RCV doesn’t “solve” the issue though. The fact that third party candidates can sway elections to the least preferred candidate is known as the “Spoiler effect”, and RCV is also subject to it.

RCV seems to be objectively better than plurality (what we use now), but it and any other ranking-based voting system are still subject to spoilers. One thing that can actually “solve” the issue though is rating-based systems, like Approval Voting, Score Voting, or STAR voting.

Good video on the subject

What makes you say that? The brain-worm, or his history of eating rotten flesh?

Again, the bill was a clone of a far right Republican bill from a year before that had even more items that Republicans wanted.

You appear to be conflating bills.

HR 3602, the focus of your first 2 quote blocks AND your first link is a REPUBLICAN bill. It was shot down overwhelmingly by democrats. Even Jerry Nadler, the guy your 2nd quote mentions, is a Democrat badmouthing the bill. (You conveniently cut right through the part of the text that said he was a Dem, which could’ve clued you in that this doesn’t back you.)

HR 3602 IS a clone of HR2, the Republican immigration proposal from last year, but it’s the wrong bill. The bipartisan border bill was HR815, before the border provisions were ripped out. BEFORE that happened, your very own 2nd link had this to say about the bill’s substance:

Beyond the enforcement measures, the scuttled Senate bill she supports includes 50,000 more green cards for employment and family-based visas for each of the next five years, which would be the first increase to legal immigration since 1990; funding for more asylum officers; government-funded legal representation for migrant children, which would be a first; and a pathway to citizenship for Afghans paroled in after helping the U.S. government during the war. The Democratic Party platform moreover includes plans to strengthen the legal immigration system, address case backlogs, increase digitization of immigration processing, and maintain high levels of refugee resettlement.

Your “thenation” quote acknowledges that it is, in fact, written in part by Republicans. But it otherwise doesn’t really get into policy details so as far as I’m concerned it’s just prose.

And your “americanimmigrationcouncil” quote conveniently leaves out the very next sentences: “It would expand additional visas and future green card availability and offer a pathway to citizenship to Afghans, while also significantly increasing detention capacity. It is a mixed bag.” I wouldn’t interpret “mixed bag” to mean “right of fascism”.

That’s not what I said and that’s not why they killed it.

What you said was it’s “right of fascists”. To me “right of fascists” either means there’re Republicans saying “whoa, this might be too extreme” or it means that comparing the democratic proposal and the republican proposal, the democratic proposal goes further right. In this case, HR2 is the republican proposal, HR815 was the bipartisan proposal. Can you come up with substantive differences where HR815 is MORE radical? If not, what you meant by your exaggeration doesn’t matter, it’s still an exaggeration.

The bill IS farther right than anything that Republicans passed through the house.

We agree that Democrats moved right on immigration. But that’d necessarily mean that this proposal is to the right of previous compromises made in the House. Doesn’t mean “to the right of fascists”.

As you even admit, they only killed it because Trump didn’t want to give Democrats a “win”.

Yes

Then every Republican internally admitted that the border bill was the “best one” they would have ever gotten and gave them everything they wanted and more. Like it or not, that IS running to the right of Republicans. Can the Republicans change their stance and go farther right? Yeah of course, they’re fascists. But it doesn’t change the fact that Democrats were willing to go farther right than even fascists were proposing.

Slow down a sec. “Every” Republican said it gave them “everything they wanted and more”? Again, you’re exaggerating. Yes, “some” Republicans admitted that it was ‘the toughest deal they were gonna get’, but that just means it was ‘the best compromise Dems were willing to give’. (Like your own 2 links said, the substance of the bill contained stuff obviously to the left of Republicans.) From my POV, this was 2 parties meeting in the middle, closer to the right than democrats have ever gone, but still the middle.

So she didn’t substantively say what you’re straight up lying about her saying? Apology accepted.

Lol, you don’t have to make it a big deal, just proof-watch your own stuff next time

So “open ended” that she actually said nothing of substance. I’ve been arguing with people on the internet for decades and this is probably the most pathetic attempt to weasel away from a politicians words I’ve EVER seen. It’s a yes or no question and she refused to answer.

Firstly, when you have to say you’ve been “arguing with people on the internet for decades”, either that’s true and…something you should reflect on, or you’re just a kid lying about his/her age.

Secondly: again, her answer was “that is a decision that doctors will make in terms of what is medically necessary. I’m not going to put myself in a position of a doctor” How is that not equivalent to “we shouldn’t be restricting access to gender-affirming care”, gender-affirming care being the specific focus of the question she was asked?

She didn’t say no.

Yay! We agree!

But that’s not how political support works. When you support something you say it loudly and clearly (e.g. “I support M4A”) When you don’t support something you weasel out of it. (“Do you support M4A? - Well I support Americans getting access to the coverage they need as part of an important conversation between themselves and their doctors”). That’s how politics works and only a literal child doesn’t understand that.

Disagree with your analogue. The real question/answer is closer to “Broadly speaking, do you support abortion” - “Well, I belive that Americans should be able to have that conversation with their doctors, and I shouldn’t have a say in that”. I’m personally fine with that answer to that question.

I never said shut off all fossil fuel tomorrow

No, you said we should be “taking it as seriously as the end of the world doomsday scenario it is”. And the most appropriate action combat a threat of that magnitude is to shut off fossil fuels tomorrow. But that’s obviously not pracical, because it can lead to backlash and the US doubling down harder on fossil fuels. So the point is: where do we draw the line between urgent climate action and practical, long-term climate action?

you are once again just making up stuff to respond to and get big mad about.

“get big mad about”? Kinda outting yourself further as a kid there, lol

I feel like we’re going back and forth as far as the next paragraph is concerned, except for this nugget:

You MIGHT win them over by confronting their world view over a long period of time and making a MORAL case for why fascism is wrong.

I agree with you on that. I think that’s what many of those people need - someone to confront them with patience and empathy, who can slowly deradicalize them over time. But it’s not Harris’ job to deradicalize them, or to show them an “alternate worldview”, that’s the job of a Trump supporter’s loved ones. Harris’ first job is to win the election, no matter what she needs to say (‘we’ll be tougher on immigration going forward’) or not say (‘we’re gonna overhaul the courts’). Her second job is to do the things that need to be done as president. And if Harris gets elected and she neither does anything about the courts, nor does she do anything about the filibuster by end of 2028, then you’ll have been right to suspect her of not being “THAT strong” on abortion. But no matter what she says now, we simply won’t know that until end-of-term.

What Trump supporters are part of this conversation? This is an online argument between you and me.

Yes, a discussion between you and me…that started with being about Trump supporters. The beliefs that Trump supporters have is relevant to a discussion about Trump supporters.

Yes, it’s the strategy that I PERSONALLY BELIEVE is the best. That is why I am arguing for it, here on the internet. Presumably you don’t believe the same which is why you’re arguing something different.

Not saying I don’t want her to BE a progressive candidate. I’m saying it’s foolish for her to campaign like she’s the polar opposite of Trump. I don’t really care how she campaigns, as long as her campaign sits literally anywhere on the spectrum between “unabashedly socialist/communist” and “a little left-of-center”. I think she’s closer to left of that spectrum than you’ll admit, but regardless of how she actually leans, I don’t think it’s wise for her to campaign to the left side of that spectrum - there are MILLIONS of centrists looking for an excuse not to vote for Trump, and there are WAY MORE of them than progressives who will ONLY vote for her if she campaigns like a radical leftist.

Oh I get it. You literally can’t read anything longer than a tweet. You should have said that before hand. You argue like Ben Shapiro (pejorative). this is probably the most pathetic attempt to weasel away from a politicians words I’ve EVER seen. Why would I respond to you just making new stuff up when there’s so many other places in this conversation that you’re also making stuff up that need to be addressed. Do you not know how arguments work? That’s how conversations work. Jesus Christ, can you even pass the Turing test? You see a turtle in a desert lying on it’s back…

The harder you go on the insults, and the exaggerations, the more convincing it is that you’re either too chronically online for your own good, or a kid, or both.

But I’m actually not saying those things to insult you, just trying to point out behaviors that you should consider toning down on. I’m sure flaming can be fun, but it’s not very good for your own mental health - it can degrade your ability to empathize and affect your real life relationships more than you might think.

I know I’m just a random internet stranger…but just food for thought.

Bro how desperate are you? The links all say the same thing. I could find you hundreds more that ALSO say the same thing. This was a HUGE news story a while back, this isn’t even controversial. Republicans openly admitted that the bill went farther than the one they previously wrote and only killed it because Trump told them to. Are you gonna keep whining the more links I show you that prove me right?

My guy…can you quote anything that specifically suggests democrats went to the right of Rebuplicans.

Here, I’ll help you: if you can link me anything that says that republicans killed the bill ‘because it goes too far to crack down on the border’, then that’d be democrats moving to the right of Republicans. Simply quoting that Republicans shut it down isn’t enough - they shut it down because Trump told them to, because he wanted to campaign on immigration. You’re quoting all this extra stuff about Democrats moving right, but you haven’t quoted a single thing to suggest they’re moving further right than Republicans. That was and still is the part I called BS on. Do you think you can manage that? Or are you gonna keep wasting your own time?

Timestamp me the part where she says “yes”. That’s not what she said and you know it. You’re just lying now.

First off…technically, she does say “yes”, 17 seconds in. XD I’m starting to think you didn’t even watch the video.

Secondly, it’s an open-ended question. “Let me ask you this question, very broadly speaking here. Do you believe that transgender Americans should have access to gender-affirming care in this country?” Then, mid-answer, she’s asked “They’re trying to define you on this. I’m asking you to define yourself, though. Broadly speaking, what is your value? Do you believe they should have that access?” She gave an open-ended answer about gender affirming care, to an open-ended question about gender-affirming care, asserting that legislators shouldn’t be overruling doctors on gender-affirming care. I bet if she’d just answered the question with “yes” but no broad explanation, you’d complain that “she doesn’t have any beliefs, she’s just saying yes without thinking so trans people will elect her”.

Follow-up for you: tell me how her answer implies “no”. Oh, but wait, you’re a stickler for the exact words used, so I’ll speak in your language: Timestamp me the part where she says “no”. Because that’s not what she said, and I’d like to say “you know that” but you probably didn’t watch the video.

That’s the ONLY WAY TO CARE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. If you just pay it lipservice and then do all the bad things that are making the world boil, guess what! You don’t actually care about climate change.

Awfully convenient of you to cookie-cut straight through my statement mid-sentence to make it look like I don’t care about climate change, and to ignore the second part of that sentence. Y’know, the part you chose not to answer to because it was too hard.

Yeah buddy the problem is structural. Selling out your values to chase after the mystical ‘undecided middle’ doesn’t work. Democrats need to be a party of values that they live up to. If you don’t see the difference between those things then I can’t help you.

The trump voters and the undecideds are the ones who are okay with Trump’s fascism, from supporting it to simply not caring about it. The group you started this whole discussion attempting to explain. Those voters don’t want Kamala to end the filibuster or to reign in the SCOTUS because that’s bad for moderate and conservative politics, the politics those people believe in. If she proposes doing those things, those people will be more inclined to vote Trump, meaning they’re more okay with him, either in spite of or because of his fascism. The subject of Kamala appealing more to guys like you or I with her campaign promises is a separate subject altogether.

Where did I ever say anything about not voting for Kamala?

Are you saying I’m wrong to assume YOU aren’t voting for Kamala, or to assume you’re talking about not voting for Kamala in general? I’ll hold onto both those assumptions for a bit longer…

Yes, I do as a matter of fact tend to argue for the things that I think are right and correct.

Again, it doesn’t matter what you think, it matters what targets of Trump’s appeal think. You position yourself as someone who’s not okay with Trump’s fascism, but you think people who ARE will react positively to Kamala vocally taking a stronger left-leaning stance on a variety of issues. Even though that’s just what YOU want, hence my accusation of projection that you’ve so far not addressed.

Is this supposed to be some own? Since you’re so right and smart why can’t you even form a coherent response that doesn’t involve straight up lying about the democrats own words.

Hey, there’s more of that projection I was just talking about

I don’t live in a swing state so yeah I’m gonna vote for PSL and talk about why I think that is good.

…Good thing I held on to those assumptions from earlier!

Lol you’re so out of steam.

Crying and shaking RN.

Lol

I can’t take you seriously. Not after you post a lazily constructed list of links, some of which are your response to me calling your border claim false, only for you then to be like “no actually wait here are more links for what I was actually trying to say”, only for the links to still not back your BS that democrats went “to the right of republicans”. (If you wanna point at anything specific to actually attempt to make your point, then go for it, but if it doesn’t actually back you then stop wasting my time with this).

Also not after you again ignore the specific question she was asked (do you support gender affirming care) and the answer I already quoted her giving (yes, it’s a matter between doctors and patients) so you can claim to know that the precise reason she used her words and not yours is “she thinks trans people are a liability to her campaign and she’s hard pivoting to the right.”

Not after claiming to believe that Biden doesn’t care about climate change - no wait, that maybe he does, but not “in a meaningful, taking it as seriously as the end of the world doomsday scenario it is” kind of way, as though the policy matching that intensity (shutting off all fossil fuel production tomorrow) isn’t a move that’ll DEFINITELY get Trump elected so he can steer us full speed ahead into a climate catastrophe.

Not after acknowledging yourself that “you’re not going to flip any single voter by saying you want to end the fillibuster” but playing that off like it’s just a random “given single policy issue”.

And certainly not after evoking Bernie Sanders as a positive figure, who is himself urging people to vote for Kamala.

The rest of your comment makes it very clear that you’re dug in, that you earnestly believe your projection onto all 70+ million people who are gonna vote for Trump, and that if Kamala was exactly the candidate you wish she was, that she’d magically sway people inundated with Fox News 24/7 because you have it all figured out.

Based on what you’ve said I wouldn’t be surprised if you either intend to vote for Stein or De La Cruz, or just want to push other people to do that.

I appreciate the sources but c’mon dude, you could at least format stuff a bit.

First off, to your immigration sources: they’d support a claim like “Democrats are appealing to conservatives on immigration policy”, not “Democrats ran to the right of fascists on militarizing the border”. That’s a BS exaggeration.

To your link to Harris’ interview: She was asked if she trans people should have broad gender-affirming care access. Her answer was “I believe that people, as the law states, even on this issue about federal law, that that is a decision that doctors will make in terms of what is medically necessary. I’m not going to put myself in a position of a doctor”. That’s a 2-for-1 answer - “decisions should be left to doctors and patients” + “To any conservatives listening, that’s not just my belief, that’s the fucking law”. Saying “She just got on national TV and refused to support trans rights” is completely inaccurate.

To your economic sources: sure, those are food for thought. Here’re some more:

Nobel Laureate Letter of endorsement for Harris’ Economic Plan Perspective of former US Treasury Chief Economist Perspective by Economic Professor at University of Regensburg Perspective by NHC Perspectives of various other economists

Her implementation of the plan will matter more than what’s on paper, but that’s true of virtually any other economic plan she could propose. In any case “she’s not going to meaningfully redistribute wealth” is still a matter of what you define as “meaningful”, and I assert that your definition is different from that of the average middle American.

To your climate sources: All this is saying is that drilling may likely go up under Harris. If that were all that mattered, I bet you’d say Biden ”isn’t committed to climate change” either, since oil went up under him too. And I’d disagree, because what matters isn’t just reducing dirty energy production, it’s about accelerating clean energy production. So again, BS exaggeration.

> What has she offered besides vague rhetoric on this? Is she going to end the fillibuster to restore abortion access? Is she going to reign in the extremest Supreme Court? Are they finding creative solutions with the FDA to regulate mifepristone? Will she proactively use the powers of the presidency to save lifes or is she going to talk about how important it is to codify Roe and then never do it?

What a loaded last question. “And never do it” like she’ll choose not to sign roe codification into law if given the chance.

Yes, I know that’s probably not what you meant, but your only legitimate questions are the filibuster question and the “reigning in question” (The FDA already approves mifepristone, expanding approval doesn’t mean jack if the SC knocks it down).

To both those statements, to your entire post as a whole, and to this little quote in particular:

> You’re missing the point. Its NOT ENOUGH to be marginally better than Trump. You need to present a coherent alternative worldview, which she is failing to do by running to the center and saying as little as possible.

I say: you’re the one missing the point, by ignoring the context of the thread you started. You opened with your opinion on why Trump’s fascism appeals to people, and you claim she has to give an “alternate worldview” to turn people away from that.

You can’t seriously think Harris could sway those people by talking about ending the filibuster, or reigning in the SCOTUS. Nor will she sway those people by talking more strongly about resolving the climate crisis, about protecting trans rights, about supporting abortion, about chilling out on illegal immigrants, etc. There is practically no one who wants her to take stronger left-leaning stances on all those things AND will vote for Trump instead. I only say “practically” because if the odds of that were say, 1:100mil, then hey, maybe a couple voters will do that. Everybody else? Not bought into Trump at all.

If you really do honestly feel Harris needs to go way farther left, then you’re just projecting what YOU want onto the people who are okay with Trump’s fascism.

It sounds like you’re coming at this from the perspective that Trump voters like Trump because his fascist talk makes them feel like he’ll wield Presidential power to “fight the evils of the people at the top of society”, but I disagree. I think for a lot of Trump voters it boils down to at least one of a few feelings:

a) abortion is murder, I’ll vote against the side that clearly supports abortion more

b) Immigrants and LGBTQ+ people are the devil

c) I want to afford the stuff I wish I had, and Trump will help me do that.

d) Every left-leaning person of power of any kind is a demon and should get what’s coming to them

IMO only the MAGA voters care about d). The average non-MAGA-but-still-Trump voter doesn’t care really care about “shadowy figures” “getting what’s coming to them”, they just want better lives for themselves as in c).

To sway those people, she doesn’t have to provide a “diametrically opposed worldview” to fascism - that makes it sound like what you think she needs is to run on creating a completely different way of living. It just means appealing to those in the camp of a), b) and/or c). Swaying believers of a) or b) without actually appealing to anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, or anti-LGBTQ+ reform is tricky, and tackling c) comes down to her positioning herself as the better candidate economically, but people in that camp have varied ideas on what’s best for the economy, so that’s tricky too.

But regardless, everyone who cares about the election and isn’t already in any of those camps isn’t gonna vote for Trump anyway, no matter how Harris campaigns.

She just got on national TV and refused to support trans rights.

Not sure exactly what you’re referring to, but if you’re referring to the Fox News interview, I think she addressed trans rights as well as she possibly could’ve to…a Fox News audience…without completely losing them.

Democrats ran to the right of fascists on militarizing the border.

I call BS.

She isn’t committed to climate change

That’s too strong a statement. She co-sponsored the Green New Deal, gave an entire speech about climate change at COP28 and again this past July, and has an entire “Lower Energy Costs and Tackle the Climate Crisis” section on her issues page. On top of that, actions speak louder than words, and the one meaningful action she can wield as VP - casting tie-breaking Senate votes - was used to enact the Inflation Reduction Act, which works in a meaningful way to combat climate change.

She’s not going to meaningfully redistribute wealth. Looking at how desperate Americans are right now do you really think that coming out with a plan to raise the top marginal tax rate from 30 to 35 percent or whatever is some massive rallying cry that’s going to make people re-evaluate their worldviews?

Idk what your metric for “meaningful wealth redistribution is” but the kind of “wealth redistribution” many middle Americans want is the kind where they can afford to start a new family, and/or afford their first home, and/or afford to start a new business. All of those have been addressed explicitly by Harris and her policy plan, and they go meaningfully beyond what we have now. Your other comment that she’d ‘raise the top marginal tax rate by 5% or whatever’ makes it sound like that’s literally the only action she’d take to make the lives of middle-class people better.

She’s not even that strong on abortion rights.

You’re not outright saying she’s weak on abortion, b/c I think you and I both know she isn’t - she is clearly far more outwardly pro-choice than Trump.

Meyotch is an interesting suffix to a person’s name.

“I am Professor Patrick”

“Professor?”

“Meyotch Professor Patrick!”

/s

Idk why you got nothing but downvotes when you’re a) 100% right about national polls and b) giving a nice, detailed overview of some relevant polling data and your take on it

Edit: “Nothing but downvotes” at the time I saw this. That’s clearly corrected itself lol

My bad, I didn’t read your comment correctly. I think it was a combination of lack of a /s, and me being half-asleep at the time lol

deleted by creator

Relevant link for those interested in what OP is talking about.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-microreactor-experiments-watch-starting-2026

I’m not yet convinced this technology is the future or anything, but it does look pretty promising. We’ll know better when DOME testing begins in 2026.

100% agree, when I see something I disagree with on its face I try to default to “I probably don’t get something they’re saying, given that it’s only a couple sentences of written word, and a different person’s brain who wrote them”.

It always makes for more useful conversation than defaulting to “ha what a dumbass”

I think downvoters are just expressing disagreement with your opinion. Personally I don’t hate git but I wouldn’t call myself a “fanboy” either - I just don’t think “distributed” has to be mutually exclusive from “decentralized”, which is a term not rigorously defined in this context anyway.

But thanks for informing me about patch theory, that’s something I’ll probably make a small hobby out of studying.

Isn’t decentralized itself since it’s not a platform

I think I see your definition of “decentralized” a little better now, if you only want to apply it to platforms.

I think your definition may be too strict, and that “decentralized” and “distributed don’t have to be mutually exclusive, but eh, that’s just my take.

What version control software in particular do you find better than git?

Your point about users often managing git projects via centralization is taken and valid. I was just pointing out that you don’t have to use git that way - different clones can separately develop their own features - so the earlier claim someone made that “git isn’t decentralized” is still wrong, imo.

Git itself isn’t decentralized is about people copying it and sometimes mirroring it.

Not sure what you mean. My understanding is that git itself is decentralized insofar as each clone can develop its own history without ever needing to push to the origin, but that what OP is referring to is actually the “distributed” nature of git, where i.e. it’s easy to copy the entire history of an instance.

On top of that, the House feels like it really ought to be fixed. The number of representatives has been fixed for almost 100 years, yet the country’s population has more than tripled.

I don’t think legislators of the time expected the population to get so big.

Isn’t it too early to say, given the Senate still has to pass it? It should be more of a lock than the House was, just not sure.