For stuff about the 2024 election
Cross posting from the Sports section: 49ers WR Ricky Pearsall shot during robbery attempt:
San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Ricky Pearsall was shot in an attempted robbery in San Francisco on Saturday afternoon, police say.A male suspect around 3:30 p.m. attempted to rob Pearsall when an altercation broke out between the two, resulting in both men suffering injuries, according to a news release from the San Francisco Police Department.
The suspect is in police custody as of Saturday evening, according to the department.
Officers rendered aid to the two men and transported them to a hospital for treatment, the release said.
“My thoughts are with Ricky and his family at this time,” San Francisco Mayor London Breed said in a post on X, “We will provide more updates, including on his condition, as I receive them.”
CNN has reached out to the 49ers for comment.
The rookie wide receiver was drafted by the 49ers with the 31st pick in the first round of the 2024 NFL Draft earlier this year. Before being drafted, the 23-year-old played three years at Arizona State and two at Florida during his collegiate career. He finished his last collegiate season, amassing 965 receiving yards and six touchdowns in his final season with Florida.
The 49ers are set to play their first game of the season against the New York Jets on September 9.
Considering how the perception of high crime in major cities is a major Republican talking point and also considering that VP Harris was once San Francisco's DA, this is going to get a lot of play in the media this week.
3:37 PM. Insane.
Apparently the new thing is that conservatives have discovered that Tim Walz’ brother is a big MAGA conspiracy guy who hates Walz for his political career and has been estranged from the rest of the family since 2016...
Wait a minute, Tim Walz and RFK Jr. are brothers?
Yep leave him on there and let the conspiracy nuts vote for him instead of Trump. Serves them all right
How amazing it would be if RFK Jr is the reason America finally pushes for ranked choice voting.
No matter what the actual numbers are, you can bet money that if Trump loses, he will use RFK Jr being on ballots to proclaim the election as illegitimate.
All someone needs to do is whisper in his ear that all those RFK Jr votes would have been his under ranked choice, because those RFK voters obviously support Trump and would have put him as their next pick.
It would be so poetic if that ends up one of the topics of his post-election rants, and red states that have been establishing "bans" of ranked choice voting suddenly need to pivot and be at war with Eastasia.
ruhk wrote:Apparently the new thing is that conservatives have discovered that Tim Walz’ brother is a big MAGA conspiracy guy who hates Walz for his political career and has been estranged from the rest of the family since 2016...
Wait a minute, Tim Walz and RFK Jr. are brothers?
I give it two days before MAGA Walz joins Junior and Gabbard on the Trump "transition" team.
How amazing it would be if RFK Jr is the reason America finally pushes for ranked choice voting.
Check this out, posted a few days ago by Veritasium. I learned a thing or three:
Would be lovely if Bobby ends up delivering NC to Democrats.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is suing the North Carolina State Board of Elections in a last-ditch attempt to get his name removed the state’s ballot ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
The lawsuit filed in Wake County Superior Court Friday says the board’s denial of his request to remove his name as a third-party presidential candidate violated state election law and his right to free speech, according to The News & Observer and WRAL.
“With November election looming and ballot deadlines fast-approaching, Kennedy has no choice but to turn to this Court for immediate relief,” the lawsuit states.
Since he suspended his campaign and endorsed former President Donald Trump in August, Kennedy has sought to withdraw his name in states where the race could be close, such as North Carolina.
At the same time, Kennedy made an effort to remain on the ballot in states like New York where his presence is unlikely to make a difference in the battle between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.
Kind of gives up the game on what the whole point of his candidacy was.
Fixed it for you
No matter what the actual numbers are, you can bet money that if Trump loses, he will use [insert any reason here, any reason at all]
*Legion* wrote:How amazing it would be if RFK Jr is the reason America finally pushes for ranked choice voting.
Check this out, posted a few days ago by Veritasium. I learned a thing or three:
I took a look at the title and said, "Huh, I wonder if this is talking about Arrow's Impossibility Theorem?"
And sure enough.
For those who don't want to watch the video (edit: and I do recommend watching the video, it's very good) but want to know what it's talking about, here's the intro text from Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
Arrow's impossibility theorem is a key result in social choice, discovered by Kenneth Arrow, showing that no ranked voting rule can behave rationally. Specifically, any such rule violates independence of irrelevant alternatives, the idea that a choice between A and B should not depend on the quality of a third, unrelated option C. The result is most often cited in election science and voting theory, where C is called a spoiler candidate. In this context, Arrow's theorem can be restated as showing that no ranked voting rule can eliminate the spoiler effect.
(Note that this does not mean that ranked choice is not a better alternative - it just means that, no matter what type of ranked choice voting you use, there is always the outside chance of some kind of weird shenanigans happening.)
Randos in the Legislature. I think I'd be okay with it.
BadKen wrote:*Legion* wrote:How amazing it would be if RFK Jr is the reason America finally pushes for ranked choice voting.
Check this out, posted a few days ago by Veritasium. I learned a thing or three:
I took a look at the title and said, "Huh, I wonder if this is talking about Arrow's Impossibility Theorem?"
And sure enough.
For those who don't want to watch the video (edit: and I do recommend watching the video, it's very good) but want to know what it's talking about, here's the intro text from Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
Wikipedia wrote:Arrow's impossibility theorem is a key result in social choice, discovered by Kenneth Arrow, showing that no ranked voting rule can behave rationally. Specifically, any such rule violates independence of irrelevant alternatives, the idea that a choice between A and B should not depend on the quality of a third, unrelated option C. The result is most often cited in election science and voting theory, where C is called a spoiler candidate. In this context, Arrow's theorem can be restated as showing that no ranked voting rule can eliminate the spoiler effect.
(Note that this does not mean that ranked choice is not a better alternative - it just means that, no matter what type of ranked choice voting you use, there is always the outside chance of some kind of weird shenanigans happening.)
That seems to be a poor argument against Ranked Choice Voting, as it only seems to apply when all the candidates finish a round with an exactly equal amount of votes. While it's technically correct that RCV doesn't completely eliminate the spoiler effect in this case, the chances of it actually happening are incredibly small.
Like, nonexistent with modern elections.
Voting by The Night's Watch at The Wall? Sure. But with a congressional district? Senate seat? Mayor? Gimme a break, math nerds.
What follows is my opinion:
Our republic is doomed. The fact that the election is a horse race at all kind of proves that to be the case. Nothing that ensures a healthy democracy is present. Citizenry, press, elections, all have been compromised. The "Supreme" court will steal the election if it's close, and it will be.
I hope I'm wrong.
That seems to be a poor argument against Ranked Choice Voting, as it only seems to apply when all the candidates finish a round with an exactly equal amount of votes. While it's technically correct that RCV doesn't completely eliminate the spoiler effect in this case, the chances of it actually happening are incredibly small.
I'm no expert, and definitely not a mathematician, but a spoiler candidate doesn't necessarily rely on other candidates tying. Veritasium shows a couple of different ways that a spoiler can result in unexpected results. Depending on the type of ranked choice voting, it's even possible that the lowest number of votes can result in an advantage. This is shown to be the case (at 6:55) where he shows that with one candidate getting 25%, another getting 30% and another getting 45% of the vote, the person who got 25% of the votes might win based on distribution of the second-choice votes. Various tweaks to the formula can avoid certain problems, but none is perfect.
And you're right, this is not really an argument against ranked choice voting. But it shows things that voters should be aware of. Even though ranked choice is generally superior to first-past-the-post, it is still not a perfect system. Even Arrow, who won the Nobel for his theory describing potential problems, eventually came around from distrusting ranked choice to conceding that depending on how it is done, it can be significantly better than other methods. "Approval voting," described near the end of the video, seems to be one of the better options, and several organizations, including the UN General Assembly, use approval voting for ranked choice.
Stengah wrote:That seems to be a poor argument against Ranked Choice Voting, as it only seems to apply when all the candidates finish a round with an exactly equal amount of votes. While it's technically correct that RCV doesn't completely eliminate the spoiler effect in this case, the chances of it actually happening are incredibly small.
I'm no expert, and definitely not a mathematician, but a spoiler candidate doesn't necessarily rely on other candidates tying. Veritasium shows a couple of different ways that a spoiler can result in unexpected results. Depending on the type of ranked choice voting, it's even possible that the lowest number of votes can result in an advantage. This is shown to be the case (at 6:55) where he shows that with one candidate getting 25%, another getting 30% and another getting 45% of the vote, the person who got 25% of the votes might win based on distribution of the second-choice votes. Various tweaks to the formula can avoid certain problems, but none is perfect.
That's not possible with Ranked Choice Voting though. The candidate with the least votes is eliminated if no one has >50% of the votes in the first round. If A had 25%, B had 30%, and C had 45%, then A is eliminated and anyone who put A as their first choice has their vote redistributed to their second choice (B or C, or removed entirely if they chose not to rank anyone else). Anyone who put B or C as their first choice has their vote remain the same, and the redistribution of A voters gives either B or C a >50% majority of the votes, though a tie is possible, at which point they'd go to whatever rules they have for ties.
I'm no expert, and definitely not a mathematician, but a spoiler candidate doesn't necessarily rely on other candidates tying.
It's okay, because I am a mathematician (at least by degree), and you're quite correct.
That's not possible with Ranked Choice Voting though. The candidate with the least votes is eliminated if no one has >50% of the votes in the first round.
For Instant Runoff, you are correct, although I will point out there are other kinds of Ranked Choice Voting.
Let me explain the actual example from the video, for those who didn't or can't watch it: Voters for A and B all put C as their second choice. Voters for C split A and B equally.
If A gets 25%, C gets 30%, and B gets 45%, then A drops out, all of A's voters give their votes to C, and thus C wins 55%-45%.
But let's say some of B's voters switch to being A voters instead, bringing the numbers to 31% for A, 30% for C, and 39% for B. Now it's C who gets eliminated, and C's voters split the difference, giving B a win 54%-46%.
This is extremely counterintuitive to your average layperson - Candidate B's voters switching away from him actually causes him to win the election!
That's a far better problem to have than the ones we have currently though, and the winner still wins with an actual majority. Even if you don't like the result, then loss is easier to accept. When the winner doesn't clear 50%, it's hard to say their win was legitimate given that more people voted for someone other than them.
Even if you don't like the result, then loss is easier to accept.
Yes definitely, and for me, that’s one of the most important conclusions of the video. Where ranked choice has been adopted, there is much less rancor among candidates. They all want to appeal in some way to get those all important 2nd and 3rd choice voters.
And because most of the candidates are behaving themselves, voters are happier too, and less likely to tune out or not vote at all.
That's a far better problem to have than the ones we have currently though.
Oh, definitely. First-past-the-post is objectively terrible. But other systems do have flaws, too, and it's important to understand their drawbacks and accept them so that the perfect doesn't become the enemy of the good, or however that saying goes.
Stengah wrote:That's a far better problem to have than the ones we have currently though.
Oh, definitely. First-past-the-post is objectively terrible. But other systems do have flaws, too, and it's important to understand their drawbacks and accept them so that the perfect doesn't become the enemy of the good, or however that saying goes.
I prefer Paelo's "libertarian perspective" quote applied to ranked choice: "Sure it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"
Keldar wrote:Stengah wrote:That's a far better problem to have than the ones we have currently though.
Oh, definitely. First-past-the-post is objectively terrible. But other systems do have flaws, too, and it's important to understand their drawbacks and accept them so that the perfect doesn't become the enemy of the good, or however that saying goes.
I prefer Paelo's "libertarian perspective" quote applied to ranked choice: "Sure it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"
The absolute reluctance to try a different process because it might not be perfect is baffling to me. It’s like moving to self-driving cars; even if some people die in self-driving vehicles, it’ll be way fewer than with people-driven vehicles. First-past-the-post demonstrably sucks. Other flavors of voting patterns may have possible issues, but they would be demonstrably better.
I much prefer a system where orders of magnitudes more people have to agree to collude and intentionally spoil an election vs. the system where a single rich asshole can do it.
Stengah wrote:Even if you don't like the result, then loss is easier to accept.
Yes definitely, and for me, that’s one of the most important conclusions of the video. Where ranked choice has been adopted, there is much less rancor among candidates. They all want to appeal in some way to get those all important 2nd and 3rd choice voters.
And because most of the candidates are behaving themselves, voters are happier too, and less likely to tune out or not vote at all.
The biggest thing would be getting the ranked vote from concept to actually being implemented. How do we get people behind a thing in such numbers to where the people who actually run the country will have to concede?
It's depressing.
Yeah, if there’s even a whiff that Democrats support it or that it would benefit a Democratic candidate more than a Republican, Fox News and the other conservative media sources will go full court press against it and you know what the end result of that is.
So convince Republicans it's the best way forward. In a couple of decades they might leap at anything that helped them cling to a crumb of power.
The absolute reluctance to try a different process because it might not be perfect is baffling to me. It’s like moving to self-driving cars; even if some people die in self-driving vehicles, it’ll be way fewer than with people-driven vehicles. First-past-the-post demonstrably sucks. Other flavors of voting patterns may have possible issues, but they would be demonstrably better.
Both Republicans and Democrats have spent a long time developing and reinforcing the current system that strongly discourages having more than two parties. It generally takes a particularly egregious failure of FPTP at the state level to shock enough of one side or the other out of their complacency and get on board with RCV for it to actually have a chance. Republicans even at the state level are completely under MAGA's sway, so the only chance now is to try to convince Democrats to support it.
The RCV movement in Maine didn't really get any steam until after Paul LePage won the 2010 gubernatorial election with only 37.6% of the vote, and the Democrats found themselves as the spoiler candidate with only 18.8% of the vote. There had been attempts to get RCV in Maine before then, but they never went anywhere. It took a few years for enough Democrats to come around, but it was easy to show how RCV would have prevented LePage's win. In 2014, a citizens initiative was able to get enough signatures to get a question implementing RCV on the 2016 ballot, and "yes" won that with 52%. Republicans, who benefit the most in the state from the ability to use third party candidates as spoilers, have fought it every step of the way, and we still don't have it fully implemented (to use it in gubernatorial and state house/senate elections would require an amendment to the state constitution), but it's already had a major victory by helping Democrats win a seat in a federal election despite there being "spoiler" candidates.
While only two states have RCV for federal elections, many more have them for local elections. Getting people used to them has to be a grassroots effort.
States with RCV for at least some local elections:
California
Colorado
Delaware
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Guess which state has a total ban on them? Florida of course.
RCV?
RCV?
Ranked Choice Voting
Pages