|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Fairly certain it could count as a donation to a charity.
|
On July 06 2017 07:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:18 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 03:26 Buckyman wrote:On July 06 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:
I don't see the issue with classical liberalism at all. A functioning free market economy that provides a strong foundation for people from all backgrounds to compete on an even basis through the provision of healthcare, education, housing and so forth for all without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual preference etc. Seems pretty much ideal to me.
The problem is that in America you can't join the political right without pledging allegiance to the anti-science anti-gay agenda and even the free market economics is little more than crony capitalism. Meanwhile the centre left comes under fire for not being extreme enough, as if that's some kind of failing. This is the same political left that subsidizes wind and solar power so heavily that other forms of renewable energy can't compete? Or that threatened a boycott of an entire corporation because one executive says something off the clock? Or, in the case of California, boycotts specific states whose social legislative agendas it disagrees with? Or that in many states across many professions makes union membership effectively mandatory? And that's before taking into account the "liberal religion" argument, which argues that American liberals have founded an atheist religion with all the accoutrements thereof and are trying to establish themselves as the official government religion by selectively using the establishment clause against other religions. It seems like the Democratic party uses Enlightenment ideals only by coincidence. What sorts of ideals permit the nomination and election of Donald Trump, a man whose word is not credible? Keeping Hillary Clinton out could qualify as an ideal in my book. FWIW in 2020 I would vote Trump if it's Trump vs Clinton again. Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned. The reality is that between Bernie and Clinton (who were the only options due to a week crop of candidates) Clinton better fit my ideology. Hopefully a better candidate comes along but I still think Clinton would have adequately represented my interests and generally been a good president. We get that you don't like her, you've said that plenty of times. But Clinton was the best option from a very limited pool and while I hope I get a better pool in future, if I don't get more options I'd still back her. You act like there are no centrists to whom she appealed and that the Democrats failed by not committing to a hard left populist alternative to Trump's populism. Maybe they failed you, they didn't fail me. I could see why people would choose Clinton over Sanders. They might have been wrong but seeing how the campaign went that is acceptable. What isn't is the whole "I don't like Hillary but I will shill for her till my last breath" phenomenon. No, she was a goddamn vile choice for president and she made it worse by showing she had no intention of changing or reaching outside her core base. If she refuses to step aside now she is merely enabling the Republicans and Trump to do their shit by promising to be marginally less bad. And I don't subscribe to your "Trump is fascism and worse than Hillary murdering people in the streets" as per your hyperbole from like eight months back. Four more years of buffoon would be infinitely preferable to another decade of the Clintonites hijacking the left and hampering progress. Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 06:09 zlefin wrote:
legal, your claims of hillary's vileness as potential president are unfounded as usual; as is your broad claim of people shilling when in many cases they're doing far less than that yet you still call it shilling. no new ground to tread though; just old arguments you keep making over and over. Frankly, the endless repeat of calling Trump absolute trash and wondering why he's president and does what he does actively merits a return to the other choice in the election. He was the better general election candidate and I'd vote for him in 2020 if Dems return Hillary to their ticket for another try. If we had widespread acceptance of why he was elected, and particularly how some present actions are exactly what he was sent to office to do (say, media machine antagonism however ill-organized, America first rhetoric on foreign policy, fights against an unaccountable bureaucratic/administrative state with its own insulary interests), it wouldn't even need mentioning. That's the essential element missed by #Resist and Trump-as-fascist dialogue
If you subscribe to the Flight 93 article, that's basically an admission that you would vote for the Republican nominee no matter who in the world it is. Including snake oil salesmen who were reality TV stars. The notion that this feeble minded man could be preferable to Hillary is actually pretty reckless.
|
|
|
Nothing new, is it? The US has been looting Iraq for years.
|
I know people don't like to accept it but Hillary has said and done some pretty terrible things.
Hillary would have us at war with Syria
Hillary wanted to send children that risked life and limb to escape, back to a practical warzone to send a message to their parents.
She supported the mass incarceration/exploitative labor (modern slavery) of young black men under the theory that they were "super predators" and we'd get around to the circumstances that made them that way (Spoiler: 20+ years later she still has practically nothing on that part)
She lied practically the whole length of the primary.
The list goes on...
I know no one is supposed to care because presumably any Republican would have been exponentially worse, but I'm tired of people pretending there is no reason to think Hillary is a revolting candidate. That it's all irrational hate, it's not, it's the appropriate way to feel about someone who is like Hillary Clinton. Juxtaposing her next to the worst possible alternative (THIS WAS HER IDEA! REMEMBER, SHE AND HER CAMPAIGN INTENTIONALLY MADE TRUMP MORE LIKELY TO WIN) doesn't make me like her more, it just reminds me that it gets worse than her.
|
bernie also lied the whole lenght of the primary; in fact, I daresay all the candidates for all the offices lied for the entire election cycle.
also, eyeroll at GH with his usual hatedom/misrepresentation on hillary.
|
On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not?
I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand?
|
On July 06 2017 08:58 zlefin wrote:
bernie also lied the whole lenght of the primary; in fact, I daresay all the candidates for all the offices lied for the entire election cycle.
also, eyeroll at GH with his usual hatedom/misrepresentation on hillary.
lol You're one of the people I'm talking about waving away some horrific stuff as just irrational hate, that's not a good look.
On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand?
And just to be clear, while I think danglars political hopes are despicable in some ways, it should be pretty obvious to those using the "least bad" political bar how, for someone like danglars, Trump is arguably the "less bad" choice for his political hopes. Particularly for those silly enough to think he wasn't conning them like he's conned everyone his whole life.
|
On July 06 2017 08:32 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 07:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:18 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 03:26 Buckyman wrote:On July 06 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:
I don't see the issue with classical liberalism at all. A functioning free market economy that provides a strong foundation for people from all backgrounds to compete on an even basis through the provision of healthcare, education, housing and so forth for all without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual preference etc. Seems pretty much ideal to me.
The problem is that in America you can't join the political right without pledging allegiance to the anti-science anti-gay agenda and even the free market economics is little more than crony capitalism. Meanwhile the centre left comes under fire for not being extreme enough, as if that's some kind of failing. This is the same political left that subsidizes wind and solar power so heavily that other forms of renewable energy can't compete? Or that threatened a boycott of an entire corporation because one executive says something off the clock? Or, in the case of California, boycotts specific states whose social legislative agendas it disagrees with? Or that in many states across many professions makes union membership effectively mandatory? And that's before taking into account the "liberal religion" argument, which argues that American liberals have founded an atheist religion with all the accoutrements thereof and are trying to establish themselves as the official government religion by selectively using the establishment clause against other religions. It seems like the Democratic party uses Enlightenment ideals only by coincidence. What sorts of ideals permit the nomination and election of Donald Trump, a man whose word is not credible? Keeping Hillary Clinton out could qualify as an ideal in my book. FWIW in 2020 I would vote Trump if it's Trump vs Clinton again. Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned. The reality is that between Bernie and Clinton (who were the only options due to a week crop of candidates) Clinton better fit my ideology. Hopefully a better candidate comes along but I still think Clinton would have adequately represented my interests and generally been a good president. We get that you don't like her, you've said that plenty of times. But Clinton was the best option from a very limited pool and while I hope I get a better pool in future, if I don't get more options I'd still back her. You act like there are no centrists to whom she appealed and that the Democrats failed by not committing to a hard left populist alternative to Trump's populism. Maybe they failed you, they didn't fail me. I could see why people would choose Clinton over Sanders. They might have been wrong but seeing how the campaign went that is acceptable. What isn't is the whole "I don't like Hillary but I will shill for her till my last breath" phenomenon. No, she was a goddamn vile choice for president and she made it worse by showing she had no intention of changing or reaching outside her core base. If she refuses to step aside now she is merely enabling the Republicans and Trump to do their shit by promising to be marginally less bad. And I don't subscribe to your "Trump is fascism and worse than Hillary murdering people in the streets" as per your hyperbole from like eight months back. Four more years of buffoon would be infinitely preferable to another decade of the Clintonites hijacking the left and hampering progress. On July 06 2017 06:09 zlefin wrote:
legal, your claims of hillary's vileness as potential president are unfounded as usual; as is your broad claim of people shilling when in many cases they're doing far less than that yet you still call it shilling. no new ground to tread though; just old arguments you keep making over and over. Frankly, the endless repeat of calling Trump absolute trash and wondering why he's president and does what he does actively merits a return to the other choice in the election. He was the better general election candidate and I'd vote for him in 2020 if Dems return Hillary to their ticket for another try. If we had widespread acceptance of why he was elected, and particularly how some present actions are exactly what he was sent to office to do (say, media machine antagonism however ill-organized, America first rhetoric on foreign policy, fights against an unaccountable bureaucratic/administrative state with its own insulary interests), it wouldn't even need mentioning. That's the essential element missed by #Resist and Trump-as-fascist dialogue If you subscribe to the Flight 93 article, that's basically an admission that you would vote for the Republican nominee no matter who in the world it is. Including snake oil salesmen who were reality TV stars. The notion that this feeble minded man could be preferable to Hillary is actually pretty reckless.
If you read the Flight 93 article, it was an attack on the stability and longevity of the American republic-an system. I'd rather play Russian Roulette with one bullet loaded as opposed to six. I grant you that the Democratic party is unlikely to nominate a candidate with five or less bullets chambered, but it's still a comparison not a dumb "vote Republican regardless." But I won't play with trolls on articles they never read nor understood for several posts and replies.
|
On July 06 2017 09:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 08:32 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 07:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:18 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 03:26 Buckyman wrote:
[quote]
This is the same political left that subsidizes wind and solar power so heavily that other forms of renewable energy can't compete?
Or that threatened a boycott of an entire corporation because one executive says something off the clock?
Or, in the case of California, boycotts specific states whose social legislative agendas it disagrees with?
Or that in many states across many professions makes union membership effectively mandatory?
And that's before taking into account the "liberal religion" argument, which argues that American liberals have founded an atheist religion with all the accoutrements thereof and are trying to establish themselves as the official government religion by selectively using the establishment clause against other religions.
It seems like the Democratic party uses Enlightenment ideals only by coincidence. What sorts of ideals permit the nomination and election of Donald Trump, a man whose word is not credible? Keeping Hillary Clinton out could qualify as an ideal in my book. FWIW in 2020 I would vote Trump if it's Trump vs Clinton again. Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned. The reality is that between Bernie and Clinton (who were the only options due to a week crop of candidates) Clinton better fit my ideology. Hopefully a better candidate comes along but I still think Clinton would have adequately represented my interests and generally been a good president. We get that you don't like her, you've said that plenty of times. But Clinton was the best option from a very limited pool and while I hope I get a better pool in future, if I don't get more options I'd still back her. You act like there are no centrists to whom she appealed and that the Democrats failed by not committing to a hard left populist alternative to Trump's populism. Maybe they failed you, they didn't fail me. I could see why people would choose Clinton over Sanders. They might have been wrong but seeing how the campaign went that is acceptable. What isn't is the whole "I don't like Hillary but I will shill for her till my last breath" phenomenon. No, she was a goddamn vile choice for president and she made it worse by showing she had no intention of changing or reaching outside her core base. If she refuses to step aside now she is merely enabling the Republicans and Trump to do their shit by promising to be marginally less bad. And I don't subscribe to your "Trump is fascism and worse than Hillary murdering people in the streets" as per your hyperbole from like eight months back. Four more years of buffoon would be infinitely preferable to another decade of the Clintonites hijacking the left and hampering progress. On July 06 2017 06:09 zlefin wrote:
legal, your claims of hillary's vileness as potential president are unfounded as usual; as is your broad claim of people shilling when in many cases they're doing far less than that yet you still call it shilling. no new ground to tread though; just old arguments you keep making over and over. Frankly, the endless repeat of calling Trump absolute trash and wondering why he's president and does what he does actively merits a return to the other choice in the election. He was the better general election candidate and I'd vote for him in 2020 if Dems return Hillary to their ticket for another try. If we had widespread acceptance of why he was elected, and particularly how some present actions are exactly what he was sent to office to do (say, media machine antagonism however ill-organized, America first rhetoric on foreign policy, fights against an unaccountable bureaucratic/administrative state with its own insulary interests), it wouldn't even need mentioning. That's the essential element missed by #Resist and Trump-as-fascist dialogue If you subscribe to the Flight 93 article, that's basically an admission that you would vote for the Republican nominee no matter who in the world it is. Including snake oil salesmen who were reality TV stars. The notion that this feeble minded man could be preferable to Hillary is actually pretty reckless. If you read the Flight 93 article, it was an attack on the stability and longevity of the American republic-an system. I'd rather play Russian Roulette with one bullet loaded as opposed to six. I grant you that the Democratic party is unlikely to nominate a candidate with five or less bullets chambered, but it's still a comparison not a dumb "vote Republican regardless." But I won't play with trolls on articles they never read nor understood for several posts and replies.
Flight 93 says that if the country is going down, you'd put Donald Trump at the helm. Conservativism isn't working, so you'd put Donald Trump at the helm. Flight 93 was an excuse to choose that particular Republican nominee, an intellectual sugarcoating of Donald Trump. If you'd take Donald Trump, you'd take any Republican nominee.
The man's word is not credible. He said the NFL contacted him to request a debate not be on Sunday, and then the NFL said that didn't happen. His mind is like a pea. And you'd put him on Flight 93? It's a travesty in the history of our great country.
|
I think that doodsmack is largely correct about the overall point of the Flight 93 article, but Danglars is better describing the underlying reasoning. To call it an intellectual sugar coating of the reason to vote for Trump doesn't even come close to doing the argument justice.
|
I'm all for the discussions about Hillary to actually stop. I don't know how we're still having this argument 7 months after she lost. I don't know how you can pull the whole "the better candidate won because he won" when he didn't even win the popular vote, but regardless, this is a discussion that must have been had in this thread about 20 times already. I'm getting sick of reading it.
|
On July 06 2017 09:41 NewSunshine wrote:
I'm all for the discussions about Hillary to actually stop. I don't know how we're still having this argument 7 months after she lost. I don't know how you can pull the whole "the better candidate won because he won" when he didn't even win the popular vote, but regardless, this is a discussion that must have been had in this thread about 20 times already. I'm getting sick of reading it.
we're still having it because some people keep trying to bring up points that have been disproven/countered dozens of times; and they bring up them up again for no good reason (while ignoring the degree to which they have been countered) so they need to be countered again. and because mods don't take action to stop the trolling that occurs by bringing up over and over. vote for higher mod standards!
and at gh, yeah, you claiming something is horrific is often just a result of you misinterpreting/ignoring the actual facts to make it something that it's not, so I stand by my eyeroll at your usual nonsense.
|
I don't know, most of what I see at this point are people complaining about people "still shilling for HIllary". I don't see many people saying much of anything about Hillary anymore, except for Trump supporters who like to bring up these fictional Hillary-shillers to distract from whatever idiocy Trump is committing this week. Most of the anti-Trump talk is legitimate criticism being leveraged at a man who is consummately unfit for office. I know LegalLord and co. like to keep bringing her up, but you're beating a dead horse, and we all have to keep reading it. I don't care about Hillary anymore, I care about what the actual administration in power is doing right now.
|
On July 06 2017 08:58 zlefin wrote:
bernie also lied the whole lenght of the primary; in fact, I daresay all the candidates for all the offices lied for the entire election cycle.
also, eyeroll at GH with his usual hatedom/misrepresentation on hillary.
im gonna regret opening this thread, but what did bernie lie about?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Want to talk about how we ended up with Trump or why the opposition to him is so damn ineffectual? Start with the Clintonites. People have yet to leave that "Trump is so bad, nothing else matters" mindset that let him win in the first place. I suppose having to acknowledge that might put some folk in not the best of spirits, but the topic is recurring because the lessons of the loss were not learned. As of post-presidential elections Trump's party is 5 for 5 because Democrats are just doing that bad for themselves. And yet no one wants to learn, thinking Trump's badness entities them to victory somehow.
|
On July 06 2017 10:03 NewSunshine wrote:
I don't know, most of what I see at this point are people complaining about people "still shilling for HIllary". I don't see many people saying much of anything about Hillary anymore, except for Trump supporters who like to bring up these fictional Hillary-shillers to distract from whatever idiocy Trump is committing this week. Most of the anti-Trump talk is legitimate criticism being leveraged at a man who is consummately unfit for office. I know LegalLord and co. like to keep bringing her up, but you're beating a dead horse, and we all have to keep reading it. I don't care about Hillary anymore, I care about what the actual administration in power is doing right now.
It's useful for how we got here, and *ahem* how the right guy won the general, but not for distracting or deflecting or analyzing criticism of Trump. He's still bad, the liberal media is trying to race him to the bottom (see earlier symbiosis post for that interplay), but the reason we got him returns to relevancy when people like Doodsmack go:
On July 06 2017 04:18 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 03:26 Buckyman wrote:On July 06 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:
I don't see the issue with classical liberalism at all. A functioning free market economy that provides a strong foundation for people from all backgrounds to compete on an even basis through the provision of healthcare, education, housing and so forth for all without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual preference etc. Seems pretty much ideal to me.
The problem is that in America you can't join the political right without pledging allegiance to the anti-science anti-gay agenda and even the free market economics is little more than crony capitalism. Meanwhile the centre left comes under fire for not being extreme enough, as if that's some kind of failing. This is the same political left that subsidizes wind and solar power so heavily that other forms of renewable energy can't compete? Or that threatened a boycott of an entire corporation because one executive says something off the clock? Or, in the case of California, boycotts specific states whose social legislative agendas it disagrees with? Or that in many states across many professions makes union membership effectively mandatory? And that's before taking into account the "liberal religion" argument, which argues that American liberals have founded an atheist religion with all the accoutrements thereof and are trying to establish themselves as the official government religion by selectively using the establishment clause against other religions. It seems like the Democratic party uses Enlightenment ideals only by coincidence. What sorts of ideals permit the nomination and election of Donald Trump, a man whose word is not credible?
Hmm I wonder what kind of argument could be brought up if somebody wants to distract from DNC ideals by going to supposed ideals that elected Trump?
|
On July 06 2017 08:43 a_flayer wrote:Nothing new, is it? The US has been looting Iraq for years.
It's just kind of funny. They were the ones who argued that they should have a religious exemption from providing birth control as part of health coverage. Apparently they skipped the 5th amendment though
|
On July 06 2017 10:03 NewSunshine wrote:
I don't know, most of what I see at this point are people complaining about people "still shilling for HIllary". I don't see many people saying much of anything about Hillary anymore, except for Trump supporters who like to bring up these fictional Hillary-shillers to distract from whatever idiocy Trump is committing this week. Most of the anti-Trump talk is legitimate criticism being leveraged at a man who is consummately unfit for office. I know LegalLord and co. like to keep bringing her up, but you're beating a dead horse, and we all have to keep reading it. I don't care about Hillary anymore, I care about what the actual administration in power is doing right now.
Literally the post above you. zlefin's just talking out of his ass about being disproven or whatever but he adds his usual backseat moderation for a little extra flavor.
One reason this keeps coming up is that Democrats refuse to learn their lesson and are going to keep on going with what lost them 1000+ seats. And then whine that it's Republicans fault and they want to focus on what Republicans are doing wrong, and frankly it's past obnoxious at this point.
|
http://www.votedoggett.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/TX25.jpg
What are the chances this will ever be solved, or that something like the Fair Representation Act would ever pass (I don't see it happening this time around), and how do our Republican friends in this thread feel about such a thing?
The bill would do three things: require all congressional districts to be drawn by independent redistricting commissions, establish multi-member districts, and have all districts use what’s known as ranked-choice voting (RCV).
The independent redistricting would take power away from partisan legislatures to draw congressional district lines, meaning that one party or another could no longer engage in gerrymandering.
Multi-member districts would mean that voters in each district would have the opportunity to elect multiple legislators to represent them instead of just one — which would mean that more people in the district would have the opportunity to elect someone closer to their own ideology rather than being stuck with one lawmaker who may or may not represent their viewpoint.
Finally, perhaps the most significant reform in the bill is RCV. Under this system, voters would be able to rank their preferences among various candidates and parties, rather than simply casting one vote for each office. If no candidate receives a majority of first-preference votes, then second-preferences are accounted for, and so on, until one candidate has a majority. Under RCV, you can vote your conscience without helping a candidate you loathe win instead.
RCV would make it so that there is no longer anything as a “wasted” vote — if your candidate ends up not being one of the top two candidates in the election, you can deliver your other votes to one of those instead. It would also force major party candidates to respect third-party voters and their ideas — after all, they would want their second-preference votes, and their third, and so on and so forth.
Lastly, it would eliminate the need for expensive runoff elections, as under this system the runoffs would be instantaneous.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
