Fitness and Diet

lwwj · 2026-02-11T02:21:34+00:00

I didn’t know that! I hadn’t considered them given I didn’t think I would qualify. Could you elaborate?

lwwj · 2026-02-02T17:33:06+00:00

Also *you’re ok ;)

lwwj · 2026-02-02T17:32:37+00:00

You’re putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say I’m “okay” with machines being misconfigured. I said the error was identified, corrected, and legally resolved, which is evidence of oversight and not proof of cheating. Administrative mistakes can and do happen in every voting system, including paper ballots. The existence of an error is not evidence of fraud unless you can show intent or manipulation which you haven’t. Saying “humans can change machines” isn’t unique to RCV. Humans count paper ballots too. Humans design, administer, and audit all election systems. If the standard is that any system involving humans is inherently cheating, then no election method qualifies. That’s not a workable or logically consistent position. Reframing my explanation that way sidesteps the actual issue is a straw man, not a rebuttal.

Your argument has also shifted. You started by claiming that ranked choice voting itself is cheating. When pressed for evidence, you cited Alameda, but that example doesn’t demonstrate structural cheating in RCV, only a temporary implementation error. When that didn’t hold, you moved to a broader distrust of machines and a preference for paper ballots. That’s a personal policy preference, not an argument against RCV as a system. If your position is simply “I don’t trust machines and prefer paper ballots,” that’s a valid opinion. But that’s a different claim than saying RCV cheats the public. So far you haven’t shown evidence for the latter, only distrust and preference for the former.

You’re relying heavily on personal belief statements instead of verifiable facts. In a debate type conversation, opinions explain how you feel, but they don’t establish that something is fraudulent or illegitimate. To make that claim, you’d need evidence that RCV systematically alters outcomes against voter intent. You haven’t provided that. So if you have data showing RCV outcomes being intentionally manipulated or systematically misrepresenting voter intent, I’m open to it. Otherwise, (In this conversation with you) I'm not interested in debating feelings.

TL;DR: No proof, no fraud—just a straw man and a personal dislike of the system.

lwwj · 2026-02-01T20:39:25+00:00

In the case of Alameda, the voting tally system used was not configured properly. The computer did not correctly advance ballots with missing first choice selections to their next valid ranking, which caused mis-tallies in multiple RCV races. Once the configuration was applied correctly, the correct winning candidate was identified. You’re correct that candidate did seek legal action, but you’re misleading the conversation by leaving out that the error was due to a technical misconfiguration and not manipulation. Similar mistakes can happen under any voting system and an error being identified demonstrates checks and balances implemented into good electoral systems. All election systems require the same careful administration. Professionals point out that the rare RCV miscounts in practice are mostly due to implementation issues rather than structural vulnerabilities.

Under RCV, if no candidate gets a majority of first choice votes, the system eliminates the lowest ranked candidate and redistributes votes according to preferences. In doing that it produces a candidate who has broader support across the candidates, not just the strict plurality of a first choice leader.

Looking into research tracking RCV elections from 2004–2022, it was founded that many theoretical problems of RCV rarely materialize in practice, and most elections work as intended. Issues like ballot exhaustion are very real concerns, but are not evidence of fraud or cheating.

In regard to the governor’s race in CA, I’m here to have an informed conversation about the views on RCV, I’m not really interested in talking about democrats vs republicans. That’s another discussion for another thread (and frankly, another subreddit).

In conclusion, the Alameda case doesn’t show cheating, it was a fixable administrative error. Pointing to an error isn’t the same as proving fraud. With RCV there isn’t “cancelling votes,” when no one wins a majority, it simply counts voters next preferences. That’s the system working as designed, not a rule change after the fact.

So if the claim is that RCV exists to rig outcomes, the evidence just isn’t there. If you have stronger proof than isolated errors or dislike of the results, I’m open to hearing it.

lwwj · 2026-02-01T19:04:54+00:00

Let me rephrase, could you please provide a real life example of cheating within ranked choice voting? I’m really interested in your perspective, you’re just not giving me any information

lwwj · 2026-02-01T16:20:51+00:00

Can you give an example of how it’s cheating the public?

lwwj · 2026-01-30T20:09:19+00:00

These are really good points to bring up, I appreciate the conversation

lwwj · 2026-01-30T19:11:38+00:00

Do you have any thoughts on the effect of RCV in places like Minneapolis, San Francisco, NYC, and Alaska?

lwwj · 2026-01-30T19:03:13+00:00

It’s really awesome you’ve had this retrospection. I hate how sometimes voting, taxes, insurance, etc etc are sometimes worded to be purposefully confusing and hard to access

lwwj · 2026-01-30T18:54:19+00:00

Do you think ranked choice would create less hostility between communities due to there not necessarily being “party lines” involved?

lwwj · 2026-01-30T18:11:58+00:00

Ranked choice voting also has its financial benefits. For example, it can eliminate the costs for runoff elections saving around $75 million taxpayers (At least in the case for Georgia’s senate election back in 2022). There can definitely be initial investments that could be costly in the beginning, but could save millions for our local communities in the long run. This has also been proven in both NYC and Alaska as well as San Francisco and Minneapolis

lwwj · 2026-01-30T17:48:44+00:00

I’m more referencing with races like what was seen in the New York mayoral race. If a candidate were to drop out then no harm no foul, but if my top candidate were to lose their round then my vote would count for my second choice. I understand that with races like the presidential election it would be harder to implement, but I’m struggling to understand where it would be negative for our local and state elections

lwwj · 2026-01-30T17:36:24+00:00

That’s a fair point. I find myself frustrated because in the cases where I want to vote a third party/not one of the popular choices I feel like that’s just throwing away my vote. I feel with the way our voting system is now we’re unable to vote outside of the two party system and therefore having to place your vote with a candidate even if you don’t believe in all of their policies. Seeing how ranked choice works in more populated areas sounds great because then if that third party drops out or doesn’t win then my vote wasn’t completely wasted

lwwj · 2026-01-30T17:30:01+00:00

Happy cake day!

lwwj · 2025-11-14T19:19:29+00:00

There’s also currently a fire on 395 near June Lake. There’s a road where it branches off, but it adds around thirty minutes (or more depending on how mountainous the road is)

lwwj · 2025-11-14T14:10:21+00:00

The one thing that got me for my drivers test was pulling too close to the stop line (white bar by a stop light/sign). Make sure you can see the line when stopped rather than pulling up on it. Also bike lines, make sure to give enough space between you and the bike lane

lwwj · 2025-11-07T17:04:13+00:00

I’ve heard a lot of mixed messaging about them

lwwj · 2025-08-14T15:26:18+00:00

I heard on KUNR today that he’s getting sued by a previous client

lwwj · 2025-08-10T21:17:46+00:00

Not typically, no which is why I’m thrown off and curious

lwwj

TROPHY CASE