Mastodon Skip to content
  • Home
  • Aktuell
  • Tags
  • Über dieses Forum
Einklappen
Grafik mit zwei überlappenden Sprechblasen, eine grün und eine lila.
Abspeckgeflüster – Forum für Menschen mit Gewicht(ung)

Kostenlos. Werbefrei. Menschlich. Dein Abnehmforum.

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Historians will, I predict, regard the current situation as the American Civil War II.

Historians will, I predict, regard the current situation as the American Civil War II.

Geplant Angeheftet Gesperrt Verschoben Uncategorized
69 Beiträge 42 Kommentatoren 0 Aufrufe
  • Älteste zuerst
  • Neuste zuerst
  • Meiste Stimmen
Antworten
  • In einem neuen Thema antworten
Anmelden zum Antworten
Dieses Thema wurde gelöscht. Nur Nutzer mit entsprechenden Rechten können es sehen.
  • cmthiede@social.vivaldi.netC cmthiede@social.vivaldi.net

    @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio

    Ranked choice to end the 2-party, same equity extortion coin to choose from every election.

    Roll back Citizens United and limit contributions to an honest day's pay.

    regguy@mstdn.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
    regguy@mstdn.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
    regguy@mstdn.social
    schrieb zuletzt editiert von
    #56

    @cmthiede I keep running scenarios through my head that make ranked choice voting terribly unclear.

    Let's say we have five candidates. C1 and C2 get 33% first round votes. C3, C4, and C5 all get 11%. Now in Round 2, C4 got 40%, but C3-5 were eliminated, yet round 1 and 2 give C4 a majority. But some of those votes come from C1 and C2.

    I don't see how it works. I'm consistently confused by the logic.

    @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio

    cmthiede@social.vivaldi.netC colo_lee@mstdn.socialC cpr320@frontrange.coC jetsoft@hachyderm.ioJ 5 Antworten Letzte Antwort
    0
    • coffee2di4@glasgow.socialC coffee2di4@glasgow.social

      #TIL that @mastoreaderio exists and how to use it

      @msbellows

      msbellows@c.imM This user is from outside of this forum
      msbellows@c.imM This user is from outside of this forum
      msbellows@c.im
      schrieb zuletzt editiert von
      #57

      @coffee2Di4 @mastoreaderio I'm glad! Ain't it useful?

      1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
      0
      • regguy@mstdn.socialR regguy@mstdn.social

        @cmthiede I keep running scenarios through my head that make ranked choice voting terribly unclear.

        Let's say we have five candidates. C1 and C2 get 33% first round votes. C3, C4, and C5 all get 11%. Now in Round 2, C4 got 40%, but C3-5 were eliminated, yet round 1 and 2 give C4 a majority. But some of those votes come from C1 and C2.

        I don't see how it works. I'm consistently confused by the logic.

        @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio

        cmthiede@social.vivaldi.netC This user is from outside of this forum
        cmthiede@social.vivaldi.netC This user is from outside of this forum
        cmthiede@social.vivaldi.net
        schrieb zuletzt editiert von
        #58

        @RegGuy @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio I don't know that anyone has settled on the logic beyond the name sounding catchier than explaining a runoff election midsummer to crank things up a notch. If it gets rid of the Nader Effect, I don't care what it's called. I'd be happy if both sides had a serious discussion about it out loud so everyone can hear.

        1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
        0
        • regguy@mstdn.socialR regguy@mstdn.social

          @cmthiede I keep running scenarios through my head that make ranked choice voting terribly unclear.

          Let's say we have five candidates. C1 and C2 get 33% first round votes. C3, C4, and C5 all get 11%. Now in Round 2, C4 got 40%, but C3-5 were eliminated, yet round 1 and 2 give C4 a majority. But some of those votes come from C1 and C2.

          I don't see how it works. I'm consistently confused by the logic.

          @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio

          colo_lee@mstdn.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
          colo_lee@mstdn.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
          colo_lee@mstdn.social
          schrieb zuletzt editiert von
          #59

          @RegGuy I'm interested in RCV.
          But I don't think it's one weird trick to save democracy...

          @cmthiede @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio

          1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
          0
          • joblakely@mastodon.socialJ joblakely@mastodon.social

            @heidilifeldman

            Democracy was never meant to be done by election. Athenians knew it would captured by oligarchs. It was meant to be by sortition.
            I modified this idea & how it could be structured & why. What I envision is completely different to what we have now. It’s a different democratic model, using a version of sortition. What I envision is practical & develops interdependence, understanding, experience, skills, while solving real problems.
            https://mastodon.social/@JoBlakely/110531598480099232

            grovewest@mstdn.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
            grovewest@mstdn.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
            grovewest@mstdn.social
            schrieb zuletzt editiert von
            #60

            @JoBlakely @heidilifeldman I just received a notice for jury duty. We accept the judgement of somewhat randomly chosen candidates for a jury so I can see sortition as a more democratic method than elections.

            1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
            0
            • regguy@mstdn.socialR regguy@mstdn.social

              @cmthiede I keep running scenarios through my head that make ranked choice voting terribly unclear.

              Let's say we have five candidates. C1 and C2 get 33% first round votes. C3, C4, and C5 all get 11%. Now in Round 2, C4 got 40%, but C3-5 were eliminated, yet round 1 and 2 give C4 a majority. But some of those votes come from C1 and C2.

              I don't see how it works. I'm consistently confused by the logic.

              @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio

              cpr320@frontrange.coC This user is from outside of this forum
              cpr320@frontrange.coC This user is from outside of this forum
              cpr320@frontrange.co
              schrieb zuletzt editiert von
              #61

              @RegGuy @cmthiede @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio Just think of it one vote at a time. Your vote says "I prefer C1, but if she gets eliminated I'll vote for C2 instead."

              Your vote says exactly what you would do if there were a series of run-off elections.

              1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
              0
              • regguy@mstdn.socialR regguy@mstdn.social

                @cmthiede I keep running scenarios through my head that make ranked choice voting terribly unclear.

                Let's say we have five candidates. C1 and C2 get 33% first round votes. C3, C4, and C5 all get 11%. Now in Round 2, C4 got 40%, but C3-5 were eliminated, yet round 1 and 2 give C4 a majority. But some of those votes come from C1 and C2.

                I don't see how it works. I'm consistently confused by the logic.

                @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio

                cpr320@frontrange.coC This user is from outside of this forum
                cpr320@frontrange.coC This user is from outside of this forum
                cpr320@frontrange.co
                schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                #62

                @RegGuy @cmthiede @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio I don't understand this: "...yet round 1 and 2 give C4 a majority." It sounds like you want to put the two rounds together, but they are separate.

                1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                0
                • regguy@mstdn.socialR regguy@mstdn.social

                  @cmthiede I keep running scenarios through my head that make ranked choice voting terribly unclear.

                  Let's say we have five candidates. C1 and C2 get 33% first round votes. C3, C4, and C5 all get 11%. Now in Round 2, C4 got 40%, but C3-5 were eliminated, yet round 1 and 2 give C4 a majority. But some of those votes come from C1 and C2.

                  I don't see how it works. I'm consistently confused by the logic.

                  @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio

                  jetsoft@hachyderm.ioJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  jetsoft@hachyderm.ioJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  jetsoft@hachyderm.io
                  schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                  #63

                  @RegGuy @cmthiede @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio only one candidate gets eliminated at a time. So in your example assuming c3 c4 c5 weren't exactly the same let's say 11.3% 11.4% 11.5% so c3 gets eliminated. His 11.3% is allocated however the voters wanted. Some to each of c1, c2, c4 and c5. Then repeat for new lowest ranked.

                  Not sure what would happen in a draw where two lowest candidates have exactly same number. I'm sure it's covered in the Australian system. Possibly a coin toss. But very unlikely to have exactly the same number of votes.

                  jetsoft@hachyderm.ioJ 1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                  0
                  • heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH heidilifeldman@mastodon.social

                    Historians will, I predict, regard the current situation as the American Civil War II. Certainly we are in a civil war, instigated by the federal government, when it began sending unnecessary and militarized forces into American cities. (See pinned post.) 1/

                    npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                    npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                    npars01@mstdn.social
                    schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                    #64

                    @heidilifeldman

                    These are the people who bought an election for MAGA...

                    They are responsible for what Trump's done to America.

                    We need to know the identity of every donor.

                    1. SpaceX $288,723,409
                    2. Adelson Clinic/Miriam Adelson $146,881,700
                    3. Uline Inc $146,027,201
                    4. Citadel LLC $108,669,316
                    5. Susquehanna International Group $101,468,362
                    6. Andreessen Horowitz $89,036,553
                    7. Empower Parents PAC $82,500,000
                    8. Coinbase $79,008,020
                    9. Elliott Management $68,846,510

                    npars01@mstdn.socialN 1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                    0
                    • jetsoft@hachyderm.ioJ jetsoft@hachyderm.io

                      @RegGuy @cmthiede @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio only one candidate gets eliminated at a time. So in your example assuming c3 c4 c5 weren't exactly the same let's say 11.3% 11.4% 11.5% so c3 gets eliminated. His 11.3% is allocated however the voters wanted. Some to each of c1, c2, c4 and c5. Then repeat for new lowest ranked.

                      Not sure what would happen in a draw where two lowest candidates have exactly same number. I'm sure it's covered in the Australian system. Possibly a coin toss. But very unlikely to have exactly the same number of votes.

                      jetsoft@hachyderm.ioJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      jetsoft@hachyderm.ioJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      jetsoft@hachyderm.io
                      schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                      #65

                      @RegGuy @cmthiede @msbellows @heidilifeldman @mastoreaderio https://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/complex-count.htm
                      Still looking for the tie break but a good explanation if the Australian system.

                      1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                      0
                      • dcdeejay@mastodon.onlineD dcdeejay@mastodon.online

                        @heidilifeldman I wonder if there is a more precise term than civil war, where one or more groups of citizens are at war with each other.

                        This situation, when the government is waging war with one group of citizens (supposedly) on behalf of another, may not have a commonly used term to accurately describe it.

                        I think it's an important distinction, because Americans are not fighting Americans, even if some in government would love to change that. We shouldn't help them normalize the idea.

                        cmthiede@social.vivaldi.netC This user is from outside of this forum
                        cmthiede@social.vivaldi.netC This user is from outside of this forum
                        cmthiede@social.vivaldi.net
                        schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                        #66

                        @dcdeejay @heidilifeldman I think it's called revolution. But, the party pushing the Civil War angle is the same one that already used Revolution for pitching AI, to sell the new Industrial Revolution. They've been solving problems that nobody asked to be solved, for so long, using everyone's money but their own, they never thought anyone would stop to notice. The whole world was gifted a moment of reflection thanks to COVID. Who ever thought people would want to stick their face right back in the oven?

                        ¯\_(ツ_)/¯

                        https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/american-voices/

                        1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                        0
                        • npars01@mstdn.socialN npars01@mstdn.social

                          @heidilifeldman

                          These are the people who bought an election for MAGA...

                          They are responsible for what Trump's done to America.

                          We need to know the identity of every donor.

                          1. SpaceX $288,723,409
                          2. Adelson Clinic/Miriam Adelson $146,881,700
                          3. Uline Inc $146,027,201
                          4. Citadel LLC $108,669,316
                          5. Susquehanna International Group $101,468,362
                          6. Andreessen Horowitz $89,036,553
                          7. Empower Parents PAC $82,500,000
                          8. Coinbase $79,008,020
                          9. Elliott Management $68,846,510

                          npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                          npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                          npars01@mstdn.social
                          schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                          #67

                          2/

                          No more faceless, nameless billionaires buying the destruction of democracy & the planet.

                          10. Securing American Greatness $67,558,284
                          11. Senate Leadership Fund $67,445,300
                          12. Club for Growth $59,846,594
                          13. Koch Inc $49,092,685
                          14. Blackstone Group $48,609,890
                          15.  Stand Together Chamber of Commerce $44,801,948
                          16. Restoration PAC $41,168,363
                          17. Crownquest Operating $35,752,512
                          18. Bigelow Aerospace $34,991,590
                          19. Building America's Future $33,670,000
                          20. Stephens Inc $27,343,518

                          npars01@mstdn.socialN 1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                          0
                          • npars01@mstdn.socialN npars01@mstdn.social

                            2/

                            No more faceless, nameless billionaires buying the destruction of democracy & the planet.

                            10. Securing American Greatness $67,558,284
                            11. Senate Leadership Fund $67,445,300
                            12. Club for Growth $59,846,594
                            13. Koch Inc $49,092,685
                            14. Blackstone Group $48,609,890
                            15.  Stand Together Chamber of Commerce $44,801,948
                            16. Restoration PAC $41,168,363
                            17. Crownquest Operating $35,752,512
                            18. Bigelow Aerospace $34,991,590
                            19. Building America's Future $33,670,000
                            20. Stephens Inc $27,343,518

                            npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                            npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                            npars01@mstdn.social
                            schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                            #68

                            3/

                            Funders of fascism.

                            21. British American Tobacco $26,175,838
                            22. American Prosperity Alliance $22,549,000
                            23. Manzanita Management Group $22,159,143
                            24. America First Action/America First Policies $21,724,798
                            25. Mountaire Corp $21,375,080
                            26. Reyes Holdings $21,192,607
                            27. Energy Transfer LP $19,321,695
                            28. Hendricks Holding Co $19,306,538

                            https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top-organizations

                            1. Elon Musk $291,482,587
                            2. Timothy Mellon $197,047,200
                            3. Miriam Adelson $148,304,900
                            4. Richard Uihlein $143,498,936

                            npars01@mstdn.socialN 1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                            0
                            • npars01@mstdn.socialN npars01@mstdn.social

                              3/

                              Funders of fascism.

                              21. British American Tobacco $26,175,838
                              22. American Prosperity Alliance $22,549,000
                              23. Manzanita Management Group $22,159,143
                              24. America First Action/America First Policies $21,724,798
                              25. Mountaire Corp $21,375,080
                              26. Reyes Holdings $21,192,607
                              27. Energy Transfer LP $19,321,695
                              28. Hendricks Holding Co $19,306,538

                              https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top-organizations

                              1. Elon Musk $291,482,587
                              2. Timothy Mellon $197,047,200
                              3. Miriam Adelson $148,304,900
                              4. Richard Uihlein $143,498,936

                              npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                              npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                              npars01@mstdn.social
                              schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                              #69

                              4/

                              The people who bought themselves a civil war & a WW3 to avoid taxation

                              5. Ken Griffin $108,402,284
                              6. Jeff Yass $101,128,680
                              7. Paul E. Singer $66,800,800
                              8. Marc Andreessen $42,365,113
                              9. Stephen Schwarzman $40,202,039
                              10. Timothy Dunn $35,780,200
                              11. Rob Bigelow $34,991,500
                              12. Diane Hendricks $33,165,417
                              13. JJ Ricketts $32,273,650
                              14. Shirley W. Ryan $32,198,116
                              15. Warren A. Stephens $25,895,650
                              16. Laura Perlmutter $25,344,890
                              17. Vince & Linda McMahon $23,961,659

                              1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                              0
                              • energisch_@troet.cafeE energisch_@troet.cafe shared this topic
                              Antworten
                              • In einem neuen Thema antworten
                              Anmelden zum Antworten
                              • Älteste zuerst
                              • Neuste zuerst
                              • Meiste Stimmen



                              Copyright (c) 2025 abSpecktrum (@abspecklog@fedimonster.de)

                              Erstellt mit Schlaflosigkeit, Kaffee, Brokkoli & ♥

                              Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung | Nutzungsbedingungen

                              • Anmelden

                              • Du hast noch kein Konto? Registrieren

                              • Anmelden oder registrieren, um zu suchen
                              • Erster Beitrag
                                Letzter Beitrag
                              0
                              • Home
                              • Aktuell
                              • Tags
                              • Über dieses Forum