Simplicity tends to sell better than complexity, and RCV is the one that’s known of already.

Agreed. And that’s why I think approval is such a big improvement over ranked choice.

“Tell us who you approve of, candidate with the most approval wins”

Is a hell of a lot simpler than

“Rank every candidate without ranking multiple as the same level, then we check if any candidate has a 50% majority, if not, the lowest candidate gets booted and the next wave of second choices comes in, repeat until there is 50% majority.”

And that’s before the peripheral benefits.

So far they’ve been more than happy to ignore everything except the status quo, unfortunately.

Agreed. It’s honestly sad.

My city/state has been warming up to these kinds of talks and candidates at least, which gives me a glimmer of hope. But for now it is not enough.

Arguably, RCV is just as complicated as STAR, and approval is simpler than RCV. And part of the difficulty in the heavy lift to get RCV is that it has some pretty rough flaws, flaws that don’t exist within the alternatives.

And the political environment is easing up to the idea of moving towards better voting methods. I’m not saying we should let perfection be the enemy of progress. All I am saying is that if we are going to be making changes, we should at least attempt the better options.

I absolutely agree with pushing the issue at a local level, however we should probably be aiming for approval or STAR voting:

https://dividedwefall.org/star-and-approval-voting/

RCV is way better than our current system, but even RCV has flaws.

We also need regulation requiring election reform within party primaries, because as of right now it is a clown show.

The prime directive is a great example of how even a good rule taken to the extreme can end up causing more harm than good.

But beyond that, it’s just an easy aid for the writers to add a point of conflict for their stories. The prime directive as a value within the federation seems secondary to me.

They wouldn’t be able to finish stealing that car before a thousand hungry lawyers ate them alive. Why do we let media companies do that?

They would probably actually have a decent shot at getting away with it, at least at first.

And to answer your question, it’s because the anger that companies generate by doing this shit ends up turning into piracy. Why would you try to punish a corp for doing this (likely wasting your time) when a cheap VPN and basic tech literacy gets you what you want?

The effort ratios are way out of wack when it comes to digital products. It’s easy to get around digital bullshitery, not so much in the real world where we are all car dependant.

Wanting to breath clean air on a habitable planet isn’t insanity.

“Make Sure You Are Square With Your God Before Trying To Merge This”

I will not vote for the party of genocide supply. Aka the dems.

They’re both supporting the ongoing genocide. This isn’t helpful for deciding who to vote for.

Local candidates are not going fix the two party system. That’s a national issue.

Which is why I specified local/congressional. It’s going to take all levels of government to unfuck us from a two party system.

I don’t know the solution, but buying into the Dems bullshit “lesser of Two evils” AGAIN is not it.

Only one of these choices is actively trying to turn our country into a theocratic hell hole.

The “lesser of two evils” is fucking awful, but it’s true.

Have fun being the same chump you were 8 years ago.

If you can’t talk about politics without resorting to personal insults then you must know how weak your argument is.

Like it or not we are stuck with a two party system. As fucking awful as Biden is, and he is, Biden is the lesser of two evils by far. And that applies to democrats/republicans as a whole.

Both parties/candidates are to some degree cool with genocide and privatization, but only one of the two stands out as the worst, and the worst by a lot.

Don’t like it? Vote for local candidates/congressional candidates in primaries that will fix the two party problem. But in the mean time the better presidential option will be anything with a D next to their name.

There is no guarantee of anything.

But if you’re storing it hundreds of miles from the ocean, the risk is minimal.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/deep-isolation-aims-to-bury-nuclear-waste-using-boreholes.html

Launching radioactive waste into space is a terrible idea, because rockets on occasion crash. Once that happens it becomes a nuclear disaster.

Instead we can safely store it in depleted mines.

We are on a time limit thanks to climate change. We can’t afford to complain about picking the lessor of two evils.