Savant

Rank up voting is incredibly difficult when you have over 999 candidates.

You have people vote for parties that publish lists of candidates. Ranked choice isn't needed electing legislature.

I'm not saying that a majority of people all agree on the same candidate, just that they can compromise. If the Red team all wants the same guy and the Blue team wants two guys and the Blue team is bigger, I'm saying let the Blue team coordinate to select a single guy so that the median voter is represented.

If they know, what you are saying wont be true because majority will vote for best candidates. And if they don't know, then really, no voting system is better than random guessing.

Just because the majority knows doesn't mean they can coordinate. It could be that more people would rather have Candidate B than Candidate A, but if they don't realize they are the majority they will be afraid of wasting their vote and fail to coordinate.

Of course, a council can pick someone and instruct him, or negotiate directly

Well that's what my system does.

This could cause an issue with vote splitting

Okay, so?

So people might only go for well known candidates because they're afraid of splitting the vote on minor ones, and hence minor candidates who are better than the existing ones don't ever get a fair chance.

No presidents

The country needs someone to negotiate on its behalf in geopolitical affairs, with the ability to back up what they say.

People just vote, and the top 999 of those who get votes become members of council.

This could cause an issue with vote splitting.

A few thoughts going in: I think attaching representation to land or anything static will backfire long-term since there's no guarantee that the groups given disproportionate representation in a hundred years will actually deserve it. I think it's also better to have a strong executive as long as they aren't too extreme. Also, all things being equal, I think it's better to have six moderates in a row rather than alternate between far left and far right candidates.

My current proposal is this: Have a proportionally elected Parliament with 1,000 members and no minimum threshold for party entry. Use ranked choice voting within Parliament to select an executive, which assures they will represent the median voter. Then allow laws to pass with 40% of the legislature plus the executive. At any time, Parliament can hold a vote of no confidence with a simple majority, triggering another RCV for an executive.

I think RCV and no confidence options will be a check against dictatorship, and the 40% threshold will mean tiny extremist parties aren't able to hold a moderate agenda hostage. Eliminating the threshold for entry will also mean large parties split when they get too big, and heck, the max size of a party could even be capped at 100 seats or something. In theory you could have two parties that act as one, but with enough friction between them, it will be too politically tempting for them to compete with each other.

The main benefit here will be getting a lot of moderate reforms through fast, and also that voters don't overcompensate for bad governance by turning to extremists. As long as the moderate executive is getting things done, I think votes of no confidence would be used sparingly (and even if they were frequent, the instant RCV would save a lot of time without requiring a ton of time for coalition building). This requires Parliament to select a consistent vision (represented by the executive), but it will be one that represents the median voter.

Please join if you are interested!

Hi, all! In an effort to help users better understand the site voting standards and make sure debates receive a decent number of quality votes, we will be holding an official voting tournament. Voters will be assigned a debate to vote on. The winner will get infinite bragging rights.

Please sign up below to join. Votes should be judged based on quality and impartiality.

Voters:

1. Sir.Lancelot

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Vote graders:

1. Savant

2. whiteflame

You can be a theist without being part of one specific religion.

Doesn't that make him a theist?

they admit that there is at least one correct religion

Your profile says you are an atheist though?

That was civil court, but yeah, there was evidence so he had to pay. I don't think anonymous tips meet that same threshold, and even if they did, there's a difference between civil and criminal court.

You are officially maga bootlicker rapist defender.

For thinking the legal system should require proof to convict?

I believe much of what was released mentioning Trump were anonymous tips that they weren't able to follow up on, no? If there's proof, throw the book at him, but I don't think anonymous tips are really reliable.

That would be oat, not obt

Soviet soldiers fought the Nazis, but I'm skeptical the the leadership being communist made it easier. The USSR played far nicer with the Nazis than they had to leading up to the war, and Stalin's poor management meant they had to rely on sending their people to the meat grinder rather than using strong industrial power as the US did. It's not like Russia's success was due to an amazing economy. The Allied victory relied on lend-lease (US aid), British intelligence, and Soviet soldiers. Stalin's contribution was raising the blood tax on his own people.

Everyone from #2 or below is going to hell anyway, so why bother ranking past that point?

My first debate on DART is literally defending the police, I haven't given rioters a pass.

Isn't that exactly what you are doing by excusing the Governor's and Mayor's immoral actions?

I didn't excuse them. I haven't criticized them directly yet, but that's not the same as saying they are justified. I do think that they are accountable for their corrupt actions though, I didn't mean to imply they were not.

Being principled means you can criticize the people being manipulative and have greater credibility when doing so. Yeah it's predictable, but no one wants to cooperate with an unpredictable person.

If you give in to the moral panic and outrage and excoriate ICE for 'bad training' or whatever, you are doing exactly what the people who are the ultimate cause of the disorder and violence want

So when someone does something immoral, I should give them a pass for political reasons? I think that kind of thing leads to pretty bad outcomes. Not gonna whitewash either side just because the other side is doing bad things.

The dangerous precedent is opposition politicians urging their citizens to confront and harass federal officers who have been deployed to enforce federal law.

Two things can both be bad.

There's always going to be disproportionate responses.

I'm not saying it's realistic for things to never be handled badly. Planes crash, cars get into accidents, etc. I'm just saying this particular shooting was unjustified. At the very least it should be acknowledged. Yeah Alex Pretti did some bad things, but he's already paid for his crimes many times over. I think people are more focused on making sure the remaining guilty parties are tried and that this doesn't set a bad precedent.

That's why he got thrown to the ground.

Yeah but shooting him was extremely disproportionate. That's my point.

This is why sane people when encountering cops or other agents of the federal government follow instructions and dont make sudden movements

If you get thrown onto the ground you are reflexively gonna make sudden movements. Your position is more reasonable in cases where the agents make it easy to comply. Also the default assumption should be that the other person isn't trying to kill you, since the vast majority of people who interact aren't trying to kill each other. Did they know he wasn't intending to harm them? Probably not. Did they have a good reason to assume he was going to shoot them? Very unlikely based on the video.

I am doubtful referring to ICE as the Gestapo will convince a set of the people.

Regardless of the fairness of the comparison, trying to convince people they voted for Hitler is trying to prove way more than you have to. Arguing that ICE is a net loss is easier and sounds less extreme. Try running against hardline CCP officials in China and comparing them to Hitler and accusing them of genocide. Even if it's true, the populace will see you as crazy.

A good attorney won’t argue motive, psychology, or vibes

Well, they might argue those things if it helps their case. Attorneys are like that sometimes.

He may have wrongly anticipated that after the fight broke out and the preconditions for murder were satisfied, he would have a chance to draw, point, and fire his gun

I don't think "may have" is sufficient grounds for self-defense. A dude who hates me can walk to me with a knife on his belt, but until it's clear he's trying to stab me, killing him isn't self defense.

You could very well ask why a person looking for a fight doesn't just start off by throwing the first punch, and the answer is they want the other person to provoke them to violent retaliation.

If ICE knew he was planning to do this, then wouldn't the logical move be to not give him that reason (i.e. don't throw him to the ground in the first place)?

I think we have evidence now he wasn't a saint, but I don't think it's sufficient to classify deadly force as justified in this scenario.

If you were referring to my original comment about him not going for the gun, I meant when he still had it on his belt, mainly when he was approaching the officers since that would give a good idea of his intentions.

his right hand reached around the back, touching his empty holster when the shots started

So they saw him reaching for a gun but not that the gun was removed? If something is taken off my belt or pocket my hand is instinctively gonna move toward it. At best it's pretty bad communication, a reasonable agent would handle the situation different from the start.

This is getting repeated ad nauseam. A struggling person isn't under control until the cuffs are on and in a closed car.

Mostly in control still raises the bar for what's considered appropriate force. If you throw someone down unexpectedly they're gonna instinctively flail, the implications of that justifying deadly force are far too broad.