lead.

Of course, that’s just speculation. And given that Sanders only got 43.2% of the popular vote (though tbf that doesn’t include lowa/Maine/Nevada/North Dakota/Washington/Wyoming [source] )…yeah, it’s reasonable to say we needed more change than just the DNC stepping back.

Yes, though it’s not a magic bullet.

Here’s a video that compares Plurality/FPTP (our current system), Ranked choice, and approval voting, and is up-front about the limitations of each method.

Here’s a link with a lot more information on different voting methods. STAR voting is the method highlighted here as the best, but Score voting and Approval are also pretty good. IRV/Ranked Choice doesn’t perform quite as well, but is at least still better than FPTP.

A new voting system that’s any better than our current system brings us closer to a political landscape where viable candidates who choose not to drop out early aren’t working against their interests, and voters are less incentivized to vote strategically. And even if IRV is only marginally better than FPTP, its popularity gives exposure to the idea that alternative voting systems are worth looking into.

Again. This isn’t about stopping apocalypse, or the end of the world, or anything like that. It’s about stopping a guy who has literally threatened to send the national guard into cities…just cuz.

And again. The irony of supposedly supporting the Green Party, while not caring about the threat of Trump on the environment. When caring about the environment is literally the namesake of the party……

Please, at least read my link to his Agenda 47 if you have not already done so. Or watch his official Agenda 47 videos, which are videos and not easily navigable text for a reason.

I, however, don't feel the need to do that.

So you aren’t concerned about any of the issues I brought up - the 4yrs of conservative SCOTUS supermajority, Project 2025, Schedule F, etc?

Are you not concerned about Trump potentially invoking the insurrection act, especially noting that has said he would consider sending troops into liberal cities “to curb crime waves”?

Even forgetting things he “plausibly might not want to do”, his official policy plans are very concerning to me.

I don’t think the world ends if Trump wins either, but I think it’ll be very bad. Furthermore, I think 4 years of the president having zero climate protection policy will be detrimental to the environment. It feels ironic that you support the Green Party but aren’t concerned about a Trump presidency in that regard.

That’s fair. I don’t think he was 100% joking either, I just don’t think he was absolutely convinced of the lab leak theory.

The way I see it: either it was a) just a bit, or b) a bit that was fueled by his frustration that the lab leak theory hasn’t been outright disproven (though I think him saying it’s “more than likely” would still be irresponsible), or c) him being serious and trying to make a joke out of it, or d) none of the above.

I think c) is totally worthy of criticism. Just not as much so under a) or b).

I’m still interested in a source of that not being the only time he defended the lab leak theory.

Considering that this is an xkcd comic, I think it’s fair to suggest that most people who see this and know where it’s from will recognize that it’s mostly a joke.

The spirit of the comic is still pretty nice, though. I think that’s what really matters.

I get it but come now, the color red did nothing wrong.

It’s also ironically the color of liberalism in most other countries, worth pointing out given Lemmy is an international community. So that could sound confusingly aggressive to international readers.

On top of that, the House feels like it really ought to be fixed. The number of representatives has been fixed for almost 100 years, yet the country’s population has more than tripled.

I don’t think legislators of the time expected the population to get so big.