6 ms·

I hope stories like this open the eyes of folks who are die-hard Democrats or die-hard Republicans. They are not on your side. They are on their own side. I do

I hope stories like this open the eyes of folks who are die-hard Democrats or die-hard Republicans. They are not on your side. They are on their own side. I don't doubt that most folks at these agencies are hard-working Americans who believe they're doing what's best for our country. Having said that, this kind of unchecked power is dangerous.

y-c-o-m-b 4y ago
I think deep down, many people in those camps realize it, but it's a very tough pill to swallow. Particularly if one is not equipped to mentally handle the hard emotions. These realizations amplify that feeling of helplessness.
yieldcrv 4y ago
Exactly, we aren't talking about the ways these parties are different, we're fully aware of that, we are talking about the ways these parties are the same. When we say "both sides" or "both sides are the same" we are talking about the ways in which they are the same, and that these ways are problematic and bothersome. Its as valid of a stance, for an individual, as a different individual choosing to privilege a way in which one party is different.
anonporridge 4y ago
Why else do you think career politicians from across the spectrum, from liberal Gavin Newsom to conservative Ron DeSantis, have worked hard to explicitly block ranked choice voting reforms? Not just voice their opinions against it, but proactively halt and override legislative reforms when they happen. The duopoly doesn't benefit from making a more fair and inclusive system that allows for a greater diversity of political involvement. "It's a big club, and you're not in it." -- George Carlin
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  Single-winner ranked ballots methods are reform theater; they aren't particularly “more fair and inclusive” that FPTP in general, and the particular method called “Ranked Choice Voting”, “Alternative Vote”, or “Instant Runoff Voting” in particular is only minimally different in structure and effect from majority-runoff. Established elites make a show of opposing IRV/AV/RCV because centering the debate on that focusses attention there rather than on real reform, which requires systems that produce proportional results.
  - toma_caliente 4y ago
    This statement seems to be in conflict with everything I've read about ranked choice voting. If I can put my preferred independent candidate as rank 1 and a safe choice at rank 2 then this is objectively better than just voting for the safe choice out of fear of stealing votes away and giving it to the opposition. What systems would you prefer?
    - salawat 4y ago
      ...That just degenerates to propping up the duopoly! That won't change anything. I'm straight up against any methodology that blunts the sting of no confidence in the two big parties. They should absolutely have to react to shifting priorities. That means, no safety net. Otherwise, you're handing them the same election advantage they've always enjoyed and just handwaving the entire issue. It sounds more to me like we need to start tracking negative votes (not this person) as well. It's bollocks that no confidence is treated as "I have no opinion".
    - germinalphrase 4y ago
      Right, what is considered “real reform” here?
    - JTbane 4y ago
      Just wanted to chime in that all ranked voting systems can be gamed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...
      - haswell 4y ago
        This is an oversimplified conclusion. FTA: > The practical consequences of the theorem are debatable: Arrow has said "Most systems are not going to work badly all of the time. All I proved is that all can work badly at times Followed by: > Although Arrow's theorem is a mathematical result, it is often expressed in a non-mathematical way with a statement such as no voting method is fair, every ranked voting method is flawed, or the only voting method that isn't flawed is a dictatorship.[11] These statements are simplifications of Arrow's result which are not universally considered to be true. Bottom line - this seems interesting, but is hardly as simple as "all ranked voting systems can be gamed".
- robonerd 4y ago
  I think ranked choice voting is too nerdy for much of the general public to understand; not the principle of it but the actual practice of how to tally votes and calculate the winner. Given the choice between a voting system the public demonstrably tolerates even though it isn't mathematically fair, and a voting system that is mathematically fair but is likely to cause confusion and distrust in elections, I prefer the former. You could change my mind by showing that ranked choice voting systems can be taught to even the most common of midwits.
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    I personally slightly prefer approval voting (e.g. select all candidates you like, no ranking, most votes wins). It's simpler for voters and RCV is more likely that people will be lazy and only select one choice. But it does have the problem that many people will think it violates one person, one vote. There are municipalities and states that have implemented both. Voters handle them fine. More importantly, a large minority of people in the US who already believe the current voting system isn't fair, so why are you afraid RCV will make it worse? I think it will be the opposite, since it is likely to cool the political polarization and encourage the election of more moderate politicians that a larger majority are ok with.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      > I personally slightly prefer approval voting (e.g. select all candidates you like, no ranking, most votes wins). Yes, I like this one a lot more. > There are municipalities and states that have implemented both. I think for low-stake elections that most people don't vote in anyway, experimentation is relatively safe. But I wouldn't want to try anything new with fiery federal elections, particularly not the presidential election. The risk of confusion resulting in costly civil unrest is too high. > More importantly, a large minority of people in the US who already believe the current voting system isn't fair Yes, but they tolerate it for the most part.
      - anonporridge 4y ago
        > Yes, but they tolerate it for the most part. Arguable after the 2020 election.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
  I used to be a big proponent of ranked choice voting, but then I finally stepped back and realized that it doesn't seem to necessarily produce more "inclusive" or "unifying" outcomes. Change my mind.
  - boardwaalk 4y ago
    It's a little presumptuous to come in and say "I don't believe this, change my mind." I don't think anybody is going to bother to, frankly. You ought to put in a slight amount of effort and give some modicum of evidence.
    - TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
      “Change my mind” is a meme. Sheesh.
- Beldin 4y ago
  District-based elections, where each district had one winner, tend to lead to two-party systems. The counting mechanism doesn't meaningfully impact this. If you want to change this, you can expand current districts to cover multiple seats. That way, second-placed, third-placed, and so on, candidates also get seats. Depending on the #seats of the district. Parties could run multiple candidates, since there are multiple seats. For the US, districts with e.g. 5 seats would be very interesting. The effect would be two-fold: first, more distinctiveness between candidates of the same party. Extreme example: a prolife Democrat, a gun-regulation Republican running alongside more traditional candidates. Secondly, at least some candidates outside the 2 major parties will get a seat. This probably means no more majority in House/Senate, but a need to form a coalition. That means talking with each other and reaching agreement would no longer be the newsworthy exception it is today, but would be part of the very fabric of the House/Senate. I don't see how a different counting mechanism could lead to the same effects.
ajross 4y ago
There are no politicians involved in this story at all. This is just the FBI doing police work (and then getting burned by their own informant). Like it or not, distribution of classified material is a crime, and the FBI's job is to enforce the law. There's no "unchecked" power here. The details are complicated because the meeting was international (so presumably there was some coordination with local police), but there's no court in the nation that wouldn't immediately stamp a warrant based on the straightforward facts alleged here.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  Exactly. They weren't there to arrest the reporter, who wasn't doing anything illegal, but to arrest the leaker, who was. It doesn't matter which politician you elect. The FBI will enforce the law.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  The idea that because the courts will rubber stamp a warrant is not a valid rebuttal to unchecked power Just like the saying that a "federal prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" like wise the FBI could get a warrant for anything they desire at any time The warrant requirement is a not a check on power, and has not been for decades, the courts and our legal system is no longer a protector of rights, or justice and has not been for a long long long time.
  - ajross 4y ago
    > The idea that because the courts will rubber stamp a warrant is not a valid rebuttal to unchecked power But the crime is "release of classified material". That's not a rubber stamp, it's a clear allegation of criminal activity. I think your real feeling is that this material "shouldn't" have been classified (based on what you believe it contained -- the reporter never got it). And maybe that's true! But the facts in this article are just OBVIOUSLY probable cause for a warrant, nonetheless.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
tootie 4y ago
If I'm reading the story correctly the villain is that lawyer who seemingly mislead everybody. The DOJ sought to prevent the loss of classified information which may or may not have ever existed related to spying programs that may or may not have ever existed. That's well within their responsibilities even if they were being overzealous. I've never been one to put full trust in any politicians or bureaucracy but the balance of value is still overwhelmingly towards democrats. The odd botched investigation is a small price for supporting democracy, human rights and climate justice.
- zionic 4y ago
  > The DOJ sought to prevent the loss of classified information which may or may not have ever existed related to spying programs that may or may not have ever existed. That's well within their responsibilities Really? Wouldn’t most people think a Department of Justice should be actively hunting down and prosecuting those who illegally spy on US Citizens? I mean they’re supposed to work for us, uphold our laws and constitution etc. If employees of executive branch agencies conspire to defraud citizens of the United States of their most basic rights (4th amendment?) isn’t that a crime they should be pursuing? Instead they seem far more interested in suppressing evidence of the crime.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    There is no evidence in this story that anybody was illegally spying on US citizens. The FBI had a court order to allow this operation.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
brnaftr361 4y ago
If we knockout the nationalism, what's left? States, counties, for some - districts. Thirty years and I've met one representative. America wasn't designed to operate at the current scale and it's causing considerable strife internally and externally. We're effectively the de facto world sovereign, and at the same time we the people and the collective will is so contrived as to be totally incomprehensible, largely, I would posit, as a product of federal overreach and inertia. We'd do well to refederate - California's America is not the same as Texas' nor is Florida's the same as Michigan's. It's kind of an absurdity to indicate we're a nation at this point, there are really no points of unity which bond us in this era, and that's what defines a nation. That is to say there are no more Americans.
- macintux 4y ago
  I think we muddled along fine as long as we had 3 or 4 TV networks steering the national conversation and no social networking. Now we can self-select for our biases and realities. I think we’ll come through it intact. Hopefully.
  - brnaftr361 4y ago
    I'm sorry, but my point was that it would be healthy to drop the nationalist trope, for everyone. There's no real foundation for it.
- krapp 4y ago
  > California's America is not the same as Texas' nor is Florida's the same as Michigan's. It's kind of an absurdity to indicate we're a nation at this point, there are really no points of unity which bond us in this era, and that's what defines a nation. That is to say there are no more Americans. It's weird how this wasn't the case prior to 2016. Like, I distinctly recall there being a unified American culture and identity. Even between California and Texas, both considered themselves (and one another) Americans despite their differences.
  - tomc1985 4y ago
    You think that was weird, witness how America came together immediately after 9/11

y-c-o-m-b 4y ago

I think deep down, many people in those camps realize it, but it's a very tough pill to swallow. Particularly if one is not equipped to mentally handle the hard emotions. These realizations amplify that feeling of helplessness.

yieldcrv 4y ago

Exactly, we aren't talking about the ways these parties are different, we're fully aware of that, we are talking about the ways these parties are the same. When we say "both sides" or "both sides are the same" we are talking about the ways in which they are the same, and that these ways are problematic and bothersome. Its as valid of a stance, for an individual, as a different individual choosing to privilege a way in which one party is different.

anonporridge 4y ago

Why else do you think career politicians from across the spectrum, from liberal Gavin Newsom to conservative Ron DeSantis, have worked hard to explicitly block ranked choice voting reforms? Not just voice their opinions against it, but proactively halt and override legislative reforms when they happen. The duopoly doesn't benefit from making a more fair and inclusive system that allows for a greater diversity of political involvement. "It's a big club, and you're not in it." -- George Carlin

dragonwriter 4y ago
Single-winner ranked ballots methods are reform theater; they aren't particularly “more fair and inclusive” that FPTP in general, and the particular method called “Ranked Choice Voting”, “Alternative Vote”, or “Instant Runoff Voting” in particular is only minimally different in structure and effect from majority-runoff. Established elites make a show of opposing IRV/AV/RCV because centering the debate on that focusses attention there rather than on real reform, which requires systems that produce proportional results.
- toma_caliente 4y ago
  This statement seems to be in conflict with everything I've read about ranked choice voting. If I can put my preferred independent candidate as rank 1 and a safe choice at rank 2 then this is objectively better than just voting for the safe choice out of fear of stealing votes away and giving it to the opposition. What systems would you prefer?
  - salawat 4y ago
    ...That just degenerates to propping up the duopoly! That won't change anything. I'm straight up against any methodology that blunts the sting of no confidence in the two big parties. They should absolutely have to react to shifting priorities. That means, no safety net. Otherwise, you're handing them the same election advantage they've always enjoyed and just handwaving the entire issue. It sounds more to me like we need to start tracking negative votes (not this person) as well. It's bollocks that no confidence is treated as "I have no opinion".
  - germinalphrase 4y ago
    Right, what is considered “real reform” here?
  - JTbane 4y ago
    Just wanted to chime in that all ranked voting systems can be gamed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...
    - haswell 4y ago
      This is an oversimplified conclusion. FTA: > The practical consequences of the theorem are debatable: Arrow has said "Most systems are not going to work badly all of the time. All I proved is that all can work badly at times Followed by: > Although Arrow's theorem is a mathematical result, it is often expressed in a non-mathematical way with a statement such as no voting method is fair, every ranked voting method is flawed, or the only voting method that isn't flawed is a dictatorship.[11] These statements are simplifications of Arrow's result which are not universally considered to be true. Bottom line - this seems interesting, but is hardly as simple as "all ranked voting systems can be gamed".
robonerd 4y ago
I think ranked choice voting is too nerdy for much of the general public to understand; not the principle of it but the actual practice of how to tally votes and calculate the winner. Given the choice between a voting system the public demonstrably tolerates even though it isn't mathematically fair, and a voting system that is mathematically fair but is likely to cause confusion and distrust in elections, I prefer the former. You could change my mind by showing that ranked choice voting systems can be taught to even the most common of midwits.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  I personally slightly prefer approval voting (e.g. select all candidates you like, no ranking, most votes wins). It's simpler for voters and RCV is more likely that people will be lazy and only select one choice. But it does have the problem that many people will think it violates one person, one vote. There are municipalities and states that have implemented both. Voters handle them fine. More importantly, a large minority of people in the US who already believe the current voting system isn't fair, so why are you afraid RCV will make it worse? I think it will be the opposite, since it is likely to cool the political polarization and encourage the election of more moderate politicians that a larger majority are ok with.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    > I personally slightly prefer approval voting (e.g. select all candidates you like, no ranking, most votes wins). Yes, I like this one a lot more. > There are municipalities and states that have implemented both. I think for low-stake elections that most people don't vote in anyway, experimentation is relatively safe. But I wouldn't want to try anything new with fiery federal elections, particularly not the presidential election. The risk of confusion resulting in costly civil unrest is too high. > More importantly, a large minority of people in the US who already believe the current voting system isn't fair Yes, but they tolerate it for the most part.
    - anonporridge 4y ago
      > Yes, but they tolerate it for the most part. Arguable after the 2020 election.
TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
I used to be a big proponent of ranked choice voting, but then I finally stepped back and realized that it doesn't seem to necessarily produce more "inclusive" or "unifying" outcomes. Change my mind.
- boardwaalk 4y ago
  It's a little presumptuous to come in and say "I don't believe this, change my mind." I don't think anybody is going to bother to, frankly. You ought to put in a slight amount of effort and give some modicum of evidence.
  - TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
    “Change my mind” is a meme. Sheesh.
Beldin 4y ago
District-based elections, where each district had one winner, tend to lead to two-party systems. The counting mechanism doesn't meaningfully impact this. If you want to change this, you can expand current districts to cover multiple seats. That way, second-placed, third-placed, and so on, candidates also get seats. Depending on the #seats of the district. Parties could run multiple candidates, since there are multiple seats. For the US, districts with e.g. 5 seats would be very interesting. The effect would be two-fold: first, more distinctiveness between candidates of the same party. Extreme example: a prolife Democrat, a gun-regulation Republican running alongside more traditional candidates. Secondly, at least some candidates outside the 2 major parties will get a seat. This probably means no more majority in House/Senate, but a need to form a coalition. That means talking with each other and reaching agreement would no longer be the newsworthy exception it is today, but would be part of the very fabric of the House/Senate. I don't see how a different counting mechanism could lead to the same effects.

ajross 4y ago

There are no politicians involved in this story at all. This is just the FBI doing police work (and then getting burned by their own informant). Like it or not, distribution of classified material is a crime, and the FBI's job is to enforce the law. There's no "unchecked" power here. The details are complicated because the meeting was international (so presumably there was some coordination with local police), but there's no court in the nation that wouldn't immediately stamp a warrant based on the straightforward facts alleged here.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
Exactly. They weren't there to arrest the reporter, who wasn't doing anything illegal, but to arrest the leaker, who was. It doesn't matter which politician you elect. The FBI will enforce the law.
phpisthebest 4y ago
The idea that because the courts will rubber stamp a warrant is not a valid rebuttal to unchecked power Just like the saying that a "federal prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" like wise the FBI could get a warrant for anything they desire at any time The warrant requirement is a not a check on power, and has not been for decades, the courts and our legal system is no longer a protector of rights, or justice and has not been for a long long long time.
- ajross 4y ago
  > The idea that because the courts will rubber stamp a warrant is not a valid rebuttal to unchecked power But the crime is "release of classified material". That's not a rubber stamp, it's a clear allegation of criminal activity. I think your real feeling is that this material "shouldn't" have been classified (based on what you believe it contained -- the reporter never got it). And maybe that's true! But the facts in this article are just OBVIOUSLY probable cause for a warrant, nonetheless.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago

tootie 4y ago

If I'm reading the story correctly the villain is that lawyer who seemingly mislead everybody. The DOJ sought to prevent the loss of classified information which may or may not have ever existed related to spying programs that may or may not have ever existed. That's well within their responsibilities even if they were being overzealous. I've never been one to put full trust in any politicians or bureaucracy but the balance of value is still overwhelmingly towards democrats. The odd botched investigation is a small price for supporting democracy, human rights and climate justice.

zionic 4y ago
> The DOJ sought to prevent the loss of classified information which may or may not have ever existed related to spying programs that may or may not have ever existed. That's well within their responsibilities Really? Wouldn’t most people think a Department of Justice should be actively hunting down and prosecuting those who illegally spy on US Citizens? I mean they’re supposed to work for us, uphold our laws and constitution etc. If employees of executive branch agencies conspire to defraud citizens of the United States of their most basic rights (4th amendment?) isn’t that a crime they should be pursuing? Instead they seem far more interested in suppressing evidence of the crime.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  There is no evidence in this story that anybody was illegally spying on US citizens. The FBI had a court order to allow this operation.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

brnaftr361 4y ago

If we knockout the nationalism, what's left? States, counties, for some - districts. Thirty years and I've met one representative. America wasn't designed to operate at the current scale and it's causing considerable strife internally and externally. We're effectively the de facto world sovereign, and at the same time we the people and the collective will is so contrived as to be totally incomprehensible, largely, I would posit, as a product of federal overreach and inertia. We'd do well to refederate - California's America is not the same as Texas' nor is Florida's the same as Michigan's. It's kind of an absurdity to indicate we're a nation at this point, there are really no points of unity which bond us in this era, and that's what defines a nation. That is to say there are no more Americans.

macintux 4y ago
I think we muddled along fine as long as we had 3 or 4 TV networks steering the national conversation and no social networking. Now we can self-select for our biases and realities. I think we’ll come through it intact. Hopefully.
- brnaftr361 4y ago
  I'm sorry, but my point was that it would be healthy to drop the nationalist trope, for everyone. There's no real foundation for it.
krapp 4y ago
> California's America is not the same as Texas' nor is Florida's the same as Michigan's. It's kind of an absurdity to indicate we're a nation at this point, there are really no points of unity which bond us in this era, and that's what defines a nation. That is to say there are no more Americans. It's weird how this wasn't the case prior to 2016. Like, I distinctly recall there being a unified American culture and identity. Even between California and Texas, both considered themselves (and one another) Americans despite their differences.
- tomc1985 4y ago
  You think that was weird, witness how America came together immediately after 9/11