I agree that it’s great news. I’m just pointing out where the disconnect is.

The last time I looked the real impressive growth was at the lowest ends of the labor market. Effectively it’s state minimum wage increases hitting. Everyone above minimum wage is far less affected by this. But you do have to go looking for that kind of information. Leadership wants to look at the line go up and cheer, not understanding that the person making the median isn’t really affected by this. the other fun thing is since it’s mostly minimum wage movement, they aren’t suddenly being able to afford stuff. They’re still getting crushed by inflation like most people.

The hole was really deep. And that inflation from Covid didn’t go away. Beating inflation now does not negate losing to inflation then. You have to beat inflation that much harder to both gain now and make up for previous losses.

And how much of that is minimum wage going up? Don’t get me wrong I love that. But going from 15k to 20k a year is going from drowning to clinging to a piece driftwood. The full time annual take home needs to be around 40k-50k per person with all the decades of negative real wages.

Malfunctioning cameras, sleeping guards that were rotated in, controversy over the medical examiner report…

Not being able to prove something happened and nothing happening are two different things.

No we realized years ago. It’s the entire reason his campaign started the idea that he’d be a single term president. People brought it up after the midterms when he confirmed he’d run again. It’s been in the news and an open question ever since then. According to insiders, the debate was held early specifically to show he wasn’t too old.

Biden and the Party have been aggressively going after critics, accusing them of being Trump supporters and disloyal to the very concept of democracy. Which would have worked if he didn’t shit the bed so badly.

They can continue operating until the courts stop them. Chevron deference is in reference to court cases, not specific regulatory authority. So the Chevron doctrine was that courts should defer to the regulatory agency in most cases. With it gone, courts can generally rule against specific regulations without fear of being over turned on appeal.

The real danger is SCOTUS in another case in the last few days completely removed something called standing in relation to these regulations. It used to be that you could only challenge a new rule or regulation right after it was made. Now you can challenge it when the damage occurs. That sounds better but in reality it’s worse. Because corporations can act as people in court, all you have to do is incorporate a new corporation in a friendly court district. For example, the second you create a “alcohol distribution” corporation you are subject to those regulations. Some of them are a hundred years old. You can now claim damage has occurred and sue to block the enforcement of those regulations.

Before Chevron was removed though the courts would have most likely ruled against you because the agency was deferred to in most cases. Now the court can take this shell company’s case and rule however it wants.

The FDA knew it wasn’t safe in 1970.

Okay new rule. If it’s not naturally grown and simply processed, (squeezing an orange) it has to go to the FDA for FDA led testing and cannot be distributed until then.

If that’s already the case then we need to see some criminal prosecutions. I’m getting really fucking tired of these captured regulators.

Only 27 minutes to go!

Palin just being so clueless the polls turned against McCain the next day.

You need to learn more about American elections and how the government is composed. I’ve told you several times that there is one winner per district. If you want to change that then go off, but don’t come in here spreading GOP propaganda while proposing the least suited version of voting for how we put our government together. I’m done responding to this. You really pressed F to doubt on how we elect people.

I’m not skipping anywhere, I’m familiar with the argument. I heard it ad nauseum from Fox News in 2022. The entire theory depends on ignoring the actual ideology on the ground and assuming Palin voters would just as soon vote for a Democrat.

And you haven’t mentioned any other type of approval voting until now so yes that’s what was assumed. STV is also a multiple winner election system. Which is also incompatible with our Constitution. At this point I’m not sure you’re familiar with the US Constitution but in order to do anything that has multiple winners we’d need at least 40 votes to support it in at least 40 different parliamentary bodies. 29 of which are controlled by a party that massively benefits from tying land to seats. No voting system that gives multiple winners going down the list is going to be compatible with our election system for the foreseeable future. Where STV was used in city elections, it’s been deprecated because having two different systems on a single ballot is needlessly confusing.

SPAV still requires a proportional system. You cannot just magic it into our system. And even if there’s a state willing to go proportional, asking voters to use two different systems is a non starter.

Second. That source is shit too. It’s a bunch of mathematicians playing what if? This quote is as far as I got because it makes it obvious.

Peltola, could have lost by getting more 1st choice votes from Palin supporters.

If you’re going to criticize RCV it needs to be on facts. Not on fantasy situations that can be generically applied. Yes if some Palin voters in an alternate universe decided to abandon their entire ideology and vote blue, they could have kept Begich in the race and prevented Peltola from getting those second round votes. But that’s an absolutely ridiculous assumption and shows these guys are just playing the numbers game.

Which is what every conservative attempt to attack RCV voting in the wake of 2022 came down to.

You’re not bringing any novel evidence to the argument and you’re proposing a niche replacement that doesn’t even fit our system.

Yeah no. That’s a lot of noise to ignore that the party and Republican voters preferred Palin. Begich wouldn’t even have been there in traditional FPTP. Calling the most popular candidate from a party “a spoiler” is a rhetorical device republicans came up with to go after RCV.

Peltola is also hardly some far left representative. So calling it a center squeeze is a bit rich. This entire write up screams, “I can’t approve of the Alaskan RCV election because I’m paid not to.”

To be clear, not you, the author of that Wikipedia article.

Edit to add- and sure enough if you go to the talk page there’s a partisan group defending it from any changes to bring it towards Wikipedia objectivity standards. This is why your teachers told you Wikipedia is a bad source.

Honestly I’d go further, let’s get a round thousand and hook it to a ratio. Obliterating the ability to buy house races will result in better high level candidates and better low level representation. I’d say let’s do the full ten thousand if I thought people would for it.

Because a leader does need to be present. They aren’t just a face in front of their staff.

If they go hard and use their entire war chest then name recognition won’t be an issue as long as the person has a good starting position.

SPAV is specifically constructed to work with proportional representation. It iterates until all seats are filled. But in the US, by Constitutional law, it’s one seat per geographical district.

About RCV though it’s still head and shoulders above FPTP, and easy to understand. About Alaska specifically, I don’t understand why you would call the party backed candidate who got more votes a spoiler?

Palin lost in the second round because roughly half of Begich’s voters did not want Palin. If the less popular Republican candidate wasn’t in the race then Peltola still wins. This was a case of RCV working exactly as advertised. A traditional party primary would have nominated Palin, not Begich, and she would have lost anyways.

Legendary Tankies, the entire group… /s

Oh I agree that it’s possible. We’re just in the weird position of having to work around the Constitution.