I have a fairly new, expensive (not $5000 expensive though) laptop from work. It’s quite a high powered laptop. It’s full of administration crap that constantly runs in the background using 8 GB of RAM and at least 20% of the CPU, nonstop. Daily I run out of RAM and it freezes. I have a 15 year old laptop that, without exaggeration, is faster to use and can run more programs without running out of RAM.
It also ignores that many of the the non-core policies of both major parties move toward the policies of the winning party. If Trump wins, support for Gaza in both parties will decrease. Not that there’s never a reason to vote third party, but nothing about third party voting is advantageous for this particular issue.
A black and white view of the world gets you nowhere. There is a huge difference in the way that this administration has handled this war and the way that Trump says he plans to handle it. To say that there is no difference in the degree of support these people would provide to Israel or Gazans is incredibly naive. Your choices are grass flavored ice cream, or shit flavored ice cream. Vanilla isn’t on the menu, and you have to pick one. “I don’t like either”, as if the two choices are the same, is living in a fantasy world.
People who deliberately misquote people are not worth talking with. There is a choice and if you think pretending like there isn’t one gets you somewhere, prepare for a very different approach to this war when Trump takes office.
I don’t at all understand what the point is here. Do you think that Trumo will support Gazans? Trump has said he would wholeheartedly take Israel’s side and provide more support than the current administration. There isn’t a choice between what you have and what you want. It’s between what you have and something worse than what you have.
Trump winning doesn’t force Democrats to support Gazans. It forces them to side with Israel in order to appeal to the electorate.
I can’t figure out what you mean. The subtitle in the lemmy post goes to the same place. Within the article I dont see a link elsewhere.
Humorous, but also stupid.
I don’t know what I’m missing here, but I don’t see numbers for the race at the link provided. I just see national polling numbers.
People know what it is. That’s why they’re down voting it. These don’t build communities.
We all have access to RSS and can create our own sets of feeds. Posts are for the things that are worth talking about. Spamming a community makes it harder to find the interesting things.
The fact that the number of delegates is not exactly proportional to the population of a state has never resulted in a popular vote mismatch eoth the college. It may happen, but it’s incredibly unlikely. Every time there’s been a mismatch has been because states allocate delegates in a winner take all manner. One of these this is a real problem amd one is a hypothetical problem. Solving the real problem is straightforward, and involes state level action of only a few states. The hypothetical problem is difficult to solve smd requires coordinated effort of many states at ones. You can spend your time solving a hypothetical problem and maybe achieve success in 70 years. Or you you address the real problem and succeed in 20 years.
What you’re describing has never resulted in the popular vote winner losing the electoral college. The popular vote winner has always lost because states allocate delegates as a winner-take-all system.
The real solution is to allocate delegates proportionally to how citizens vote, as is done in Nebraska and a couple other states. This achieves exactly the same purpose as the NPVC but is actually politically tractable.
No state has any incentive to assign its delgates to a person the citizens of the state didn’t vote for. You can do what the NPVC does and make it contingent upon everyone playing along, but that requires everyone to play along and is incredibly tenuous. Even if it ever goes into effect, as soon as states allocate delegates to someone who wasn’t the most popular candidate in their state they’ll pull it, and the whole thing will fall apart.
Every state has incentive to allocate its delegates proportionally. That’s exactly what people want. They want that more than winner takes all. It doesn’t require a huge chuck of states to buy into it amd it isn’t tenuous. But it accomplishes the same goal; if states allocate delegates proportionally to how they vote, then the most popular candidate gets the most delegates. If you’re in one of the many states that has winner takes all, advocate to do what the few more democratic states have already adopted and are happy with.
Every state should allocate its delegates proportionally to how its citizens voted. It’s the most democratic approach. If just a few (5 to 8 key states) states did this, it would be very unlikely for mismatches between the electoral college and popular vote.
I haven’t used this in a bit so I thought I’d check it. They somewhat recently updated the desktop program and nothing works at all now. It appears to be just Edge pretending to be another program. It’s literally just a browser, so surround sound doesn’t work now.
It’s a weird thing for them to do. Why would anyone download a copy of edge that can only watch Netflix? You’d just use a browser.
I attach a computer to a TV and open streaming Web sites in a browser. There aren’t much benefits of the streaming devices compared to that unless you’re using surround sound. The Netflix desktop program has surround sound, but that’s the only service I know of.
What did the teacher say about apostrophes to indicate possession?
What happens in California and Texas isn’t the problem so obviously one wouldn’t start there. They’d start with swing states.
As above, those things don’t matter. You say “simply get rid of the electoral college” as if that is the easier solution, but having a handful of states change laws fully under their control is far, far simpler than having numerous states agree to a change to the constitution, but the two things have the same effect. Do you want to stop having an unpopular president elected in the next 20 years, or the next 80 years?
It is a common misconception that disproportionate power of states is what has resulted in the winner of the popular vote losing the electoral college. That isn’t what has caused it in the past, despite the possibility. What has caused it is the fact that nearly all states allocate 100% of their electors to the simple majority winner. If three candidates get 49%, 48% and 3% of the vote, the top candidate gets 100% of the delegates. That swings the electoral count out of alignment, and if that happens in enough big states, then the popular vote winner can get fewer delegates.
That historically has been what happened. If you were to imagine elections where all the states had equal power but still allocated their delegates that way, as far as I know, not a single election result would change.
If however you were to imagine states allocating delegates in proportion to the votes they received, that would have changed election results. There are different ways to do that, but the details are not that important. It’s the solution. Is unequal power among states fair? Not really. But it hasn’t had any impact in the past, so let’s focus on something we know has unfairly altered multiple outcomes.
States should be doing this. Currently only two do: Maine and Nebraska I think. It wouldn’t take a lot of states for this to fundamentally change elections. Five key states are all that’s necessary. There’s no reason to allocate all delgates to the simple majority, and no one likes it. It’s unfair to the minority in locked down states, and it’s stressful in battleground states. It results in candidate pandering to battleground states and ignoring everyone else. This is something people should be aware of and talk about more.
The problem isn’t that states have disproportionate power, and moreover the NPVC is a poor solution. The problem is that all but two states allocate their delegates in a winner-take-all manner, so that a candidate with only 51% of the vote gets all of the delegates.
The NPVC requires huge buy in to work because in nearly half of cases it doesn’t result it a person’s voting power represening their actual vote. Thus, no individual citizen has incentive to support it. If it ever gets enough support to take effect, as soon as a state ends up with its delegates going to a candidate the citizens of that state didn’t vote for, they’ll repeal it and it will end nationally due to the wording of the law.
The solution is for states to allocate delegates proportionally to the votes of its citizens. That’s what voting is all about. If that system were in place, then there would have been no elections with a mismatch between the college and popular vote. Every citizen has individual incentive for that system, more so than the current system or NPVC, and therefore you don’t need the group buy-in wording that the NPVC has. It can be achieved on a state-by-state basis, and it would only need a few states to operate this way to have an impact.
Someone is going to point out that there are details and some states want to be fought over for their small percentage to swing the state, but the fact is that this solves the problem, and overwhelmingly this has fewer barriers and weakenesses than NPVC. If you care about this, contact your state government to change how delgates are allocated.