If by ‘we’ you mean the billionaires and political leaders in a position to do something, then absolutely.

They’re kids, not English professors

You can try that, but they should be separate conversations. Have one conversation about how voting generally is good. Then have another conversation about candidates. Trying to roll it all in one will still discourage those types of voters for the partisan appearance.

Discouraging 3rd party voting hurts democrats more than anyone. Studies show that 3rd party presidential candidates largely bring out people that would not have voted otherwise and largely benefit the democratic party down-ballot.

Don’t tell your apolitical friend about how they shouldn’t vote for Cornel. Don’t tell your friend about how voting for a 3rd party is pointless. Don’t tell your friend to vote for your person. Tell them to vote.

Edit: here’s my receipt.

Independent voters supported Democratic candidates over Republican candidates, 49% to 47%, according to the exit poll by Edison Research for CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS. According to the AP VoteCast survey for The Wall Street Journal and Fox News, independents supported Democrats over Republicans, 42% to 38% … While independents nationally voted for Democratic candidates by just 2 points, they supported Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly over Republican challenger Blake Masters by 16 points, Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock over Republican Herschel Walker by 11 points (in the Nov. 8 election), and, for senator from Pennsylvania, John Fetterman over Republican Mehmet Oz by a whopping 20 points. ( My note on Fetterman, this was before the stroke)

Khan is a good one, I’m personally invested in hoping that Jennifer Abruzzo stays in the NLRB

I’d take the deal for a single can

The guy with a truck had a concept of a plan

how does approval voting allow for spoilers? The experts that study election systems consider it eliminated under approval voting. It’s literally impossible to be a spoiler, because there’s nothing to spoil. There could be 4 real candidates and 16 no-name candidates, and nothing would prevent people from voting for 18 candidates. All of the eliminations you’re concerned about happen all at once, because it’s about having the most total votes. Votes for “spoilers” does literally nothing to affect the chances of other candidates.

As for “genuine voting”, how does one determine whether a vote was strategic vs genuine? Why does everyone have to conform to a ranked system that is highly susceptible to runoff upsets? I don’t care if people vote strategically, because if the options are check boxes or not, strategy is very limited. STAR is based on instant runoffs with a bit of range voting mixed in. Both are highly susceptible to strategy, as well as several undesirable traits that don’t exist with approval. Please explain to me how it prevents strategic voting.

Approval voting is where you mark any number of candidates that you want, and the person with the most marks is the elected person.

The most important issues with a fair voting system are eliminated by this method. Strategic voting will always happen under our performative democracy, which means that all parties are pathways for getting close to the actual goal. It’s only a problem if people are overly worried about genuinely “voting your truth”.

Approval voting is the only method that meets all the requirements for a fair election without elevating an unpopular candidate.

For all intents and purposes, white phosphorus is a chemical weapon that causes chemical burns which means it’s use is highly susceptible to facilitating war crimes, even unintentionally. It’s use should be banned from war.

Whatever it is, it isn’t worth it

Honestly, it was a little bit frightening

The best thing about having a bad local is that it’s ready to organize for worker power again. It’s far easier to turn around a bad union than to organize a new one.

I’m not talking about what could be. I’m talking about the political reality that surrounds us.

Maybe not the government or citizens, but war helps the congress members, the CEOs of the military industrial complex, and their families get fabulously wealthy.

I thought the new big thing in astronomy is watching the anniversary of a black hole eating a star 3 billion years ago

Teamwork makes the dream work

I keep telling people that union leaders are way more clever than they realize, but people keep assuming that O’Brien is working on the surface level.

The West Bank would turn into a “cash economy” that could benefit terrorist organizations that largely use cash to operate, the G7 official said.

This is exactly what they want. It’s part why Hamas exists, because Israel intentionally created it and molded it into an extreme militant group. Who knows how long they will wait, but Israel is going to invade the West Bank with this excuse.