Save America, Now.
- Thread starter Goshin
- Start date
The beauty of ranked choice voting is that the intense polarization we've seen in the past 12 years would hurt campaigns more than it would help.
Take obama and mccain, for example. No obama supporter would put mccain as their second choice. And no mccain voter would put obama as their second choice. This would create a situation where the most common second choice would win instead of either party's front runner.
Take obama and mccain, for example. No obama supporter would put mccain as their second choice. And no mccain voter would put obama as their second choice. This would create a situation where the most common second choice would win instead of either party's front runner.
NightTrain
Veteran XX
It's like the Heisman dude keep up.
I would have actually, up until he picked Palin.
In ranked choice voting you would take you ballot and rank all candidates for office. So say you have 3 candidates for president. You rank them in order of preference. As they tally votes candidates that don't have enough votes to win have their votes reassigned to other candidates. Person A ranks obama 1, some fictional guy 2, and mccain 3. Person B ranks mccain 1, the fictional guy 2, and obama 3. When they tally the votes, since neither front runner has enough to win, their votes get assigned to the second choice on each ballot, meaning the fictional guy wins.
In ranked choice voting you can't afford to alienate large swaths of the population. You have to remain liked enough by everyone to be ranked 2nd or 3rd on the majority of ballots. Under this kind of system the extremist polarization politics of today is more of a liability than a benefit.
In ranked choice voting you can't afford to alienate large swaths of the population. You have to remain liked enough by everyone to be ranked 2nd or 3rd on the majority of ballots. Under this kind of system the extremist polarization politics of today is more of a liability than a benefit.
NightTrain
Veteran XX
You also break the monopoly held by the two major parties.
One drawback is the stupidity of an electorate that can't even figure out the current voting procedure and would never understand the Heisman.
One drawback is the stupidity of an electorate that can't even figure out the current voting procedure and would never understand the Heisman.
In general I likey...
We definitely need a reformed capitalism. Dump the Federal reserve, bring back the greenback, eliminate special interests/campaign fund-raising/BRIBES.
Can anyone tell me how it benefits the majority of people to have companies that make 30 billion dollars a fiscal quarter? or any one individual that makes more than 100 million dollars a year? How is that beneficial for our people as a whole?
I propose a cap on business earnings at 1 billion dollars a year. Excess funds would be used as tax, split among employees or the local population. there would obviously need to be other controls such as how much can be spent on R&D, frivolous spending etc.. What right do one group of individuals have in controlling our natural resources. Anyone who says they wouldn't start a company that could make 1 billion a year is full of shit, it wouldn't stifle growth, actually more people would have more money to spend into the economy, instead of this bullshit trickle down theory...
Also, no individual should make more than 100 million a year, how does this benefit society? Please enlighten me....
Think about it hard, does our current kind of greed really benefit our society?? How??
We definitely need a reformed capitalism. Dump the Federal reserve, bring back the greenback, eliminate special interests/campaign fund-raising/BRIBES.
Can anyone tell me how it benefits the majority of people to have companies that make 30 billion dollars a fiscal quarter? or any one individual that makes more than 100 million dollars a year? How is that beneficial for our people as a whole?
I propose a cap on business earnings at 1 billion dollars a year. Excess funds would be used as tax, split among employees or the local population. there would obviously need to be other controls such as how much can be spent on R&D, frivolous spending etc.. What right do one group of individuals have in controlling our natural resources. Anyone who says they wouldn't start a company that could make 1 billion a year is full of shit, it wouldn't stifle growth, actually more people would have more money to spend into the economy, instead of this bullshit trickle down theory...
Also, no individual should make more than 100 million a year, how does this benefit society? Please enlighten me....
Think about it hard, does our current kind of greed really benefit our society?? How??
Last edited:
Skipperlipicus
Veteran XX
haha if this were on facebook i would click the "like" button for my first and only time.
And while you're at it, completely do away with the ridiculous electoral college.
Why?
ADraco2000
Veteran X
You mentioned nothing about lawyers.
We need to abolish all lawyers.
Make the justice system swift and just.
Just like the great movie BTTF2 suggests.
And flying cars.
We need to abolish all lawyers.
Make the justice system swift and just.
Just like the great movie BTTF2 suggests.
And flying cars.
Kill ALL the Lawyers!