Reply With Quote
You mean exactly like 2000 and 2016?
Tell us again about how all those dip Dems cried foul.
Tell us again about that obese pos in Atlanta crying foul for how many yrs now too?
If it's routine why is it notable?
Republicans crying fraud when they lose elections has become routine and gets solid coverage in the mainstream media. It's a mainstream Republican position.
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checkin...lection-trump/
Things that make you go "hmmm"
You mean exactly like 2000 and 2016?
Tell us again about how all those dip Dems cried foul.
Tell us again about that obese pos in Atlanta crying foul for how many yrs now too?
How is that a flaw unique to ranked choice? People already do that in normal primaries.
Ranked choice forces the candidates to seek voters beyond their base. Harder for extreme candidates and hard ideologues to win.
Lol these voting excuses.
Theoretically it should work this way and I certainly hope it would. I pointed out the possible problem with primary crossover. Any literate person that follows the issue understands both sides of the issue. Then there is stupid cuck Blake yapping at ankles.
A repug loses an election, immediately repugs claim fraud
When in fact, not enough Repug voters put Palin as their second choice
Not the fault of ranked choice, it's Palin's fault
But people already do this.
I would argue it's worse without ranked choice, because everyone knows their side only has one other realistic opponent.
The red state legislature selected ranking candidates and now that their can’t win are crying foul!
I know in Texas primaries you have to declare Republican or Democrat so its not as easy to cross over as it would be with ranked choice.
It's only really effective in primaries where there is usually low turnout.
Lets say you have a Republican in bent with no primary challenger and 5 Democrats competing for the Democrat nomination. Four are equally good and one is a real loonytoon. With ranked choice and the other 4 splitting the vote its pretty easy for a few Republicans to cross over and get the looneytune to move on to the general election.
This is not something I just invented. If you research ranked choice voting this is an issue that is always brought up.
I agree that in theory (without crossover) ranked choice should produce more centrist results.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 09-02-2022 at 11:01 AM.
Palin will win if and only if that stubborn ass Nick Begich drops out. If it's all three of them again, it's basically Teddy Roosevelt vs. Taft. vs Woodrow Wilson and the Democrat wins.
Could happen as well in the Senate if the Democrat runs a strong campaign and both Tshibaka and Murkowski similarly tear each other down.
no, it's the re ed ass ranked choice voting and jungle election with 2 (R)s on the ballot vs 1 (D) and the vote getting split.
Great, give us a couple of links to places you've researched this.
Yep, no echo chamber here
Texas has open primaries, so you don't have to register as anything, but you can only vote in one party's primary. So if you vote for the other team's looney toon, you give up your opportunity to vote in your primary. I've voted in numerous primaries and I've never registered as anything,
https://www.openprimaries.org/rules-in-your-state/
I guess I'm still not seeing how that potential issue is worse in a ranked choice general election vs. non ranked choice. I think even if I agreed it was is an issue, that issue is more than offset by the benefit of favoring moderate candidates in the end.It's only really effective in primaries where there is usually low turnout.
Lets say you have a Republican in bent with no primary challenger and 5 Democrats competing for the Democrat nomination. Four are equally good and one is a real loonytoon. With ranked choice and the other 4 splitting the vote its pretty easy for a few Republicans to cross over and get the looneytune to move on to the general election.
This is not something I just invented. If you research ranked choice voting this is an issue that is always brought up.
I'm beginning to think you just don't know what an echo chamber is.
Nor "connections" and "correlations," just ask Blake.
Typical butthurt Blake, the forum cuck.
an environment in which the same opinions are repeatedly voiced and promoted, so that people are not exposed to opposing views
You even invented a character to echo your viewpoints.
It's so in' obvious that even an individual in a discussion refers to themselves in plural form.
You don't know the difference between correlation and connection.
If data moves together it must be connected!
I see you are still butthurt after Blake schooled you!You don't know the difference between correlation and connection.
If data moves together it must be connected!
Low IQ poster fishing for cheap lulzI see you are still butthurt after Blake schooled you!
Much of this discussion seems to be based on the mistaken premise that correlation has a meaning similar to connection. In the context of statistics, it does not. To quote from our own dictionary, the relevant definition is "the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together." A correlation can be present when there is absolutely no connection, causal or otherwise.
Take your "L" and move on, idiot!
Correlation can be a connection, but it doesn't imply connection. Do you know what "or" means? It's a Boolean function, meaning not both. Either way the relationship is the connection statistically, but not in causality. I'll let you look that up, grunt.Take your "L" and move on, idiot!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
