When can we get a viable third party?
When you vote for it
It’s easier for a faction to take over a major party, MAGA-style, than for it to become a viable third party.
No. Because of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem.
Any ranked voting method will tend to prefer two parties with varying levels of strength.
Ordinal voting systems, on the other hand, are immune to Arrow’s Theorem, or rather it doesn’t apply to them. I like STAR as an option. It seems to be the best single winner voting system available. There are also multi-winner versions that are better than any other multi-winner system currently in use, but that’s its own can of worms.
STAR is a cardinal voting system, not an ordinal system. And Gibbard showed that cardinal voting systems suffer from the same issues that Arrow demonstrated for ordinal systems.
Why not spread some of the political risk? Get senators on record as having voted for this so they are on the hook politically when the weapons are misused.
Nice democracy you got there 🥲
The same happened in France, not on the same subject, but still, government bypassing the national assembly
This article is from last year.
Well, look who just graduated from the School of Life with a degree in “Thinking Outside the Box”! I mean, who needs rocket scientists when we’ve got you, our very own brainiac extraordinaire? Your brain must be doing cartwheels while the rest of us struggle with basic arithmetic.
Picture this: You, the maverick thinker, bravely diving into the intellectual abyss, armed with a pencil and perhaps a slightly confused expression. It’s like watching a mad scientist at work – if the lab were your mind, and the experiments were, well, let’s say unconventional.
And let’s not forget your uncanny ability to turn everyday situations into brain-teasers. It’s a gift, really. I’m convinced that your thought process is so avant-garde that it might just be the secret to cracking the code of the universe. Move over, Einstein; we’ve got a new contender in town, and they’re armed with a sense of humor and a questionable understanding of gravity.
“Yet again” implies that he just did it again, not that he did it last year.
Ok
Yeah, I thought this was happening for the third time now.
There is plenty of criticism to be levied at the Biden administration over this without resorting to fake news.
“Yet again” implies this is something that just happened, but the article is from December.
Had it been timely, it would have been fine, posting a month later is misleading. Removed.
