|
drat, NBC is all in for Bloomberg, huh.
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
Apparently the actual debate is not on the youtube. Preshow only.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
The NBC site don't work.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
Endlessly initializating. Welp, guess I'm relying on you guys to tell me what's up lol, a debate that can't be watched online.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
Chimp_On_Stilts posted:Disable your adblocker. That did it, thank you!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 03:06
|
|
|
Oh Amy, nominating a woman would absolutely not "end sexism on the internet", lmfao
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 03:17
|
|
|
Knife in the gut. "None of them accuse me of anything except... maybe the joke I called..." "That's up to them... they signed those agreements and we'll live with it..."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
Bernie is about to weigh in. Please don't drag the topic away from this Bernie. We can do this AFTER we finish the NDA discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 03:47
|
|
|
Warren just did a much better job defending Klob than Klob did lol
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 03:52
|
|
|
MegaZeroX posted:Serious talk: Regardless of stupid delegate systems, another thing you are all missing is that Ranked Choice is a bad system anyways and arguably the only thing worse than FTTP. Ideally, legislature should just be proportional representation (based on voting for a party and the percentages getting given delegates accordingly), while executive positions should be chosen through Fallback Voting (my favorite), or Approval/Range voting. RCV is strictly superior to Approval/Ranged unless your goal is to get the shittiest candidate possible - which is why the people who push Approval voting over RCV are all mush brained centrists desperate to kill off third parties and vote splitting. Its as strong a guarantee of permanent dual party control as FPTP is (stronger, arguably) unless the voters engage in massive amounts tactical voting. It's just FPTP with extra steps and its dumb as hell. Also, Mixed Member Proportional voting is good, but most versions of proportional voting are utter poo poo that amount to letting the elites pick whose in government instead of letting the people decide.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 14:38
|
|
|
Remember that the most effective socialist pitch in American history, so effective they straight up murdered the guy responsible to stop him from becoming president, was "Every man a king", not "every man a peasant".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Approval voting means that moderates tend to win, for the electorate's definition of moderate. If your objection is that this doesn't result in enough socialists being elected, no democratic system can elect socialists if the electorate doesn't like socialists. Approval Voting means socialists won't be elected even if the electorate loving loves socialists. It's bad for democracy to make it so only the least objectionable, least contentious candidate with mainstream and media approval has a chance to emerge victorious. It's a worse version of FPTP because tactical voting means you don't even have to worry about giving lip service to the various parts of your coalition, since they have the "release valve" of a meaningless vote but practically still have to support you to stop the "worse choice" from getting in.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2020 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
Mercrom posted:What does a good democratic system look like to you that doesn't reward moderates and that's not FPTP? "Moderates" aren't the people rewarded, but rather a specific subclass of politicians that appeal to low info and fear based voters while offering nothing potentially objectionable no matter how popular (because offering popular things might get you votes, but all that matters in an AV system is not losing them). RCV beats approval voting by wide margins if you want meaningful democracy to happen, because it doesn't have the hosed up perverse incentives of a system built around voting against people instead of for them (which is what approval voting boils down to, as a system). I think MMP beats out RCV, especially when the short list isn't chosen by entrenched party leadership but through some other system. I think all of those are inferior to a multi-winner legislative power weighting by electoral selection pool system, which addresses a wide set of problems that all of the above don't even look at (higher voter information rates, low cost, more transparency, more accountability), but I recognize I'm pretty niche in that opinion and a primary debate thread that's well past it's expiration date isn't the best place to get into it. It's just approval voting in particular that sucks. And the people who push it like it primarily because it sucks in ways that let's them marginalize those they dislike.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2020 18:54
|
|