31–40 of 66 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're not a court of law. By the time there's 9+ accusers, many of whom shared their stories contemporarily (viz people writer who told 6 people), you're verging on Crosby territory to deny what plainly happened.
I hope someone in your family is convicted in the court of public opinion, maybe your son or father.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does such a setting actually exist? I cannot find any information about that. There hasn't been any other source for this post either.
One would assume that would be for facebook employees only.
What is it with you US-people and 2 candidates?!?! I mean this is ridiculous. He's all like "oh don't hate on Thiel just because he supports Trump. Half of the US does it so it's a valid opinion" Why not support other republicans who aren't chauvinists? They talk like "Oh we just have Trump and Hilary and Hilary is corrupt, so what should we do? Vote Trump of cause!" I mean if you're a chauvinist and like what Trumps…
> What is it with you US-people and 2 candidates?!?! It's the natural consequence of a plurality voting system. Conservatives remember H. Ross Perot spoiling the election for George H.W. Bush, and throwing the election to Bill Clinton. Progressives remember Ralph Nader making the contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush close enough that G.W. was given the election by a Supreme Court stocked with his dad's buddies.…
Another thing that I've noticed is that it also optimizes for moderates/centrists, since that's where the Nash Equilibrium is[1].
With the growing polarization in our politics, I think that the political spectrum in the U.S. now looks less like a Gaussian distribution and more like a bimodal distribution. At this point the median voter is becoming a smaller and smaller plurality, and the equilibrium is becoming unappealing to more and more people.
What is it with you US-people and 2 candidates?!?! I mean this is ridiculous. He's all like "oh don't hate on Thiel just because he supports Trump. Half of the US does it so it's a valid opinion" Why not support other republicans who aren't chauvinists? They talk like "Oh we just have Trump and Hilary and Hilary is corrupt, so what should we do? Vote Trump of cause!" I mean if you're a chauvinist and like what Trumps…
> What is it with you US-people and 2 candidates?!?! It's the natural consequence of a plurality voting system. Conservatives remember H. Ross Perot spoiling the election for George H.W. Bush, and throwing the election to Bill Clinton. Progressives remember Ralph Nader making the contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush close enough that G.W. was given the election by a Supreme Court stocked with his dad's buddies.…
I think you've made some insightful points here, particularly when you said "In the U.S., you're best off being part of a popular political leaning, but pray your political leanings don't grow so popular as to result in a split." This does explain a lot.
However, I'd like to see some evidence that ranked-choice voting actually leads to better outcomes. I believe Australia has this system, doesn't it? They've elected some of the worst sorts of people I've ever seen in public office outside of an outright dictatorship, pushing the worst sorts of policies.
My concern is that RCV-like voting strategies may encourage a tyranny of the majority to emerge. While I'm no supporter of either Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders, I do like the idea that Hillary Clinton has to worry about what they have to say, for fear of being Nadered in one or more critical swing states. Likewise, I can see the Libertarians, both big-L and small-l, having a moderating influence on the knee-jerk theocrats who would like to take over the GOP. It seems that ranked-choice voting might have the effect of removing those beneficial "spoiler effects."
Just as one example, most Americans self-identify as members of the Christian faith. (Not picking on religion per se, just saying that it's probably the one cultural attribute that Americans share more widely than any others.) The same is true in Australia. There, a wave of neo-Puritanism has swept over the country, resulting in legislative micromanagement of everything from Internet censorship to the bra sizes of porn actresses.
So, does ranked-choice voting inevitably lead to the emergence of a nanny state? If so, I think we're better off here in the US with the strong two-party system. If not, are there any other downsides that should be discussed before switching over to RCV?
The dems used to be the party of inclusion. Somehow they've been hijacked to the party of the elites. And there's zero tolerance for anyone who thinks different.
Glad I'm not a face bagger, and glad I don't work for such a company that excludes half or more of their people. Shame on you Zuckerberger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is it with you US-people and 2 candidates?!?! It's the natural consequence of a plurality voting system. Conservatives remember H. Ross Perot spoiling the election for George H.W. Bush, and throwing the election to Bill Clinton. Progressives remember Ralph Nader making the contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush close enough that G.W. was given the election by a Supreme Court stocked with his dad's buddies.…
> I'd go so far as to say that our plurality system all but guarantees bad candidates--it's not the fittest that survive the primary election process, it's the most memorable, the one who we feel will best appeal to our neighbors. Another thing that I've noticed is that it also optimizes for moderates/centrists, since that's where the Nash Equilibrium is[1]. With the growing polarization in our politics, I think that…
Also, that's precious little evidence that the US political spectrum has ever looked anything like a Gaussian distribution.
When people say "half the country supports X candidate" I like to point out polls only count registered voters who are likely to vote, which is closer to half the eligible voting population (which of course doesn't include any of the non-adults). It's more like each candidate has support from less than a quarter of the population and most people don't support either. Somehow I find that reassuring.
When people say "half the country supports X candidate" I like to point out polls only count registered voters who are likely to vote, which is closer to half the eligible voting population (which of course doesn't include any of the non-adults). It's more like each candidate has support from less than a quarter of the population and most people don't support either. Somehow I find that reassuring.
When people say "half the country supports X candidate" I like to point out polls only count registered voters who are likely to vote, which is closer to half the eligible voting population (which of course doesn't include any of the non-adults). It's more like each candidate has support from less than a quarter of the population and most people don't support either. Somehow I find that reassuring.
