October 20, 20222 yr 6 hours ago, The_Omega said: Homeless camp in Oakland The mayoral election in Oakland is going to be telling. There are 3 members of the current city council running as a continuation of the same. The "Caruso" type is a guy named Ignacio De La Fuente who was President of the City Council over a decade ago when the city was booming under Jerry Brown. He's campaigning on adding cops, addressing crime and cleaning up homeless encampments. Ranked choice voting, and a TON of undecideds.
October 20, 20222 yr 7 minutes ago, vikas83 said: The mayoral election in Oakland is going to be telling. There are 3 members of the current city council running as a continuation of the same. The "Caruso" type is a guy named Ignacio De La Fuente who was President of the City Council over a decade ago when the city was booming under Jerry Brown. He's campaigning on adding cops, addressing crime and cleaning up homeless encampments. Ranked choice voting, and a TON of undecideds. I despise ranked choice voting. It's akin to allowing multiple votes in the same race which is largely antithetical to our system.
October 20, 20222 yr 5 minutes ago, The_Omega said: I despise ranked choice voting. It's akin to allowing multiple votes in the same race which is largely antithetical to our system. I'd prefer we go to runoffs. RCV allows way too many insider deals.
October 20, 20222 yr 8 minutes ago, The_Omega said: I despise ranked choice voting. It's akin to allowing multiple votes in the same race which is largely antithetical to our system. No surprise here. If it's not a binary choice, candidates would have to run on things they've done or plan to do and not just on attacking singular boogeymen. It would be a disaster for the Republicans.
October 20, 20222 yr Anti-science leftism strikes again. Sure, let’s leave all of the research into genetics and intelligence to the Chinese. What could possibly go wrong?
October 20, 20222 yr On 10/14/2022 at 8:31 AM, DaEagles4Life said: Sure showed climate change, Fing losers I say leave them glued there...indefinitely. 53 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: No surprise here. If it's not a binary choice, candidates would have to run on things they've done or plan to do and not just on attacking singular boogeymen. It would be a disaster for the Republicans. Yes, only the GOP runs on attacking "singular boogeymen." Both parties suck. I mean Fetterman and Dr. Oz? Really? Those are our TWO BEST choices for Senator in PA?
October 20, 20222 yr Like this post if you DON'T think Orlando Bloom is handsome. All non-responses will be assumed to signal a romantic affinity for Orlando Bloom.
October 20, 20222 yr 30 minutes ago, Outlaw said: Yes, only the GOP runs on attacking "singular boogeymen." Both parties suck. I mean Fetterman and Dr. Oz? Really? Those are our TWO BEST choices for Senator in PA? Obviously both major parties would be negatively affected by ranked choice from a sheer numbers standpoint, but Republicans would be uniquely hurt by it. For starters, they have better competition than the Dems do. Dems have Greens on their left but they're completely irrelevant, while the Reps have Libertarians. Their main knock against the Libertarian Party is that the Libertarians can't win. They don't really ever have to attack libertarianism as an ideology, since the 'you can't win' argument is so much more effective, and they'd much rather co-opt parts of the Libertarian platform as a lip-service while out of power and then turn their back on that platform once their in power. But, if there was ranked choice, then obviously the 'you can't win' argument is null and void and they'd have to actually differentiate themselves from libertarianism from an ideological standpoint, which, aside from a few fringe issues, they'd really rather not have to do. Because if you start to peel away the "freedom" messaging of the Republican party it looks an awful lot like socially conservative authoritarianism. Conversely, I think Dems would generally benefit from the ability to attack their left flank. It would give them a chance to uniquely distance themselves from the bat-sheet stupidity of the far reaches of their ideology. But it all really belies the difference of the parties. The radicals in the Dem party are the minority. The radicals in the Republican party are the majority. Which is why, in a ranked choice system, Dems would stay where they are while Reps would be pushed to the fringes.
October 20, 20222 yr 13 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said: Like this post if you DON'T think Orlando Bloom is handsome. All non-responses will be assumed to signal a romantic affinity for Orlando Bloom.
October 20, 20222 yr 14 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said: Like this post if you DON'T think Orlando Bloom is handsome. All non-responses will be assumed to signal a romantic affinity for Orlando Bloom. He has great abs.
October 20, 20222 yr 31 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Obviously both major parties would be negatively affected by ranked choice from a sheer numbers standpoint, but Republicans would be uniquely hurt by it. For starters, they have better competition than the Dems do. Dems have Greens on their left but they're completely irrelevant, while the Reps have Libertarians. Their main knock against the Libertarian Party is that the Libertarians can't win. They don't really ever have to attack libertarianism as an ideology, since the 'you can't win' argument is so much more effective, and they'd much rather co-opt parts of the Libertarian platform as a lip-service while out of power and then turn their back on that platform once their in power. But, if there was ranked choice, then obviously the 'you can't win' argument is null and void and they'd have to actually differentiate themselves from libertarianism from an ideological standpoint, which, aside from a few fringe issues, they'd really rather not have to do. Because if you start to peel away the "freedom" messaging of the Republican party it looks an awful lot like socially conservative authoritarianism. Conversely, I think Dems would generally benefit from the ability to attack their left flank. It would give them a chance to uniquely distance themselves from the bat-sheet stupidity of the far reaches of their ideology. But it all really belies the difference of the parties. The radicals in the Dem party are the minority. The radicals in the Republican party are the majority. Which is why, in a ranked choice system, Dems would stay where they are while Reps would be pushed to the fringes. Valid points, though I do wonder about the GOP's internal competition since it got us...Mehmet Oz.
October 21, 20222 yr 1 hour ago, DaEagles4Life said: i hope they used that 3M industrial grade adhesive
October 21, 20222 yr 4 minutes ago, iladelphxx said: "The future is female, if women were in power they would fix everything!" Or, people are people. Some suck at their jobs, some average, some good.
October 21, 20222 yr 18 hours ago, The_Omega said: I despise ranked choice voting. It's akin to allowing multiple votes in the same race which is largely antithetical to our system. Says the unabashed Trump voter
October 21, 20222 yr This is why Zucker's against Ranked Choice. It has absolutely nothing to do with it being "antithetical to our system". https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/10/21/alaska-house-midterm-election-00062631 Quote Republicans were rattled earlier this year when Palin, a one-time political sensation and one of the GOP’s original populists, lost a special election for a vacant congressional seat to a Democrat, Mary Peltola. They pointed fingers at Alaska’s new ranked choice voting system, in which a voter’s second choice — if their preferred candidate fell short — could help decide the outcome. The system is meant to weed out extreme candidates, and true to form only about half of voters who supported Nick Begich III, a more traditionalist Republican and the candidate endorsed by the state party, had marked Palin as their second choice. The result was a repudiation of Palin, a uniquely unpopular figure in Alaska following her vice presidential candidacy in 2008 and her abrupt and not-well-explained resignation from the Alaska governorship the following year. But the special election also laid bare exactly how much Republicans were willing to lose in the seemingly ceaseless feud between the party’s Trumpian and more establishment-minded bases of support. Independents — a majority of the Alaska electorate and a critical set of voters to both parties in more competitive states — had pulled away from Palin. In a state that Donald Trump carried by 10 percentage points in 2020, Alaska’s closest approximation to the former president hit a wall. And for the first time in nearly 50 years, Alaska had sent a Democrat to the House. It probably wouldn’t have happened without Alaska’s unusual ranked choice voting system. The state hadn’t turned Democratic overnight, after all. But it was possible that Palin’s loss had revealed something alarming for Republicans about the limitations of a MAGA personality’s appeal in the post-Donald Trump presidential era — not just in Alaska, but in the Lower 48, as well. Normally, a party goes through a primary, takes their shots at each other, and then coalesces around a nominee. But in Alaska, where ranked choice voting has everyone still running against one another, "really what it’s doing is splitting up the Republicans, in goodwill and also votes,” said Kathy McCollum, president of the Mat-Su Republican Women’s Club.
October 21, 20222 yr yeah...an extremist party like the repugs would get b-slapped in elections if there was ranked choice voting.
October 21, 20222 yr 3 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said: It's been long enough to conclude that most of you are ga4bloom They sure are.
Create an account or sign in to comment