• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

'19 Special & '20 Congressional Election Thread

You must support participation trophies.

What's "worst" is winning without getting the most first place votes.

Radio lab did an excellent story on ranked choice voting in Irish parliamentary elections, maybe a year and a half ago, you should listen to it.
 
One defining moment of the campaign was a false video, produced through an anonymous New Mexico shell company, slamming Whipple with inaccurate allegations of sexual harassment.

The video — released on YouTube and Facebook — featured young actresses posing as Capitol interns and reading from a script of accusations cribbed from a 2017 story in the Kansas City Star and The Wichita Eagle about sex harassment complaints at the Statehouse.

However, the allegations in the news story were actually about Republican members of the state Senate, not Whipple, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives.

Eagle reporting into the New Mexico company found it shared a mailing address and registered agent with a company owned by state Rep. Michael Capps, R-Wichita, who is a business partner of City Council member James Clendenin.

One of the actresses told The Eagle that she was paid $50 to appear in the video by Matthew Colborn, a young entrepreneur who had been mentored by Capps through Wichita State University and shares a downtown office with Capps and Clendenin.

Link
 
 

Yeah I’m going to need to see the math on that one.
 
that's definitely the spin this morning in KY: Trump almost got this loser -- who was down, 5, no 10, 17 ! percent -- to almost beat the son of state political royalty.
 
that's definitely the spin this morning in KY: Trump almost got this loser -- who was down, 5, no 10, 17 ! percent -- to almost beat the son of state political royalty.

Per Morning Joe, he was up 5 before the rally.
 
"Gordon Weil, a former Maine state agency head and municipal selectman, argued in a 2015 piece for CentralMaine.com that RCV runs counter to the democratic process:
"Ranked-choice proponents dislike [other types of] primaries, because fringe candidates can win, producing an unhappy choice in the general election. That sounds like the position of philosopher-kings who really don’t trust democracy and certainly want to see the end of political parties. If there’s something wrong with [other types of] primaries, find a way to get more people to vote. But don’t manipulate their voting. ... If we want decisions guaranteed to be made by a majority, then a runoff is a better idea, because it allows voters to make a clear choice rather than the muddled, computer-run outcome of ranked-choice voting."

"In a 2016 article for Democracy, Simon Waxman contended that RCV is not necessarily more likely to produce more moderate candidates or more diverse legislative bodies, as some proponents of RCV contend:

"There is also little reason to believe that RCV will promote legislative moderation—or new campaign tactics—at the federal level, because it usually produces outcomes similar to what one would expect from a standard plurality system. In the 2013 Australian federal election, 90 percent of constituencies elected the candidate with the most first-preference votes, which suggests that choice ranking had little effect on the outcome."

In CA we have non-partisan primaries. I oppose those as well. Here in HB, the GOP nearly stole a primary by getting a person to run they thought would help Dana by splintering the Dem vote. This could happen anywhere.
 

Hewitt was a Never Trumper way back in the 2016 GOP primaries. Now he's just another zombie in the Trump cult. That's just blatant spin. I'm sure he's just waiting for his next appearance on the Meet the Press roundtable so he can give that spin and look smug. And Todd and the roundtable liberal that day will probably never challenge him on it.
 
"Gordon Weil, a former Maine state agency head and municipal selectman, argued in a 2015 piece for CentralMaine.com that RCV runs counter to the democratic process:
"Ranked-choice proponents dislike [other types of] primaries, because fringe candidates can win, producing an unhappy choice in the general election. That sounds like the position of philosopher-kings who really don’t trust democracy and certainly want to see the end of political parties. If there’s something wrong with [other types of] primaries, find a way to get more people to vote. But don’t manipulate their voting. ... If we want decisions guaranteed to be made by a majority, then a runoff is a better idea, because it allows voters to make a clear choice rather than the muddled, computer-run outcome of ranked-choice voting."

"In a 2016 article for Democracy, Simon Waxman contended that RCV is not necessarily more likely to produce more moderate candidates or more diverse legislative bodies, as some proponents of RCV contend:

"There is also little reason to believe that RCV will promote legislative moderation—or new campaign tactics—at the federal level, because it usually produces outcomes similar to what one would expect from a standard plurality system. In the 2013 Australian federal election, 90 percent of constituencies elected the candidate with the most first-preference votes, which suggests that choice ranking had little effect on the outcome."

In CA we have non-partisan primaries. I oppose those as well. Here in HB, the GOP nearly stole a primary by getting a person to run they thought would help Dana by splintering the Dem vote. This could happen anywhere.

So the argument is that it won’t create moderate legislatures and councils. Has nothing to do with your totally inane participation trophy analogy.

Your split-candidate example can happen just as easily in partisan primaries. In fact, it happens in the elections I vote in here in Chicago and Illinois regularly.

Heritage Foundation opposes RCV. Consider your bedfellows, rj.

I’m not sure you fully understand the concept. Your arguments against it are totally unrelated, save one four year old op-es copy and pasted.
 
idk, when you have the opportunity to listen to gordon weil for centralmaine.com AND rjkarl, you should probably do it.
 
Using your logic re:bedfellows, you must be a Republican as, "85% of voters, including 76% of Republicans, are more likely to support candidates for public office who support renewable energy options such as wind, solar, and waste to energy technologies." https://www.solarpowerworldonline.c...ina-conservatives-clean-energy-solar-support/

Continuing that path, you must support Trump as 80+% of Republicans support Trump.

Do you have a MAGA hat and a Trump 2020 T-shirt or just the MAGA hat?
 
Using your logic re:bedfellows, you must be a Republican as, "85% of voters, including 76% of Republicans, are more likely to support candidates for public office who support renewable energy options such as wind, solar, and waste to energy technologies." https://www.solarpowerworldonline.c...ina-conservatives-clean-energy-solar-support/

Continuing that path, you must support Trump as 80+% of Republicans support Trump.

Do you have a MAGA hat and a Trump 2020 T-shirt or just the MAGA hat?

so you just don't really understand how ranked choice, works, then
 
so you just don't really understand how ranked choice, works, then

My post that you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with your post. At least if you are going to take a shot, take it at the right basket.
 
Back
Top