Politics doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
When the NPVC goes into effect, both major parties will run whole-country campaigns and swaths of the nation that are currently ignored will get actual attention. While some states may have pullback campaigns, its also likely that other states will react by joining the compact to preserve the new status quo of not being ignored.
(the compact itself does allow for states leaving, and even sets a nice 6-month time offset. )
There isnt a debate.
One of the major parties in the USA knows that they are able to get power only because the 1929 Apportionment act artificially buouys the power of less populous states in the House and by extension the electoral college. The other one is just fine with actual proportional representation.
Not t metion that the EC doesn’t encourage presidential candidates to campaign nationwide: most states are ignored, and focus is on the minority of swing states.
(and Lincoln had a clear plurality of the popular vote. He woukd have won a national vote too.)
In common commercial english, i would read that as “this merchant will offer to trade any of the books for an amoumt of currency equal to half the book’s cover price plus $1.”
Such vagueness also suggests sufficient informality that the merchant may either accept seperate offers or veto the general rule on a case-by-case basis.
In order to blame the bad actions of the United States for the “polycrisis”, you really need to excuse all of the bad actions of everyone else.
To pick a timely issue : blaming the USA for the actions of Israel in their* Gaza territory we would need to excuse Israel for the actions of Israel.
If a general strike would have any effect id support it, but the target should be the specific actions of our country rather than the actions of other sovereign nations.
(*: If the govt of israel does not recognize a distinct Palestinian state, and the pseudo-governments of Palestine cannot exert sovereign control to keep Israel out, then Palestine is [unjustly] and [occupied] territory of Israel.)
Bail is not money you get back. It’s money that a bail bondsman doesn’t have to fork over if you dont show.
Either you are so rich that the opportunity cost of tieing up the whole amount is more than the fee (so you just pay the bond fee) or you don’t have enough and need to ask someone to lend it to yoy (that is, you pay the bond.)
New York tried to largely ban cash bail (becaue its essentially just a way to lock up the poor), but because of Republicans and police unions (i repeat myself) who whined about offenses while out on bail, the state poked a bunch of holes in it instead of making pre-trial detention easier.
Cash bail is ALWAYS indefensible. If someone is so dangerous to civic order they need to be detained pre-trial, then no amount of money should get them out of it.
Did you just intend to endorse organ harvesting and grave robbing?
And, if you want tax reform capital gains aren’t your target, but instead “unrealized gains”. A billionare pledging stock to back a loan should pay tax on their whole net worth’s increass in value first.
Has it also led chidren to believe that if you cut down a tree with an axe it will just hang in the sky instead of falling down?
So, you’re asking if there is a shoplifter whose small-dollar.spree was stopped by target, who was then arrested by the police, who then refused an initial plea offer from the DA, who was then charged by a grand jury, refused a pre-trial plea offer, went to trial, refused the pre-verdict plea offer, and was then found guilty?
Well, what about someone who hit 60k over 120 visits?
(edit: shortened url.)
Is there a particilar part of a lecture about chimpanzee mating habits that you think especially buttress sexism? If not, just referring to a whole video as a reference is just a gish galllp through citation.
Except that it ISNT self-evident. There are plenty of mammals with no apparent bias as to which sex is more prone to violence, more if you exclude the minority of mammals where only one sex has a natural weapon.
You might have a slightly better case if we were just talking primates. But not by a lot.
As a seperate top-level answer: no, would not pursue a romantic relationship with a woman who repeats sexist assertions about men. Because i am both a man and a feminist, and my several decades of happy married life have taught me that compatability of strongly held beliefs is a key to romantic happiness.
I would also not encourage the young men and women i know to either espouse sexist positoons or pursue potential partners who hold such beliefs. And i would probably also ramble for a bit about how all labels are imperfect and you should not necessarily dismiss someone just becsuse of a label.
If you want to date someone who describes themselves as a “radical feminist”, a date might be a good way to discern if they are an “all men are evil” feminist or a “men are awesome and also victims of the patriarchy” feminist.
Feminists dont say things like “all men are potential rapists”, save for those who also say “all women are potential rapists.”.
An actual (traditional) feminist would say something like “society encourages rapy behavior from men”, which is functionally the same but rhetorically a far different animal. Women and men who say that men are categoryly dangerous are also implicitly telling boys that they are bad just because they are boys.
Sexist statements about how women are good and men are bad isnt feminism, it’s just sexism in disguise.
While dramatic things like making the senate votes proportional or abolishing the electoral college might require a constitutional amendment, the text is silent on plurality vs RCW or what have you.
Congress could mandate a switch with a simple law, and point to their power to ensure democracy, same as the post bush v gore laws that mandated electronic voting machines.
It’s not really “established” becaue there isnt any formal body declaring what names different voting systems have.
Are you unclear about what recognition other demcracies give to parties, how there is no prize for 2nd place in America, or why that lack of such a prize gives rise to a two-party system?
The elecrelically semi-literate side, obviously.
1: FPTP is a terrible term as its literally not an accurate way to describe a “single-vote plurality wins” systrm like most of the USA has. When you use the phrase to someone who doesn’t already agree that there are better ways its just inaccurate enough to sabatoge any point you might make.
2: the UK and other parliamentary systems have embedded rewards just for being “a party”. There are only two parties in the USA becaue parties on their own have institutional recognition, and in our politocal contests there is no prize for second place.
I mean, isn’t it a usb_c cable that the manufavtuer claims can handle 10 amps of current at once? (which i think may be on the low side)
It’s not a question of wanting competition or not. Political parties by nature will attempt to get as strong a coalition as they can, until they reach a size large enough that bisecting the party still leaves one half in power and some internal disagreememt triggers the split.
Fringe parties in America, like the Green and Libertarian parties, arent oppressed by some conspiracy between Rs and Ds. Rather, they are left at the fringe because they do not have any power worth pledging to, for the simple fact that in the american single-rep plurality-wins system tbere is no prize for second place.
Voters who like the current office holder work to keep them in power and those who do not work with the opposition to remove the incumbent from power. Anyone not joining one of these sides serves only as a tool for one side against the other, since anything but a vote for the runner up is an effective endorsrment of the eventual winner.
The American system is imperfect and could be a lot better, but fringe parties and vanity campaigns do nothing to actually encourage systemic change.
I think rhe voting age should be the lower of the minimum age to labor or the age of potential conscription less the age of the longest-term official whoss job includes sending people to war.
In the USA, that would put the voting age all the way down to 12. And having both been 12 myself once and having close family who were recently 12, I’m entirely OK with that.
Depending on your state that’s probably true… Unless, like Georgia (or maybe Texas soon) you have an even where a Red-controlled state goes Blue by a thin majority and the NPV keeps special attention away from them.
I can honestly see Texas republicans joining the NPV if they go POTUS-blue just once. Especially if there’s any downballot effect.