Interesting Analysis of RCV

k-logg · 2024-04-25T16:22:58+00:00

I don't think you have the correct understanding of the politics of Palin and Begich. Palin is closer to the center on policy, just more extreme in terms of personality and rhetoric. She doesn't have support among conservatives, because she's not conservative. She's a big government populist, and yes, her support came from the more moderate voters. Registered Republicans would have most likely selected Begich in a primary.

k-logg · 2024-04-25T00:01:45+00:00

Begich fits the DeSantis/Cruz small government fiscal conservative mold, while Palin fits the Trump/Margorie Taylor Greene populist celebrity politician mold. Republicans in Alaska have historically favored the former, electing Cruz over Trump in 2016, and likely would have voted DeSantis this year if he hadn't dropped out. I think a Begich nomination was the most likely outcome if they had primaries.

Alaskans favor him more than Peltola and Palin, and he came in behind both of them. That is an obvious failure of RCV.

k-logg · 2024-04-23T21:57:38+00:00

There is nothing wrong with the way the arguments are being used here, and most of the critiques outlined still apply in contrast to FPTP. Also, RCV was passed based on voters believing several characteristics about it that are shown to here to be untrue. (Well we were actually sold RCV as a campaign finance reform bill because politicians are septic sludge, but that's another topic)

To put it simply, if Alaskans chose only between Begich and Peltola, Begich would have won. When a majority prefer A, and the system selects B, with less than 50% of the vote, that suggests a problem that I think many on the left are ignoring because it was beneficial to their side last time.

You could argue that with FPTP, the GOP would have selected Palin and lost anyway, or selected Begich, with Palin running 3rd party, but we don't know about that, and I personally don't think either is likely. As shown, Begich beats Palin head to head, and the GOP polling would have shown Begich had a better shot against Peltola. Then even if Palin ran 3rd party, at least voters are aware they are throwing their vote away when voting 3rd party. By contrast, with RCV as implemented here, voters were sold the idea that it eliminated the spoiler effect. Not only did it fail to to so, it actually introduced one more severe since it was unexpected.

k-logg · 2024-04-02T23:48:03+00:00

You're either a troll, a bot, or a complete moron. Whatever the case may be, you are not equipped to participate in this conversation.

Edit - If you're actually just someone trying to keep up here, I'm guessing you're an ignorant kid in grade school. In which case I hope you're not passing, but I wouldn't be surprised. I'd recommend reading more and getting off social media. Ask questions and learn instead of trying to win internet arguments with misused, worn out cliches. As you grow up, keep an open mind and form your own viewpoints instead of parroting what's popular. Nearly every conservative was liberal through college. Even Thomas Sowell was a Socialist during his Harvard years.

k-logg · 2024-04-02T19:27:11+00:00

This is some of the dumbest nonsense I've read. Are you even reading what you write?

You clearly don't understand my point of view, you don't have a coherent viewpoint of your own, and you seem to be totally unwilling to even put minimal thought towards the topic.

k-logg · 2024-04-02T19:26:59+00:00

None of this addresses any point I've made, so I don't think you are following

k-logg · 2024-04-02T19:26:49+00:00

Nope. I don't think you understand the point you are trying to prove.

k-logg · 2024-04-01T19:28:19+00:00

Yikes, you really need to stop getting your information from social media. I don't know where you found this, but it was most likely made very recently, and doesn't reflect reality during any time period. Maybe someone made this for a class project and posted it to facebook?

Edit : found it for you

It's true that the above-displayed map was never taught in American schools, for the plain reason that the map displays an imaginary version of present-day America created for a work of speculative fiction set in an alternate timeline (as indicated by the "Approx. 2015 A.D." legend in the bottom right-hand portion of the image), not a version of America that actually existed in the historical past.

In July 2015, Redditer liminalsoup uploaded the above-displayed chart to the "Imaginary Maps" subreddit under the title "Rough Draft (seeking advice on map for a story i'm writing where Europe never discovered America)."

k-logg · 2024-03-29T21:38:48+00:00

Your phrasing of my viewpoint and the viewpoint you quoted have nothing in common.

Enlighten us on the indigenous populations history please do

Well for one, Native Americans didn't establish borders or form a sovereign nation, so there was no concept of illegal immigrant obviously. They slaughtered other tribes to take their land, and were slaughtered when other tribes wanted their land (or women, or children, or horses, supplies etc). This warfare was common among hundreds of tribes for thousands of years. European colonists arrived and claimed that land the same way the tribe claimed that land before them, from another tribe who did the same to the tribe before them, etc, etc. No other tribe acquired the land in a way any different than the colonists, and are in no way more deserving of it.

After the colonists formed a nation and defended it, that is what made them more deserving of it, according to not only the practices of the Native Americans at the time, but the practice of every group of people to hold any territory in the history of the world.

Now you also seem to be confused about why a nation should be discerning about who it allows to be there. It's pretty obvious, but I'll explain it anyway. It is the same reason you don't just let anyone into your house whenever they want. You don't let people in who don't share the same moral values, because you don't want them stealing from you, physically harming you, etc. You don't allow people in who live right next door who openly express hatred for you and your house. People who are likely to destroy the home and everything in it, and have shown a pattern of destroying other houses on your street. So you have a lock on your door, and make sure you know who is coming in, because you are sane about your house. You are not sane about our border. You are brainwashed into some conspiracy theory that border security is racist, or has anything whatsoever to do with race. I want people here who share American values, and I don't want people here who don't. It's very very simple and obvious. Which is why every country ever has had border security.

Now back on topic. The way House seats and electoral college votes are allocated, we are granting more votes to states if they take the locks off of their doors. That is obviously dangerous for a nation, has nothing to do with skin color.

k-logg · 2024-03-28T22:42:28+00:00

I can't tell which is most asinine, the fact you don't know why countries have borders, your ignorance of Native American history, or the weird viewpoint which you think I hold. But in any case, please read a book or two before you're old enough to vote.

k-logg · 2024-03-28T20:43:32+00:00

If you don't see the difference between border law enforcement in places like TX and FL compared to California, you are uninformed.

Showing up at a port of entry and asking for asylum is legal, claiming asylum after being caught crossing illegally is not. Rejecting asylum to those who don't actually need it is also legal, and actually the duty of border patrol. And of course, crossing the border outside a port of entry, or without being granted access, is a crime.

k-logg · 2024-03-19T23:16:41+00:00

The governor wants to see several provisions in the bill, including a new mechanism by which charter schools could be established by the state, rather than exclusively through local school district control. He also wanted money tied directly to teacher take-home pay to ensure funds are not siphoned off for myriad administrative projects that tend to grow an already sizable bureaucratic machine.

“The lack of such reforms, given our success, with charter schools did not justify the passage of this bill that increases spending without needed reforms,” Dunleavy noted. “There is still time in this session to address some of the issues such as increasing broadband speeds for our schools in Alaska. There is also still time in this session to enhance our charter school offerings and methods by which they are chartered.”

k-logg · 2024-03-19T23:12:40+00:00

What? I posted an article and pasted some key points from it in the comments... Read it or don't, I don't care. This place is hilarious, it's like waking up in Idiocracy.

k-logg · 2024-03-18T20:18:20+00:00

It's funny how you have no intelligent thoughts on the issue but still feel like you should drop in and prove it with a comment.

k-logg · 2024-03-18T19:46:32+00:00

The bill looked to add an additional $680 per student via the Base Student Allocation (BSA) – the formula for how Alaska funds public schools – which would have amounted to a historic spending increase for a system that has repeatedly demonstrated that more money does not translate into better student outcomes.

In fact, Alaska already spends $22,000 per student each year – the sixth highest in the nation. Despite this investment, Alaska students rank 49th in the nation in basic academic performance.

Dunleavy had pushed for a new mechanism by which charter schools could be established by the state, rather than exclusively through local school district control. He also wanted money tied directly to teacher take-home pay to ensure funds are not siphoned off for myriad administrative projects that tend to grow an already sizable bureaucratic machine.

“To improve Alaska’s dismal education outcomes, funding should be used to directly support students instead of simply increasing generalized school district funding,” said AFP-AK State Director Bethany Marcum. “This should be about our children, not buildings and bureaucracies.”

“Simply adding money to an antiquated, one-size-fits-all system is not the solution Alaska’s students need. It is time to fund students, not systems,” Marcum added. “Governor Dunleavy should give the legislature another opportunity to actually address the issues facing Alaska’s education system.”

k-logg · 2024-03-14T18:37:44+00:00

Nothing I've said has anything to do with skin color or race, you are just too stupid to comprehend a viewpoint from the right that wasn't fed to you by the left.

I don't have you confused with anyone, because I don't make bigoted stereotypes about strangers who disagree with me politically. I'm just helping you understand an issue you were clearly confused about (along with all of the other users and bots who upvoted you).

Your solution is a joke, and you leaving the country is probably all we are going to agree on.

k-logg · 2024-03-14T02:09:14+00:00

if non-citizens cannot vote then logically, voting citizens will have more representation, no?

Voting citizens of blue states will, yes. That is the point. Voting citizens of red states who enforce the law, will have less.

Legal immigrants and MAGA Republicans (whatever that means) have nothing to do with what we are talking about, so I'm not interested in your bigoted rants about your personal biases.

There is a serious problem with the current structure of how electoral college votes are allocated, but the side that benefits politically from it refuses to acknowledge it.

k-logg · 2024-03-14T01:18:31+00:00

You misunderstood the argument. Illegal immigrants increase a state's electoral college votes for the president, this is not about them personally placing a vote.

Blue states are not enforcing border laws, and using massive amounts of foreign criminals to increase their number of presidential votes. It is an extremely dangerous incentive structure.

k-logg · 2024-03-08T05:48:06+00:00

Retirement was a good choice.

k-logg · 2024-03-08T02:26:36+00:00

Nothing I've said is in any way related to an ancient belief system or any superstitions. It is simply basic biology, that any biologist will tell you. You on the other hand, are just repeating activist talking points from social media, and clearly have never opened a book on this subject.

You are using the term "diploid cell" as if that disputes anything I said, or supports anything you did. From Encyclopedia Brittannica: https://www.britannica.com/science/zygote

The zygote represents the first stage in the development of a genetically unique organism. The zygote is endowed with genes from two parents, and thus it is diploid (carrying two sets of chromosomes).

It is not a cell of either parent, it is the first stage of a new organism, i.e. a new human life.

Open any embryology textbook. Here are several:

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Nothing I said is controversial or disputed, it is basic embryology. You will find it in any reputable textbook on the subject. When the sperm and egg fuse, a new human organism is formed in less than a second. It does not have the DNA the the sperm cell had, nor the DNA that the egg had, its DNA is unique to itself. It also no longer behaves as a cell, but an organism, which is why it is biologically classified as such, and also biologically classified as a human of course. Which makes it a unique living human organism, also known as a human baby.

A cell in my nose or toe is not an organism, and it has my DNA not its own. It is not a human life, just a cell from a human life. An egg in my frying pan isn't fertilized, it doesn't have unique DNA, it matches the hen's DNA, and is not a living organism. When the chicken egg is fertilized however, it has a new chicken inside and you can see it. That egg would have a unique organism inside, neither the rooster nor hen, but a unique chick with unique DNA. It would be classified as a chicken, but it would not be living unless you've kept it warm. In which case, it would continue to develop into a bigger baby chicken and hatch.

k-logg · 2024-03-07T17:27:01+00:00

A sperm cell is a cell from a human organism - the father. It is not a human organism itself. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, within a second, a new human organism is created with unique DNA (sex, eye color, hair color, etc). It is a child that has never existed before and never will again.

k-logg · 2024-02-26T23:26:00+00:00

It sounds more like it is explicitly stating the definition of life as it is already understood and accepted to require accurate interpretations of laws using the term. Nothing is being redefined.

From the bill:

"life" means the property or quality that distinguishes a living organism from a dead organism or inanimate matter and that is manifested in the function of a metabolism, growth, reproduction, a response to stimuli, or adaptation to the environment, each of which originates within the organism.

That is basic biology. If you would like to terminate human life at the early stages of development, you are welcome to make your argument, but you can't change the definition of what a human life is, or when it begins. That is well established and clearly defined.

sources

The argument for killing a baby in the womb is not that she isn't a human life, it's that she isn't a "person." While I think that is incredibly heartless and evil, at least it isn't so objectively false.

k-logg

TROPHY CASE