But youre far too much of a little bot to say why, right? Is this entire site just bots? Like there’s literally nothing wrong with anything I said, and y’all are wrapping yourselves in narratives and buzzwords. I literally feel like Il talking to bots

Lmfao “being contrarian”? How about using my brain. Something y’all clearly don’t care about doing, just posting links to CNN and pleading to their authority. These guys already brought up the math of duopoly, and I refuse to see how constantly ceding ground to an ever-rightward shift in American politics is a great idea.

Oh it’s not? All I say is “maybe we shouldn’t allow corporations to literally buy all the politicians” and all of you people are like “i like it when bought politicians are legitimized by ranks”. If the shit-tier links presented above are enough to wholly sway you in implementing RC voting before securing your election system via delegitimizing legal bribery, then go ahead and listen. I simply presented an opposing opinion, one that is quite literally in line with the current status quo. You’re the ones out here trying to convince me. But whatever. Bots.

Why even comment if everyone must agree? Shitty leftists are shitty, next at 11.

As if that was ever going to happen, everyone can wrap themselves in their solutions all they want. We’re long past fucked anyway

Also, you shouldn’t quote the Dunning Kruger effect, its literally based on faulty math, a hilariously ironic twist of fate. Youre literally the poster child, just posting link after link

Yes I think we can all tell you’re practically masturbating over the scarecrow you’ve build out in the yard.

You can go read all the math in the world and perfectly construct your perfectly composed model of everything. Get back to me when you’ve worked out the kinks. You know why we killed all those boys in Vietnam? Because some genius like the self-described here brought a bunch of equations and used them to murder thousands of people. I fucking agree with your assessment of how ranked choice voting works. But I do not agree with your assertion that any form of voting system will have an effect before lobbying is illegal.

Lmfao bro I’m just trying to say it seems like cute bullshit, a massive herring that’d be so hard to implement then just makes it worse. And all I said was I’ve seen how it can make it worse. Like maybe there are waaaay bigger fish… and you say this would get you there. I just don’t feel it will. And that’s all said. I mean you talk about manufacturing consent. Do you think they’re manufacturing your consent for ranked voting? What’s real? Man who fucking knows the definition of words? Ohh gotcha, I used THIS definition of the word! Well, you’re a cocksucker. Don’t worry, my definition is really nice

Lmfao you’re trash, this is my cellphone, you like to make fun of people for getting names wrong and now you cry cause comments are in two threads. Get over yourself mr botnet

No, that’s what the Electoral College got you. Not FPTP. That’d be Hillary. She won the majority, was first past the post. But in America, you use FPTP and take all the posts and count them differently.

You’re totally misconstruing “the overton window”, jesus christ. My point, is that there is no point in implementing some RC system when only the Democrats and Republicans exist in an ecosystem where companies and people can openly purchase politicians.

All of these ideas make sense on paper, because they all assume the electoral system isn’t completely infected with money. This would simply add another layer to make it harder to remove it. You have to remove the money first, then complicate the system.

I can only see this via the Republican party being completely decimated, and replaced by a contingent of 3-5 parties splitting from the Democrat ticket after they secure enough of a majority to fix the constitution. If they cant do that, it should never happen

I’m literally just saying that pushing for Ranked Choice voting in a hyper-capitalist, hyper-lobbied environment like America would simply reinforce the goals of neo-liberals. Unless you’re posting all of this in irony? Because you’re the botnet? And that’s why you have to call lit the downvotes? Like why even invoke that? Because youre a bot?

I literally do not want more moderate candidates. Do you not see that is my point? If you push towards moderation when the average is slewed towards “anarcho-capitalism”, you’re going to keep pushing that direction.

Okay mister “random letters that can’t accept a differing opinion and replies with random shitty links to make his point look better”, I definitely understand

I don’t need your introductions to ranked voting. I can see the point. But bot when all the other shit exists, too. There’s an order to this shit, and giving extra levers to those that don’t want democracy isn’t helpful either

I only downvoted like once or twice, and they were times they were legitimately useless. Hilarious you’d call it out when you’re clearly downvoting my content immediately.

Because I just joined this website. Because it has content now, that’s generally up to date. It’s a crime, mr officer, to be a young account and be disagreeable.

As per NPR, my point:

But in practice, research has found that the voters who actually take advantage of the ranking opportunities tend to be white voters, and affluent voters with more education.

“So it’s kind of continuing and appearing to multiply the disparities in our current democracy,” Jacobs said. “We need to be clear when we say ‘democracy’ that we mean a system in which there is equal participation.”

Andrea Benjamin, an expert on race and voting behavior at the University of Oklahoma, agrees. She’s optimistic about the potential of ranked choice voting to improve representation in the U.S., but at the end of the day, any real transformative change to the political system will only come from higher voter turnout. You can change vote-tallying methods all you want, she said, but it’s still just a snapshot of the most motivated sliver of the population.

Would you like me to continue to read your sources, and point out how this is just some gimmick that they’ll abuse just as easily? “In theory”… I mean in theory Donald Trump should be executed for high crimes against the USA. Those documents he stole, the bribes, dude didn’t even sell his company. It’s ridiculous. And you say that’s wanting violence? In theory, I just want the law upheld. But in practice…

It’s hilarious that you consider the shit you’ve posted as “sources” as most of this is bottom-barrel definitions. There were some actual sources regarding implementation, which are interesting, but I see no gain in opening up a system that is already incredibly abused. Everyone always skips the whole “getting money out of politics” angle, and somehow believe this system will rid them of that.

Except even in progressive spaces you can easily flood the zone with trash and hand-wave it away on proportion. Y’all keep wishing for your demise, this is what the left does after all

More moderate candidates in an a cesspool just gives you garbage. Lmfao “the left is pushing the overton window and wants violence” is some tripe. Trump was shot by a Republican. It sounds like youre a propagandized American that grew up in neoliberal hellscape. Why should anyone believe the rest. You’re not worth the price of the bytes on disk. “Manufacturing consent”, like Kamala, right? Like Bush, right? Man I don’t know what point you make, you just use buzzwords and say that proves a point. Wrap yourself in your fantastical solutions that will continue to lock yourself in the hellscape without actually solving anything. Whatever.

Lmfao okay, well jump from crazed whataboutism to just plain insults, but I’m not wrong in my interpretation. If Citizens United wasnt around, if SCOTUS was different, if so many other things. But implementing RC without them is a death sentence

But the opposite if FPTP is using a representative set. Like if youre american you must see that “constantly pushing for centrism” only pushes you rightward when Republicans push so hard for their policies