World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Tell your politicians to support RCV legislation:
Fair Representation Act https://p2a.co/ZraNU5n
Voter Choice Act https://p2a.co/9OZd4JL
Please do not respond to multiple comments with the same post. That is essentially spamming, no matter how well-intentioned you are.
U got it
Why should we believe that a more equitable voting system would solve this issue? Or any similar issues?
To be sure, ranked choice voting would result in some improvements to the United States, and should be supported on that basis. But it would do nothing to modify the current structure wherein oligarchs rule the United States with impunity. It's just that this would empower the neoliberal Democratic oligarchs rather than the fascist Republican oligarchs. Which is harm reduction and is therefore preferable, but is not a meaningful solution - especially to something as entrenched as Zionism
We would have to dismantle capitalism entirely and a huge cultural shift to fix that. Huge spending caps on campaigns would be a good start.
RCV allows people to vote for candidates of a third party without wasting a vote like they would now. The problem is that much of society is brainwashed with red vs. blue politics and it would take a long time for everybody to get on the same page about a third party candidate.
I agree.
And, again, RCV and campaign finance reform would certainly be an improvement.
But the root issue would remain untouched. And eventually, the ruling class would find ways to grossly manipulate that system to their own ends as well - or would gradually chip away at it through the judiciary that they control
These proposals should be adopted nevertheless. But we should be clear-eyed about what they will and will not accomplish
Because the electoral and voting systems in the US are, respectively, intentionally undemocratic and extremely inconsistent depending on the state.
RCV for national elections would materially address the former, and enforcing RCV as the system to use for all elections at all levels would materially address the latter.
I am not claiming RCV (or any other similar/related system) would be a panacea, but it would be a damn sight better than the intentionally flawed shitshow we have to use now.
STAR voting is so much better than RCV. RCV is only marginally better than first past the post.
is it just RCV with 5 rankings, or you rank every candidate?
You can rank every candidate, so you can give multiple people 5’s. If you can’t decide between them. In RCV, if 51% vote #1 for candidate A, 49% vote #1 for candidate B, but 100% vote #2 for candidate C, the winner is still candidate A even though everyone voted for C. Everyone would’ve been a little satisfied. In STAR, if everyone put 4’s for C, they would win.
Most people would still give A and B 5’s or 4’s, so C still loses even if they get all 4’s, no?
You total all of the points. So say 100 people with the 51/49 doing A/B at 5, and all 100 do C at 4. A would have 255 points, B would have 245 points, and C would have 400. C wins by a landslide.
Ah right assuming A and B are opposing candidates. Kind of a way to eliminate the most popular opposing candidates in a runoff assuming there is a middle of the road candidate that everybody likes.
In RCV this might be translated differently tho. Maybe 26% vote C #1, 49% A #1, 25% B #1 with C #2, then in runoff, C would win.
I don’t see everybody liking the same candidate for #2.
It’s more of an example how a more popular candidate can lose because RCV still depends on first past the post and isn’t that much better. It’s not translated by points. Everyone gets #1 first. If anyone has 51%, they win and we’re done. If no one has 51%, then we eliminate the least popular candidate, transferring the votes. This continues until one is at 51%. RCV is a bandaid.
Check out this CGP Grey video about RCV: https://youtu.be/3Y3jE3B8HsE
Is anybody using Star voting now? I just feel like it can be gamed. If you want your major candidate to win, you wouldn’t rank anybody else highly.
Thanks for the video. I totally agree that there are other voting systems like approval voting that may be better, but lots of traction with RCV already. Can be a stepping stone to other voting systems. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. Gotta take baby steps.