Just checking: this awesome, upbeat, moral good guy Andrew Yang is the same one that told young Democrat voters to move to Georgia to skew the critical election there, right? The guy that wants election reform is the guy that told his followers to game elections. Same guy?
Just checking: this awesome, upbeat, moral good guy Andrew Yang is the same one that told young Democrat voters to move to Georgia to skew the critical election there, right? The guy that wants election reform is the guy that told his followers to game elections. Same guy?
I've heard them before. I'm very familiar with Yang, and worked on a podcast that had him as a guest in the studio when he was doing his presidential race. There was no new information there for anyone who's followed either of his campaigns.
My point is that the "points raised in the interview" are suspect if they come from someone who simultaneously promotes gaming election systems; it strongly suggests that the desired changes are simply ones that such a person believes will most benefit "their side."
But the points he raised about ranked voting and open primaries are ideas that have been suggested elsewhere. We have a 2 party system with a very large amount of the voters identify as independents. It's been well established that primary voters are more likely to be further to the left or right of the party as a whole.
Do you agree that we are getting too tribal and polarized? If you do, what would you like to see happen to encourage more compromise and consensus? What would you like to see happen to bring us together?
I don't think ranked voting is necessarily better at all; it is by no means a fait accompli that every one of these ideas is going to lead to "better" or "fairer" elections.
I worked for the board of elections in my state in an area where ranked choice was recently introduced and the overwhelming majority of voters in our polling place didn't understand it at all, or didn't like it when it was explained to them.
I care about fraud. I'm not particularly interested in changing the way we decide offices; simply that the rules that exist are followed.
I'm sorry, but I don't feel like answering the barrage of questions about tribalism and compromise and bringing us together. I'm bored sick talking about these things to no end. I don't think making up new voting methods is going to solve any of the things you describe.
It's not my responsibility to have airtight answers or solutions to your questions for my position to be valid that someone proposing gaming elections is not a pure heart and that his motives for "election reform" should rightly be suspect.
I find it interesting that both of your responses to my comment were changes of subject rather than responses to my original point.
See above comment from me, if You dare. Bring us together? Lotta room to work there. Andrew Yang DESERVES ZERO, zip, zilch, nada part in ANY-a that.
If interested, I'll give longer comment. Easier for You to just understand what I've written. I'll just add this: What has this guy got going for him other than being so EGOTISTICAL to think he HAS ANY talent to govern? He's fabulously rich and says himself in his first book that he's a jet-set going between NYC and Silicon Valley.
Me? That goes AGAINST him, not FOR him. FABULOUS wealth. You see, for me, that eliminates him right outta the starting gates. Man of the people. Good JOKE, right?
Just checking: this awesome, upbeat, moral good guy Andrew Yang is the same one that told young Democrat voters to move to Georgia to skew the critical election there, right? The guy that wants election reform is the guy that told his followers to game elections. Same guy?
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/11/10/andrew-yang-encourages-dems-to-exploit-georgias-weak-residency-rules-to-swing-the-senate-runoff-to-jon-ossoff/
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-biden-election-day-2020/card/csOMnlXFihSgJ256gUwI
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
But what do you think about the points that were raised in the interview as was posted?
I've heard them before. I'm very familiar with Yang, and worked on a podcast that had him as a guest in the studio when he was doing his presidential race. There was no new information there for anyone who's followed either of his campaigns.
My point is that the "points raised in the interview" are suspect if they come from someone who simultaneously promotes gaming election systems; it strongly suggests that the desired changes are simply ones that such a person believes will most benefit "their side."
But the points he raised about ranked voting and open primaries are ideas that have been suggested elsewhere. We have a 2 party system with a very large amount of the voters identify as independents. It's been well established that primary voters are more likely to be further to the left or right of the party as a whole.
Do you agree that we are getting too tribal and polarized? If you do, what would you like to see happen to encourage more compromise and consensus? What would you like to see happen to bring us together?
I don't think ranked voting is necessarily better at all; it is by no means a fait accompli that every one of these ideas is going to lead to "better" or "fairer" elections.
I worked for the board of elections in my state in an area where ranked choice was recently introduced and the overwhelming majority of voters in our polling place didn't understand it at all, or didn't like it when it was explained to them.
I care about fraud. I'm not particularly interested in changing the way we decide offices; simply that the rules that exist are followed.
I'm sorry, but I don't feel like answering the barrage of questions about tribalism and compromise and bringing us together. I'm bored sick talking about these things to no end. I don't think making up new voting methods is going to solve any of the things you describe.
It's not my responsibility to have airtight answers or solutions to your questions for my position to be valid that someone proposing gaming elections is not a pure heart and that his motives for "election reform" should rightly be suspect.
I find it interesting that both of your responses to my comment were changes of subject rather than responses to my original point.
Ranked choice voting sure produced a better result in the VA primary. Youngkin won VA. Trump in heels definitely wouldn't have
Your point that Andrew Yang isn't pure of heart and not to be trusted is a dead end discussion. This is how you feel.
I'm more curious in the merits of ranked voting, open primaries and political polarization. That is why I changed the subject.
I take it you don't feel political polarization or tribalism is a problem. All right.
See above comment from me, if You dare. Bring us together? Lotta room to work there. Andrew Yang DESERVES ZERO, zip, zilch, nada part in ANY-a that.
If interested, I'll give longer comment. Easier for You to just understand what I've written. I'll just add this: What has this guy got going for him other than being so EGOTISTICAL to think he HAS ANY talent to govern? He's fabulously rich and says himself in his first book that he's a jet-set going between NYC and Silicon Valley.
Me? That goes AGAINST him, not FOR him. FABULOUS wealth. You see, for me, that eliminates him right outta the starting gates. Man of the people. Good JOKE, right?
>> I take it you don't feel political polarization or tribalism is a problem. All right.
Straw man. Nice.
Go away.
Excellent point