(05-28-2025, 12:41 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2025, 11:27 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Your three things were, (a) all unused campaign funds will be kept by the government, (b) all candidates must disclose party ID, © each party only gets one candidate with no publicly funded primary for any candidate.
(a) Winning candidates today typically don't have significant unused funds, and if this were a rule the main thing that would change is there would be much more expensive galas right at the end.
(b) This is typically the case in Florida already, and in the areas where it isn't the case, not much changes.
(C ) All that's going to do is create lots of independent or small party candidates, and the main winning strategy will be to flood the zone with clones of your opponent to split your opponent's vote. With no change to Presidential primaries across the 50 states, the two main parties will still have an advantage for a little while, but for congressional races, that would become irrelevant fairly quickly. If joining a party doesn't give you access to a taxpayer subsidized primary, candidates simply won't join a party. You may welcome a new plethora of independent candidates, and to an extent I do too, but the winning candidate isn't going to be the one voters agree with most. It's going to be the one who does the best job winning the clone wars. There is a reason all 50 states, each acting on their own, eventually built a publicly funded partisan primary system, and if you get rid of it with out making any other change, you will find that out quickly.
( A ) Some candidates may throw expensive parties at the end. But over time, norms and reporting scrutiny could discourage such spending. The benefit is trying to restore our trust by ensuring campaign money ultimately serves a public purpose.
( B ) Nationwide standardization would bring clarity across the board and help voters who move or vote across jurisdictions. It's about having the truth in advertising. Voters deserve to know this. We should know who these people are. Not just ideologically, but, what national or state-level organization is backing them and whether they represent a broader movement or a distinct interest group.
Even a little more transparency upgrades can have a lot of positive impacts. Helps reduce overall voter ignorance, and most importantly, it builds accountability. If you put a party label on your name you're also deciding to carry it's baggage. While it may be common in Florida. It should see a standardization.
( C ) The heart of the reform is to end taxpayer funding of intra-party factional warfare and the abuse of and advantage of war chest spending. They lose their monopoly. Uh-oh. You mean they have to actually practice what they preach now? Absolutely. Us voters, the public, not the party insiders, we should decide who gets on the ballot.
I welcome more independents. I welcome new movements. We're dying for it. That's what made this country so fun and free to begin with. Innovative parties, ideology, the American Spirit, actual politicians preaching to the people because they needed us. More candidates and more movements means richer policy debate and more diverse voter alignment.
Also, parties adapt. They either become more ideologically coherent and accountable, or they die, thus making room for new ones.
This current system insulates the two primary parties by forcing us taxpayers to subsidize their internal contests. Change is difficult. It's a messy business. But we need it. It's all about reducing corruption, promoting transparency and honesty, democratizing access to the ballot and encouraging real competition and accountability.
Democracy should be less about making political elites comfortable and more about reflecting us, the people, the will of us.
I agree with you, it's just, if there really are more than two viable candidates, it will be a total crapshoot which candidate wins which race, unless there's ranked choice voting. Without ranked choice, when there are more than two candidates, usually the most extreme candidate wins and the ones clustered in the middle split the vote.
Ranked choice voting is the essential step. Approval voting would help get more candidates and parties out there also, but it doesn't work as well as ranked choice.
The entire Biden "Presidency" was the biggest scam ever pulled on the American public.
Watchdog finds 'no evidence' Biden knew of crucial climate EOs, demands answers on who signed autopen
Power the Future is calling on Congress to investigate the validity of former President Joe Biden's signatures
A pro-energy group is renewing its call for an investigation into over half a dozen Biden administration executive actions related to climate that it believes should be deemed null and void due to them being signed by an autopen without any public comment from former President Joe Biden confirming his knowledge of them.
Power the Future, a nonprofit organization that advocates for American energy jobs, reviewed eight Biden executive orders that it says were significant shifts in domestic energy policy and said it found no evidence of the president speaking about any of them publicly, raising concerns that the orders were signed by autopen and that he was not aware of them.
"These are not obscure bureaucratic memos; these were foundational shifts in American energy policy, yet not once did Joe Biden speak about them publicly," Daniel Turner, founder and executive director of Power The Future, told Fox News Digital.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/watchdo...ed-autopen
(05-28-2025, 01:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2025, 12:41 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]( A ) Some candidates may throw expensive parties at the end. But over time, norms and reporting scrutiny could discourage such spending. The benefit is trying to restore our trust by ensuring campaign money ultimately serves a public purpose.
( B ) Nationwide standardization would bring clarity across the board and help voters who move or vote across jurisdictions. It's about having the truth in advertising. Voters deserve to know this. We should know who these people are. Not just ideologically, but, what national or state-level organization is backing them and whether they represent a broader movement or a distinct interest group.
Even a little more transparency upgrades can have a lot of positive impacts. Helps reduce overall voter ignorance, and most importantly, it builds accountability. If you put a party label on your name you're also deciding to carry it's baggage. While it may be common in Florida. It should see a standardization.
( C ) The heart of the reform is to end taxpayer funding of intra-party factional warfare and the abuse of and advantage of war chest spending. They lose their monopoly. Uh-oh. You mean they have to actually practice what they preach now? Absolutely. Us voters, the public, not the party insiders, we should decide who gets on the ballot.
I welcome more independents. I welcome new movements. We're dying for it. That's what made this country so fun and free to begin with. Innovative parties, ideology, the American Spirit, actual politicians preaching to the people because they needed us. More candidates and more movements means richer policy debate and more diverse voter alignment.
Also, parties adapt. They either become more ideologically coherent and accountable, or they die, thus making room for new ones.
This current system insulates the two primary parties by forcing us taxpayers to subsidize their internal contests. Change is difficult. It's a messy business. But we need it. It's all about reducing corruption, promoting transparency and honesty, democratizing access to the ballot and encouraging real competition and accountability.
Democracy should be less about making political elites comfortable and more about reflecting us, the people, the will of us.
I agree with you, it's just, if there really are more than two viable candidates, it will be a total crapshoot which candidate wins which race, unless there's ranked choice voting. Without ranked choice, when there are more than two candidates, usually the most extreme candidate wins and the ones clustered in the middle split the vote.
Ranked choice voting is the essential step. Approval voting would help get more candidates and parties out there also, but it doesn't work as well as ranked choice.
Define what you actually mean by rank choice voting
(05-28-2025, 02:17 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]What we know about 3 arrested at City Council meeting, groups calling for their release
Soy boy was brought to heel real quick.
What were they even protesting?
(05-28-2025, 04:08 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2025, 01:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with you, it's just, if there really are more than two viable candidates, it will be a total crapshoot which candidate wins which race, unless there's ranked choice voting. Without ranked choice, when there are more than two candidates, usually the most extreme candidate wins and the ones clustered in the middle split the vote.
Ranked choice voting is the essential step. Approval voting would help get more candidates and parties out there also, but it doesn't work as well as ranked choice.
Define what you actually mean by rank choice voting
This article has three examples of what a ranked ballot might look like.
All three examples work the same, mathematically, they just look different for the user.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting
(05-28-2025, 04:22 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2025, 02:17 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]What we know about 3 arrested at City Council meeting, groups calling for their release
Soy boy was brought to heel real quick.
What were they even protesting?
(05-28-2025, 04:08 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Define what you actually mean by rank choice voting
This article has three examples of what a ranked ballot might look like.
All three examples work the same, mathematically, they just look different for the user.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting
Yep what I thought.
the bottom line is a phrase from within that article.
and the candidate with the most points (although not necessarily a majority) is elected
No way no how. Since the article stated the rules of these systems vary wildly it gives a minority the ability to force the majority of the people to submit to their view point.This is for those who cannot win an election fairly so change the rules so we can make the people do what we want. Why doesn't this surprise me? Nice try kiddo...
One vote per person. It is not broke and this would only make it more confusing and provide a tool for you. You do have another agenda ! AHA!!
(05-28-2025, 04:32 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2025, 04:22 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]What were they even protesting?
This article has three examples of what a ranked ballot might look like.
All three examples work the same, mathematically, they just look different for the user.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting
Yep what I thought.
the bottom line is a phrase from within that article.
and the candidate with the most points (although not necessarily a majority) is elected
No way no how. Since the article stated the rules of these systems vary wildly it gives a minority the ability to force the majority of the people to submit to their view point.This is for those who cannot win an election fairly so change the rules so we can make the people do what we want. Why doesn't this surprise me? Nice try kiddo...
One vote per person. It is not broke and this would only make it more confusing and provide a tool for you. You do have another agenda ! AHA!!
First of all, no one has to submit to anyone else's viewpoint. Trump isn't forcing me or you to submit to his viewpoint. No one can do that outside of a dictatorship.
This is all assuming we stay a democratic Republic with freedom. Assuming that, we are just trying to solve the problem of how to elect representatives who will compromise and build consensus.
Second of all, the minority often wins in the system we have now. The plurality always wins, but the plurality is usually not a majority. The system we have now has spoilers like Ralph Nader and Gary Johnson making it so no candidate has a majority.
lolololol
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/192778...wVMrA&s=19
Gavin Newsom's California is planning to implement a new "Grading for Equity" program at @SFUnified schools. This program will:
-Eliminate homework
-Eliminate weekly tests
-Allow for late assignment hand-ins
-Allow students to skip class without affecting grade
-Make getting an "80" an "A"
-Allow students to pass with as grade as low as "21"
RIP education in California.
(05-28-2025, 07:18 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]lolololol
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/192778...wVMrA&s=19
Gavin Newsom's California is planning to implement a new "Grading for Equity" program at @SFUnified schools. This program will:
-Eliminate homework
-Eliminate weekly tests
-Allow for late assignment hand-ins
-Allow students to skip class without affecting grade
-Make getting an "80" an "A"
-Allow students to pass with as grade as low as "21"
RIP education in California.
I don't think I've ever seen a raunchier political whore than Newsom. But he gives his constituents what they want, consequences be damned.
(05-28-2025, 07:42 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2025, 07:18 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]lolololol
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/192778...wVMrA&s=19
Gavin Newsom's California is planning to implement a new "Grading for Equity" program at @SFUnified schools. This program will:
-Eliminate homework
-Eliminate weekly tests
-Allow for late assignment hand-ins
-Allow students to skip class without affecting grade
-Make getting an "80" an "A"
-Allow students to pass with as grade as low as "21"
RIP education in California.
I don't think I've ever seen a raunchier political whore than Newsom. But he gives his constituents what they want, consequences be damned.
I cannot believe this is true. I would need to see him promoting it to believe it.
(05-28-2025, 06:36 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2025, 04:32 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Yep what I thought.
the bottom line is a phrase from within that article.
and the candidate with the most points (although not necessarily a majority) is elected
No way no how. Since the article stated the rules of these systems vary wildly it gives a minority the ability to force the majority of the people to submit to their view point.This is for those who cannot win an election fairly so change the rules so we can make the people do what we want. Why doesn't this surprise me? Nice try kiddo...
One vote per person. It is not broke and this would only make it more confusing and provide a tool for you. You do have another agenda ! AHA!!
First of all, no one has to submit to anyone else's viewpoint. Trump isn't forcing me or you to submit to his viewpoint. No one can do that outside of a dictatorship.
This is all assuming we stay a democratic Republic with freedom. Assuming that, we are just trying to solve the problem of how to elect representatives who will compromise and build consensus.
Second of all, the minority often wins in the system we have now. The plurality always wins, but the plurality is usually not a majority. The system we have now has spoilers like Ralph Nader and Gary Johnson making it so no candidate has a majority.
Dude, this doesn't solve any issue we have. Your take on what it would do if passed is incorrect. I can see many, many ways to exploit this. It would multiply our issues. One vote one person, most votes wins and is elected. Well except for President where the electoral college actually votes based on the outcome of the State. All votes counted same day. No votes accepted after voting day.
(05-28-2025, 09:08 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2025, 07:42 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think I've ever seen a raunchier political whore than Newsom. But he gives his constituents what they want, consequences be damned.
I cannot believe this is true. I would need to see him promoting it to believe it.
(05-28-2025, 06:36 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]First of all, no one has to submit to anyone else's viewpoint. Trump isn't forcing me or you to submit to his viewpoint. No one can do that outside of a dictatorship.
This is all assuming we stay a democratic Republic with freedom. Assuming that, we are just trying to solve the problem of how to elect representatives who will compromise and build consensus.
Second of all, the minority often wins in the system we have now. The plurality always wins, but the plurality is usually not a majority. The system we have now has spoilers like Ralph Nader and Gary Johnson making it so no candidate has a majority.
Dude, this doesn't solve any issue we have. Your take on what it would do if passed is incorrect. I can see many, many ways to exploit this. It would multiply our issues. One vote one person, most votes wins and is elected. Well except for President where the electoral college actually votes based on the outcome of the State. All votes counted same day. No votes accepted after voting day.
I thought we agreed that we had a problem of gridlock and the members of Congress who try to fix it are punished but the ones who go to extremes and make it worse are rewarded? That's the problem, right?
To the tune of $35,000
Berkeley County woman charged for food stamp fraud
BERKELEY COUNTY, S.C. (WCBD) – The state Department of Social Services charged a Berkeley County woman for fraudulently receiving nearly $35,000 in food stamps.
Tabatha Brook Wyndham, 33 was charged with one count fraudulent acquisition or use of food stamps. Authorities arrested Wyndham, and she was booked into the Berkeley County Detention Center.
The Ninth Circuit Solicitor’s Office will prosecute the case against Wyndham.
https://www.counton2.com/news/berkeley-c...tamp-fraud
(05-28-2025, 09:08 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2025, 07:42 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think I've ever seen a raunchier political whore than Newsom. But he gives his constituents what they want, consequences be damned.
I cannot believe this is true. I would need to see him promoting it to believe it.
(05-28-2025, 06:36 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]First of all, no one has to submit to anyone else's viewpoint. Trump isn't forcing me or you to submit to his viewpoint. No one can do that outside of a dictatorship.
This is all assuming we stay a democratic Republic with freedom. Assuming that, we are just trying to solve the problem of how to elect representatives who will compromise and build consensus.
Second of all, the minority often wins in the system we have now. The plurality always wins, but the plurality is usually not a majority. The system we have now has spoilers like Ralph Nader and Gary Johnson making it so no candidate has a majority.
More on the great idea of lowering standards..
https://sfstandard.com/2025/05/28/sfusd-...ntroversy/
(05-28-2025, 09:47 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2025, 09:08 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]I cannot believe this is true. I would need to see him promoting it to believe it.
Dude, this doesn't solve any issue we have. Your take on what it would do if passed is incorrect. I can see many, many ways to exploit this. It would multiply our issues. One vote one person, most votes wins and is elected. Well except for President where the electoral college actually votes based on the outcome of the State. All votes counted same day. No votes accepted after voting day.
I thought we agreed that we had a problem of gridlock and the members of Congress who try to fix it are punished but the ones who go to extremes and make it worse are rewarded? That's the problem, right?
Your solution does not address this issue at all.
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/192782...a0EdQ&s=19
Wow. Hostage held by Hamas says the t*rrorists wanted Kamala to win because they were scared of Trump.
They knew Trump would make a deal and try to get the hostages out.
They started treating him better when Trump was elected.
“He [Trump] got me out.”
(05-28-2025, 10:56 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2025, 09:47 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I thought we agreed that we had a problem of gridlock and the members of Congress who try to fix it are punished but the ones who go to extremes and make it worse are rewarded? That's the problem, right?
Your solution does not address this issue at all.
Yes it does. It empowers voters in the middle by giving every voter more choices. It will reward candidates that make a play for the middle.
(05-29-2025, 07:07 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2025, 10:56 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Your solution does not address this issue at all.
Yes it does. It empowers voters in the middle by giving every voter more choices. It will reward candidates that make a play for the middle.
No you are way off base here. You have no idea how the people elected this way would be once elected. You are guessing. It does allow a candidate the majority of the people do not want to be elected. It is a scam that is being proposed by the minority of liberals currently. AOC put you up to this?
![[Image: 500739600-1133240045508027-3364986897087143291-n.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/G3PLQ8pS/500739600-1133240045508027-3364986897087143291-n.jpg)
![[Image: 499923743-999520952346779-8663173555220328258-n.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/4ZVr8NKv/499923743-999520952346779-8663173555220328258-n.jpg)