Will we ever see ranked-choice voting?

[F.Fletch]

i never said you mentioned Trump.

try and compose yourself.

Try to compose myself????

Hmmm that's rich..... considering you've schat all over yourself in this thread.

Try to stay on topic. You stated Bush stole the 2000 election. I refuted your silly little Michael Moore conspiracy statement with irrefutable facts.

So for a fourth time, where is the evidence that Bush stole it?

By now, it's apparent you're just pissing in the wind......

Better get a parka.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

That’s unadulterated horse shit. Party B’s candidates would get swamped anyway when voters realized they didn’t vote for the bill.

You have a stupid view of the world.

obviously you don't grasp how this works.

party B wouldn't just openly vote down 10 million great paying jobs, a cure for cancer, and low cost healthcare for everyone.

they'd circle their media and social media wagons, and all you'd hear all day everyday on their media/social media machines is the jobs would mean your losing your job, and be a magnate for immigrants, incuding islamists, who would flood your town and bring drugs and gangs with them destroying your way of life.

the cure for cancer would be met with accusations someone somewhere who took the cure, died of a heart attack the next week, and that could likely happen to you too if you take it.

and the low cost healthcare would be portrayed as likely to destroy all healthcare within 5 yrs.

and they'd have panel after panel attest to all this on their media, and party sheep posters and bots and the Russian and China and NK internet armies on social media would add in that passing the bill could offset the earth's orbit due to the location of the factories and dams and wind farms where some of the jobs will be, and possibly send us hurtling into sun.

and they'd do this, even if they knew it was all total bs, in order to take down party A.

they aren't voting down the bill to kill the jobs, the cure, and the healthcare.

not at all.

they're doing it to protect us, and save democracy from the Communist Nazi Islamist Racist Hommophobes who are secretly behind it, and if you aren't against the bill, it's because you hate America, patriotism, Christianity, equal rights, freedom of speech, the Constitution, and whatever party B's voters' soft spots are.

hyperbolic exaggeration yes, but way more on point than most on either side want to realize.

and if you think this hasn't already gone down to kill things that would benefit libs and conservatives alike, think again.

it's not personal, it's just business.

at least for party B legislators protecting their jobs, not yours.


if you don't share my "stupid view of the world", you just flat out aren't paying attention.

 

[HooDatGuy]

obviously you don't grasp how this works.

party B wouldn't just openly vote down 10 million great paying jobs, a cure for cancer, and low cost healthcare for everyone.

they'd circle their media and social media wagons, and all you'd hear all day everyday on their media/social media machines is the jobs would mean your losing your job, and be a magnate for immigrants, incuding islamists, who would flood your town and bring drugs and gangs with them destroying your way of life.

the cure for cancer would be met with accusations someone somewhere who took the cure, died of a heart attack the next week, and that could likely happen to you too if you take it.

and the low cost healthcare would be portrayed as likely to destroy all healthcare within 5 yrs.

and they'd have panel after panel attest to all this on their media, and party sheep posters and bots and the Russian and China and NK internet armies on social media would add in that passing the bill could offset the earth's orbit due to the location of the factories and dams and wind farms where some of the jobs will be, and possibly send us hurtling into sun.

and they'd do this, even if they knew it was all total bs, in order to take down party A.

they aren't voting down the bill to kill the jobs, the cure, and the healthcare.

not at all.

they're doing it to protect us, and save democracy from the Communist Nazi Islamist Racist Hommophobes who are secretly behind it, and if you aren't against the bill, it's because you hate America, patriotism, Christianity, equal rights, freedom of speech, the Constitution, and whatever party B's voters' soft spots are.

hyperbolic exaggeration yes, but way more on point than most on either side want to realize.

and if you think this hasn't already gone down to kill things that would benefit libs and conservatives alike, think again.

it's not personal, it's just business.

at least for party B legislators protecting their jobs, not yours.


if you don't share my "stupid view of the world", you just flat out aren't paying attention.

What's the Party B media’s motivation to fire up the spin machine to help shut down the bill?

Evil, nameless, faceless corporate media overlords who profit off of conflict right? What if that overlord has a daughter with leukemia? What if he’s actually a person and not some profit seeking caricature?

No one denies corporatism is a problem.

You simply overreach my friend, and it’s the only tool in your belt.

 

[NPT]

They are trying to make abortion illegal and do away with gay marriage.

Yes, parties don't want change when a law is how they like it but the GOP has been stonewalling most everything that comes up to the table from the dems, including supreme court nominations.

Sure... they done exactly what the Democrats would have done in the same situation.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Sure... they done exactly what the Democrats would have done in the same situation.

But yet that is just an assumption. Dems haven't stonewalled to that degree

 

[NPT]

If you go back you can find Schumer saying that they should. Here's an example.(didn't look much but there are other videos showing the same thing) Seems like the senate could fix that... pass a bill that a nominee cannot be held up more than X number of months. But neither side will because each side may want to use it again. It just baffles me how some people can think their party would never do this or never do that but I know better.

Poor old Schumer... he was so sure that Barrett was gonna vote to overturn the ACA but she didn't. People like Schumer and McConnel make me sick with all their hypocrisy.

 

[Crayfish57]

All you're doing is showing that you don't understand ranked choice voting. It's not elections on top of elections on top of elections. You rank choices so it can be done instantly. It's called an instant run off. It works. As opposed to the states, like Georgia for example, with the jungle system that results in run offs and entirely new elections on a regular basis.

I totally get it, you want to vote for whomever but if they arent winning you want to change because you are really voting aginst someone else. GD liberals come up with more ways to get around saying I dont care who or what I vote for as long as I dont vote for the other guy. Lets redo it all, figure out ways to make sure it all works for liberals.

 

[DANC]

i always make good points.

that's why half here hate me half the time, and the other half hate me the other half of the time.

that i've totally alienated the sheep on both sides, is the surest sign i must be doing something right.

Yeah, that must be it.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

What's the Party B media’s motivation to fire up the spin machine to help shut down the bill?

Evil, nameless, faceless corporate media overlords who profit off of conflict right? What if that overlord has a daughter with leukemia? What if he’s actually a person and not some profit seeking caricature?

No one denies corporatism is a problem.

You simply overreach my friend, and it’s the only tool in your belt.

fine, take out curing cancer if you wish.

you do realize i was just making a point, right?

reality is, party B will fight party A to the death on any bill, if the bill's passage will help party A in the next election.

it's no longer about policy, it's about Dem politicians' jobs vs Pub politicians' jobs.

anything that will help the other party in the next election must be defeated.

the parties themselves are the problem.

remove them, and legislators can vote however they wish, and won't have a party machine or it's affiliated media fighting them.

 

[DANC]

Everyone on both sides also agrees you're an idiot. You really want to rely on the wisdom of the masses?

How original - accusing me of something I accused someone else.

I see you've devolved to the IU_Hickory level of idiocy. Congratulations.

 

[HooDatGuy]

do away with the parties.

that solves the whole thing.


fine, take out curing cancer if you wish.

you do realize i was just making a point, right?

reality is, party B will fight party A to the death on any bill, if the bill's passage will help party A in the next election.

it's no longer about policy, it's about Dem politicians' jobs vs Pub politicians' jobs.

anything that will help the other party in the next election must be defeated.

the parties themselves are the problem.

remove them, and legislators can vote however they wish, and won't have a party machine or it's affiliated media fighting them.

Major legislation still gets passed all the time on a bipartisan basis (this bill combines China AND corporatism, what happens when two of your favorite boogeymen are at odds with each other?).

Ironically the corporate media spin machine that you decry has fooled you into thinking every bill is a tooth and nail fight like HR1 or Infrastructure. Of course you see the respective parties backing into their corners there. From even the most moderate R’s perspective, those bills are deeply flawed. No one said major legislation should be easy, in fact the founders were pretty clear that it shouldn’t.


Opposition politics is a thing, but it’s not everything. Stop being so simple minded.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

How original - accusing me of something I accused someone else.

I see you've devolved to the IU_Hickory level of idiocy. Congratulations.

Everyone here on both sides might be on to something.

 

[TMFT]

I totally get it, you want to vote for whomever but if they arent winning you want to change because you are really voting aginst someone else. GD liberals come up with more ways to get around saying I dont care who or what I vote for as long as I dont vote for the other guy. Lets redo it all, figure out ways to make sure it all works for liberals.

I don't say this often because people's opinions should be heard and validated if possible. But that's some of the dumbest shiz I've ever read.

If there had been ranked choice voting, Rainwater would've at least stood a chance to have won governor last year. As it was, Libertarians had to make a calculation that a vote for Rainwater was a vote for Woody Myers & a not insubstantial number went to Holcomb. So it's not a LiBrUlZ issue at all. It's a wasted vote issue.

At any rate, you originally were complaining about holding elections on top of elections when that is exactly NOT what ranked choice/instant runoff elections are.

If you're all-in on the D-R domination of American politics, cool. I don't get why someone wouldn't want to have more candidates that could better represent the diverse ideas of the electorate, but again, cool.

 

[DANC]

Everyone here on both sides might be on to something.

Having a bad day today?

 

[HooDatGuy]

I totally get it, you want to vote for whomever but if they arent winning you want to change because you are really voting aginst someone else. GD liberals come up with more ways to get around saying I dont care who or what I vote for as long as I dont vote for the other guy. Lets redo it all, figure out ways to make sure it all works for liberals.

Why do you assume ranked-choice only favors progressives? Just because of the example in the OP? I see it as a boon to Libertarian (or libertarian-lite) candidates, which most Republicans profess to be these days anyway.

 

[IU_Hickory]

How original - accusing me of something I accused someone else.

I see you've devolved to the IU_Hickory level of idiocy. Congratulations.

Glad I'm living rent free in your head. Keep on posting and letting everyone know that brains are at a premium for you.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Why do you assume ranked-choice only favors progressives? Just because of the example in the OP? I see it as a boon to Libertarian (or libertarian-lite) candidates, which most Republicans profess to be these days anyway.

hey, you made a post I agree with. took a while lol

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Major legislation still gets passed all the time on a bipartisan basis (this bill combines China AND corporatism, what happens when two of your favorite boogeymen are at odds with each other?).

Ironically the corporate media spin machine that you decry has fooled you into thinking every bill is a tooth and nail fight like HR1 or Infrastructure. Of course you see the respective parties backing into their corners there. From even the most moderate R’s perspective, those bills are deeply flawed. No one said major legislation should be easy, in fact the founders were pretty clear that it shouldn’t.


Opposition politics is a thing, but it’s not everything. Stop being so simple minded.

• The Senate on Tuesday passed the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, a $250 billion bill aimed at countering China’s technological ambitions.
• The scope of the bill, the final product of at least six Senate committees and almost all members of the chamber, could be one of the last major bipartisan bills of 2021.
• Among its many provisions, the bill provides $52 billion to fund the semiconductor research, design, and manufacturing initiatives.
• -----------------------------------------------------------------

the thing about both branches of the Wall St party, is that bills that subsidize Wall St to the tune of a quarter trillion dollars somehow magically get zero resistance, while anything that helps Joe Worker goes nowhere.

that said, isn't this bill full on Communist?

what happened to Capitalist values?

funny how no amount of socialism is too much when Wall St is on the receiving end, and no amount is acceptable when Joe Citizen is.

we absolutely need those chip/semiconductor plants, but this is still Wall St being subsidized by main st when those could easily be funded privately if the right tariffs were put on said tech items starting in X yrs.

i would be totally ok with this if both branches of the Wall St party acknowledge that we are are hardly the Capitalist economy we tout it as, and more socialistic help is ok for Joe Citizen as well as Joe Investor.

that said, since the govt is funding this, why not have it be a govt industry like NASA was, instead of the govt funding it and giving the profits to Wall St, as with big pharma and more and more industries all the time.

only it being a govt industry will ensure the results govt needs insured.

Wall St will extort billions and billions more before these pants are even fully built, with the threat of moving these plants' production off shore again if Uncle Sam doesn't pay their ransom demands.

if we want to insure the US being able to keep tech supply chains on US soil, which is literally the only way to insure tech supply chains at all, thus all the other industries as well like auto and telco and everything else who are totally dependent on tech supply chains, the only way to do that is to nationalize said tech supply chains.

nationalizing the expense and risk, and privatizing the profits and control, makes absolutely zero sense other than to those on the receiving end of the govt subsidized profits and control.

of course if it wasn't main street doing this for Wall St, but rather doing it for main street itself, Joe Citizen, and the best interests of the nation instead, then this wouldn't have passed, would it.

it would be labled communism because the benefactor would be the citizenry and the US instead of Wall St, even though either way it's the govt funding it.

therein lies the real problem with our current Wall St owned govt, and who they actually work for on both sides of the isle.

 

[HooDatGuy]

• The Senate on Tuesday passed the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, a $250 billion bill aimed at countering China’s technological ambitions.
• The scope of the bill, the final product of at least six Senate committees and almost all members of the chamber, could be one of the last major bipartisan bills of 2021.
• Among its many provisions, the bill provides $52 billion to fund the semiconductor research, design, and manufacturing initiatives.
• -----------------------------------------------------------------

the thing about both branches of the Wall St party, is that bills that subsidize Wall St to the tune of a quarter trillion dollars somehow magically get zero resistance, while anything that helps Joe Worker goes nowhere.

that said, isn't this bill full on Communist?

what happened to Capitalist values?

funny how no amount of socialism is too much when Wall St is on the receiving end, and no amount is acceptable when Joe Citizen is.

we absolutely need those chip/semiconductor plants, but this is still Wall St being subsidized by main st when those could easily be funded privately if the right tariffs were put on said tech items starting in X yrs.

i would be totally ok with this if both branches of the Wall St party acknowledge that we are are hardly the Capitalist economy we tout it as, and more socialistic help is ok for Joe Citizen as well as Joe Investor.

that said, since the govt is funding this, why not have it be a govt industry like NASA was, instead of the govt funding it and giving the profits to Wall St, as with big pharma and more and more industries all the time.

only it being a govt industry will ensure the results govt needs insured.

Wall St will extort billions and billions more before these pants are even fully built, with the threat of moving these plants' production off shore again if Uncle Sam doesn't pay their ransom demands.

if we want to insure the US being able to keep tech supply chains on US soil, which is literally the only way to insure tech supply chains at all, thus all the other industries as well like auto and telco and everything else who are totally dependent on tech supply chains, the only way to do that is to nationalize said tech supply chains.

nationalizing the expense and risk, and privatizing the profits and control, makes absolutely zero sense other than to those on the receiving end of the govt subsidized profits and control.

of course if it wasn't main street doing this for Wall St, but rather doing it for main street itself, Joe Citizen, and the best interests of the nation instead, then this wouldn't have passed, would it.

it would be labled communism because the benefactor would be the citizenry and the US instead of Wall St, even though either way it's the govt funding it.

therein lies the real problem with our current Wall St owned govt, and who they actually work for on both sides of the isle.

I actually agree with some of this surprisingly. I wouldn't have voted for the bill, fyi, for the reasons you cite. Capitalism and corporatism are not the same and too many conflate the two.

However, there are costs and benefits to weigh with this bill. This Bill helps everyone at Intel and other microprocessor manufacturers, from the hourly employee, to the CEO's office and promotes the national defense. A complete nationalization of the business and all the corresponding businesses involved in the supply chain would be interesting. Not sure how you do that without government force, but maybe you go for that sort of thing.

Wall Street success is also everyone's success. The 50% figure is bunk as you know, given the amount of pensions funds, 401K's and other 2nd and 3rd order effects the help every American when the market does well.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I actually agree with some of this surprisingly. I wouldn't have voted for the bill, fyi, for the reasons you cite. Capitalism and corporatism are not the same and too many conflate the two.

However, there are costs and benefits to weigh with this bill. This Bill helps everyone at Intel and other microprocessor manufacturers, from the hourly employee, to the CEO's office and promotes the national defense. A complete nationalization of the business and all the corresponding businesses involved in the supply chain would be interesting. Not sure how you do that without government force, but maybe you go for that sort of thing.

Wall Street success is also everyone's success. The 50% figure is bunk as you know, given the amount of pensions funds, 401K's and other 2nd and 3rd order effects the help every American when the market does well.

define "govt force",

as the govt funding this, you set yourself up in business instead of setting up someone else who will never have your interests first.

then you hire the best people you can.

you can contract out some work performed in house that isn't integral, since contracting still gives you control as long as it's done in house and not offshore.

i promote this only for national security and total economy necessities like chips, processors, etc, which our economy, industries, and national security absolutely can't do without.

the same for pharmaceutical raw components should be in order too, as China controls too much of that now, even for drugs manufactured in India or here.

with oil, nations can't control what they don't have, no matter how much their nation depends on it.

on absolutely essential items a nation can control it's own destiny on, it's foolhardy bordering on treasonous not to.

as of today, if China admitted to engineering the virus and said they released it on purpose, what are you gonna do about it, our only response could be, "thank you, may i have another".

that's not a good situation to be in, and beyond belief we have allowed ourselves to be in this situation when we absolutely didn't have to..

 

[DANC]

Glad I'm living rent free in your head. Keep on posting and letting everyone know that brains are at a premium for you.

I guess I gave you too much credit on one of your recent insults.

You're back to non-original insults.

I'm really disappointed in you now. Not surprised, by any means. Just disappointed. I don't like to argue against those with mental deficiencies. Really, I dont. But I'll make an exception in your case.