You must be fun to live with, you complain that you think something is broken but you don’t want to help fix it.

If you can’t stay on topic in a stressful situation then yeah, there might be a fucking problem. A Stutter is fine. Switching topics completely is not a stutter.

NYT did in fact talk about Trump in their editorial. They lamented that any sane party would consider him ineligible after his debate performance. But because we can’t have nice things, the onus is now on Biden.

All the “rebuttals” keep ignoring that.

I’m not skipping anywhere, I’m familiar with the argument. I heard it ad nauseum from Fox News in 2022. The entire theory depends on ignoring the actual ideology on the ground and assuming Palin voters would just as soon vote for a Democrat.

And you haven’t mentioned any other type of approval voting until now so yes that’s what was assumed. STV is also a multiple winner election system. Which is also incompatible with our Constitution. At this point I’m not sure you’re familiar with the US Constitution but in order to do anything that has multiple winners we’d need at least 40 votes to support it in at least 40 different parliamentary bodies. 29 of which are controlled by a party that massively benefits from tying land to seats. No voting system that gives multiple winners going down the list is going to be compatible with our election system for the foreseeable future. Where STV was used in city elections, it’s been deprecated because having two different systems on a single ballot is needlessly confusing.

Well then what’s your preferred method for being contacted?

SPAV still requires a proportional system. You cannot just magic it into our system. And even if there’s a state willing to go proportional, asking voters to use two different systems is a non starter.

Second. That source is shit too. It’s a bunch of mathematicians playing what if? This quote is as far as I got because it makes it obvious.

Peltola, could have lost by getting more 1st choice votes from Palin supporters.

If you’re going to criticize RCV it needs to be on facts. Not on fantasy situations that can be generically applied. Yes if some Palin voters in an alternate universe decided to abandon their entire ideology and vote blue, they could have kept Begich in the race and prevented Peltola from getting those second round votes. But that’s an absolutely ridiculous assumption and shows these guys are just playing the numbers game.

Which is what every conservative attempt to attack RCV voting in the wake of 2022 came down to.

You’re not bringing any novel evidence to the argument and you’re proposing a niche replacement that doesn’t even fit our system.

Good thing that’s not the sole method anymore. They do cellphones, text messages, mail, and email. Just about anything except passing a public link around for anyone to use.

Yeah no. That’s a lot of noise to ignore that the party and Republican voters preferred Palin. Begich wouldn’t even have been there in traditional FPTP. Calling the most popular candidate from a party “a spoiler” is a rhetorical device republicans came up with to go after RCV.

Peltola is also hardly some far left representative. So calling it a center squeeze is a bit rich. This entire write up screams, “I can’t approve of the Alaskan RCV election because I’m paid not to.”

To be clear, not you, the author of that Wikipedia article.

Edit to add- and sure enough if you go to the talk page there’s a partisan group defending it from any changes to bring it towards Wikipedia objectivity standards. This is why your teachers told you Wikipedia is a bad source.

Not really no.

Honestly I’d go further, let’s get a round thousand and hook it to a ratio. Obliterating the ability to buy house races will result in better high level candidates and better low level representation. I’d say let’s do the full ten thousand if I thought people would for it.

SPAV is specifically constructed to work with proportional representation. It iterates until all seats are filled. But in the US, by Constitutional law, it’s one seat per geographical district.

About RCV though it’s still head and shoulders above FPTP, and easy to understand. About Alaska specifically, I don’t understand why you would call the party backed candidate who got more votes a spoiler?

Palin lost in the second round because roughly half of Begich’s voters did not want Palin. If the less popular Republican candidate wasn’t in the race then Peltola still wins. This was a case of RCV working exactly as advertised. A traditional party primary would have nominated Palin, not Begich, and she would have lost anyways.

Polls show there’s still undecided people. For example in Pennsylvania there’s 6 points unaccounted for in polling. And Biden really needs to pick up those points.

Legendary Tankies, the entire group… /s

Oh I agree that it’s possible. We’re just in the weird position of having to work around the Constitution.

Why wouldn’t they have an administration? Any president will hire a cabinet and advisors.

Don’t let the optimism here fool you. Biden needs to bring on board undecided voters. And they aren’t impressed.

Then you may be interested in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

We can’t directly institute RCV in the electoral college but we can control how the delegates to the electoral college are pledged. Unfortunately since the 12th amendment we are no longer able to have multiple votes in the EC. It either succeeds or throws the vote to Congress. Which solved the problem at the time but tied our hands now.

They’re trying to conflate anyone who isn’t in full support of Biden as a tankie. It’s more of the same from the last year that’s been used to shut down any debate or criticism.

Democratic National Committee.

WAPO too.