such as delayed results, incorrect results and 30k man hours to do recounts
you can't convince me that we are the most technologically advanced civilization on planet earthand we can't figure out how to rank 20 candidates with instant error checking and simultaneous secure data transfer
Well that's how you title it, to make it sound unreasonable. The majority of people support RCV until informed of the errors and delays I pointed out and then the number drops to 25% support. I don't know that it is the idiots changing their mind when new information becomes available or if the idiots are the ones who see new information that shows why RCV is bad and then just double down because in an ideal world RCV is awesome and only their idealized vision of it is what should be counted when determining if it is good
for someone who seems so interested in mitigating "low voter turnout" and "wasting the time of volunteers"When I am making an argument listing pro's and cons am I better off including arguments that appeal to your ideology or to my own?As long as I am being factual, I don't have to agree with a premise I present. If you disagree that lower voter turn out is bad, simply ignore the argument. I did elaborate a bit by pointing out that some people confused by it, still can make great decisions. However I think for the most part if you disagree with the premise ignore it. I gave other premises that I think should be taken into consideration and certainly ones I weigh more heavily before determining whether I would vote in favor of RCV, if the issue comes up where I live
now you have stopped arguing in good faith.
it's simple if you have chick and pizza each getting 33% of the vote and also the 2 highest vote counts, you just have a run off election and people can narrow the debate down to both choices and whichever one argues their position best, gets more votes now. This way you have all the most liked candidates win, while also solving the issues of a plurality win, with a run off and mitigating all the issues with RCV
It's each parties business how they run their primaries within the law. I am not a democrat, they can run their primaries how they want. I prefer the current way it is done, at least until we set up a system that mitigates the negative effects of RCV so the cost benefit analysis changes.hat's not the questionthe question iswould you prefer a PRIMARY ELECTIONwith 10 people narrowing down the choice to foods to ONLY 2 OPTIONS ?
you're completely skipping the questionwould you personally prefer
personally I prefer more options.
and sure, there are some "problems" with some incompetent implementations of RCVbut these are SOLVABLE
TWO OF THE MOST IDIOTIC BUFFOONS in history"
explain how having to research 20 candidates is easier than researching just a few?
You guys haven't come up with a single rebuttal than a single biased source that somehow claims ranked choice voting does not reduce voter turn out despite multiple sanfransisco based studies proving it does and despite minneapolis and st. Paul minnesota having lower voter turn out than surrounding areas
It looks as though selecting a 2nd choice robs your first choice of its power. Knowing this, what is to stop voters from only putting down a first choice?
You have a life long public servant in Joe Biden
He is running against somebody who prior to putting an R beside his name was pretty much beloved by the entire nation
so you can make statements that easily appeal to most people like "Both candidates are buffoons"
It doesn't Rob your first choice of it's power. Your second choice would only count if your first choice is eliminated, and it would only be eliminated if it was the least popular of the remaining choices.Under the current system, if it's Trump, Biden, RFK and you vote RFK who lands with 5%, then your vote is effectively wasted. With RCV in that scenario you can still have a say as to who in Biden v Trump wins, but only if you choose one as a second pick.
Limit the retabulation to two rounds. The first round, if no one gets to 50% then remove everyone except the top two and retabulate with only those two choices. This is exactly how a run of election works except you wouldn't need to hold two separate elections. What do you think about that option?
what is the advantage to this method ?
explain how having to research 20 candidates is easier than researching just a few?Non-sequitor. RCV is a method of selecting the winner, it has nothing to do with how many candidates end up on the ballot.
The source I provided linked to multiple studies as well. So your argument is that "your" studies are real but "mine" are fake. Doesn't exactly scream unbiased.
Tell me your position on voter ID.
The other problem here is that you don't seem to have considered is that RCV doesn't have to be tabulated the way it does currently. The current system is that each round the least favored candidate gets removed and the ballots retabulate until someone reaches 50%. I understand why they do it this way, but they could do it another way...Limit the retabulation to two rounds. The first round, if no one gets to 50% then remove everyone except the top two and retabulate with only those two choices. This is exactly how a run of election works except you wouldn't need to hold two separate elections. What do you think about that option?
It wasn't because he put an R next to his name. Calling Mexicans rapists and calling for the banning of all Muslims from entering the United States (among many other things) has a way of alienating large numbers of people.
tell me with a straight face that these are the two smartest and best qualified individuals on earth
Non-sequitor. RCV is a method of selecting the winner, it has nothing to do with how many candidates end up on the ballot.not a non sequiter because there are race with 20 people and my ballot risks being exhausted if i do not no my order preference for all 20
Tell me your position on voter ID.irrelevant
I think it is a superior option to RCV. or what is currently being touted as RCV.
my opinion is I watched the speech that is taken from and it's clear trump was saying that their are a lot of criminals that sneak in illegally and he was referring to statistics by...
Also the Muslim ban was him banning the countries statistically most likely to have terrorists
It actually is. You are really hinging your position on the idea that we must value voter turnout to such a degree that it overrides the obvious benefits of RCV
it's pretty hard to take you seriously on that argument if you don't seem to care about the effect on turnout voter ID laws have particularly within certain segments of the population
So perhaps you are better off advocating for a different tabulation method rather than abandoning RCV all together.
his isn't an opinion, it's an entire reimagination of what he said. His words were clear and were nothing close to this.
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on" - Donald Trump, December 7th 2015
Moreover, it's just sad to see people keep defending him with such obvious nonsense. If you can't defend him with the truth perhaps you should evaluate why you defend him at all
That's one of the lesser premises and one I gave you because I thought you cared about it, I have shown that it delays the results of elections, increases inaccurate results and results in thrown away ballots.
Voter ID is just common sense. It is significantly more important to have security
you know I can just watch the video to disprove this right?Give me the time stamp where he says all mexicans or even illegal immigrants. He even qualifies the statement by saying some are great people.The definition of some is "A portion of" .
You are getting into semantics, you know he uses imprecise language. Even your quote does not say a permanent moratorium on it, just a temporary one of a few weeks until some statistics can be gathered to reduce the odds of terrorism. Here is the actual bill
You keep referencing thrown away ballots as if you're not describing exactly what happens now. I understand you prefer the run off election model but having nearly every election across the country run twice is a non-starter so it's a waste of time to use as a basis for comparison.
One way to know your position is weak is when you have to make up the opposing argument in order to refute it. I never said he called "all" Mexicans rapists, that's what you're mind interpreted so that so you can apply the 100% standard which almost no claim can live up to. I said he called Mexicans rapists, which is a generalization.
It's not semantics, it's basic English and inference. He did in fact call for the banning of Muslims, and you defend it in part by claiming he only called for it temporarily
I already showed you that even in elections with RCV you have frequent problems such as in sanfransisco where errors caused the wrong person to sit on the board for 6 months or in the Minneaopolis mayoral election where less than 50k votes were cast and it took 30,000 man hours and 3 weeks to correct.Certainly a ru off would be superior to dealing with that.
Finally, I am glad you now agree that he said most Mexicans are not rapists and was merely referencing amnesty international stats and saying that criminals can slip through invested.
You knew what he meant when you heard that and you are being disingenuous though.
Let's be honest for once. You know that Trump.is not some white bayionalist or secret KKK member.
I mean if every leftist is calling him racist for suggesting some level of border security and claiming republics are racist for also supporting secure borders and meritocracy than certainly it would help him win an election by being openly racist and not giving off these hints that set conspiracy y theorists off.
I said nothing close to this. He did not say, suggest, or imply that most Mexicans are not rapists. He stated that when Mexico "sends it's people" those people are bringing drugs, crime, and rapists. But "some" he "assumes" are good people. You can pretend all you want that this is some kind of kind words speech towards Mexicans, but that's just straight up delusional. There is no context in accordance with the English language that comports with that. You're just making shit up and it's really sad.
It is not a coincidence that during the Trump presidency hate crimes spiked and for the first time in decades white supremacists all over the country felt comfortable showing their faces. To quote Andrew Gilliam; "I'm not saying he's a racist, but the racists sure think he's a racist". That is what matters.
They're calling him a racist because that is how he portrays himself. Read his speech above, point me to one part of that which doesn't scream "terrible people!"
When did we beat Japan at anything? They send their cars over by the millions, and what do we do? When was the last time you saw a Chevrolet in Tokyo? It doesn't exist, folks. They beat us all the time.
When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they're killing us economically.
The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.
Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best.
They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.
And some, I assume, are good people.
