Tariffs and Potential Inflation

[VikingsGuy]

The problem is that it is 40 yrs too late. You have to raise tariffs while you still have a full scale viable industry/supply chain. Otherwise it is just an inflation inducing, recession flirting, tit for tat.

 

[SAJ-99]

Let's stop saying others are too stupid.

 

[noharleyyet]

 

[Bonasababy]

Studies fair clearly show that ranked choice ballots actually increase candidate polarization and favors those with extreme positions.

Couple of thoughts:

What studies?

I sometimes see people rail against it without even understanding what it is.

Ballots look similar to below.

Voting continues until one candidate gets a majority. Of all votes--so if 100,000 votes were caste you wait until a winner hits 50,001 or more votes. Multiple vote counts--the lowest vote getter is eliminated in the first round--those that voted for that person get their 2nd choice counted in the 2nd round, and so on until a winner with a majority is reached.

Not hard to see that if forces candidates to appeal to more than a narrow extreme based if they want to up their chances of being elected!

And do you think the states--e.g. Alaska--that have implemented this--have extreme candidates? Certainly not what I see.

Primarily on the right side. States that are broadly considered to have mostly conservative voters--say Alaska or Maine--Murkowski and Collins are great examples of two who do NOT always vote extreme or solidly down their party line.

Term limits are an entirely different issue--not relevant to this. You can have both--easily--if thats what you want.

 

[Bonasababy]

The left brought forward 2 initiatives in Montana this election. Thankfully both went down in flames.

Montanans reject changes to voting, likely dooming two ballot initiatives • Daily Montanan

Two constitutional initiatives in Montana are trailing in early voting.

search.app

These are positions desired and pushed by MODERATE factions--NOT the left. You are making my point that people do not understand what RCV does or who it can help. No party wants it--it takes away from their consolidation of power and as both parties move to the extremes, it requires them to moderate to win elections. In many races now our choices for voting are equally extreme.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Couple of thoughts:

What studies?

I sometimes see people rail against it without even understanding what it is.

Ballots look similar to below.

Voting continues until one candidate gets a majority. Of all votes--so if 100,000 votes were caste you wait until a winner hits 50,001 or more votes. Multiple vote counts--the lowest vote getter is eliminated in the first round--those that voted for that person get their 2nd choice counted in the 2nd round, and so on until a winner with a majority is reached.

Not hard to see that if forces candidates to appeal to more than a narrow extreme based if they want to up their chances of being elected!

And do you think the states--e.g. Alaska--that have implemented this--have extreme candidates? Certainly not what I see.

Primarily on the right side. States that are broadly considered to have mostly conservative voters--say Alaska or Maine--Murkowski and Collins are great examples of two who do NOT always vote extreme or solidly down their party line.

Term limits are an entirely different issue--not relevant to this. You can have both--easily--if thats what you want.

First, I know plenty about the system so you don’t have to give me the official party pamphlet on it or cut and paste a ChatGPT script.

I won’t do all your googling for you but here is one example of my point to get you started.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3711206-the-flaw-in-ranked-choice-voting-rewarding-extremists/

Also in my metro we have had it and the result is dozens of crazies scooping up votes amongst a confused electorate and any thing resembling a middle ground has been exterminated from the elected officials in the large city that adopted it.

 

[BigHornRam]

These are positions desired and pushed by MODERATE factions--NOT the left. You are making my point that people do not understand what RCV does or who it can help. No party wants it--it takes away from their consolidation of power and as both parties move to the extremes, it requires them to moderate to win elections. In many races now our choices for voting are equally extreme.

Who funded the initiatives?

 

[antlerradar]

The other option--also little chance of it happening as the two parties both want nothing to do with it--is changing the voting system. Instant run off or ranked choice. Might actually be preferable to a third party IMO. Has the impact of dramatically softening the extremes in both sides. We might see more moderate less crazy candidates from both major parties quickly if that would happen.

No one wants to wait until Thanksgiving to find out who won the election. Probably exaggerating, but long drawn out vote counting plants the seeds of distrust in our elections.

 

[VikingsGuy]

IR/RC do not make it more likely that a mainstream popular 3rd party would win. I makes it so folks can vote for fringe candidates but then have their ballots recast for a mainstream choice. It adds confusion, gamesmanship, increases polarization and the only thing it solves is the "you're going to throw your vote away" argument so that people can virtue signal with their top vote.

 

[Nick87]

you're going to throw your vote away"

Ive thrown mine away before voting independent. Slept just fine knowing it too. But not everyone feels that way though.