I don’t think people here realize that not holding on to is different from no longer processing the data for their own means… There’s no doubt in my mind that Google just simply has no need to keep the old data around anymore once other processing like for ML models and ad targeting are completed

Despite this person in the photo saying a vote for Democrats is a vote for democracy the Democrats have zero interest in changing the current situation.

They have a good thing going for them.

When their opponent is literally fascism they don’t have to deliver anything to the people and can shame voters for being sick of it all and going third party

It is an abusive relationship

The US will do everything in its power to dismantle socialism and convince people that it “doesn’t work” (just ignore how much work they put in to dismantle it)

At least you’re honest about your ignorance

We all just say “capitalism” and end the thread right?

Most redditors will say that democrats are better than republicans, but that does not make someone a leftist. Democrats in America are center right at best and ripe with a ton of corruption of their own. Noticing that both parties are evil and we need economic reform beyond what either of them offer is the entrypoint to crossing the centerline

RCV will do nothing to break the duopoly in America. RCV will basically allow you to vote for the Democrats or Republicans without bubbling their name on your ballot.

Contrary to what is stated, RCV falls apart as soon as more than 2 parties become viable. It suffers from the spoiler effect.

RCV, like plurality voting, only reflects your preference for one candidate at a time. In fact, it’s relatively accurate to say that RCV is just plurality with (literally) extra steps (rounds).

One of the better ballot changes we can make is to move to something like STAR voting, which can capture the nuance of magnitude of preference for ALL candidates at once.

However, changing voting method alone is not enough. Proportional representation and expanding the number of elected officials are two powerful ways to introduce new ideas and break up power structures.

And, of course, campaign finance reform such as democracy vouchers

No, it’s not.

Given ballot options of Socialists, Democrats, and Republicans, I’d rank them 1, 2, and 3, respectively. However, when expressing my feelings about the election: I love the Socialists, dislike the Republicans, and prefer the Democrats slightly over the Republicans.

This nuanced opinion isn’t captured on a ranked ballot.

With a score ballot, like STAR voting, I’d give the Socialists 5 stars, the Democrats 1 star, and the Republicans 0 stars. This method not only captures my preferences but also the depth of my feelings for each party. This is then reflected in both the final score and the automatic runoff step of tabulation.

I prefer score ballots over ranked ballots, expressing magnitude of preference is important!

Ranked choice specifically is one of the worst ranked ballot options out there and I hope we can push for something else

TFW your country has been a 1/10 for labor for decades and then a president bumps it to a 2/10 and all the neolib outlets champion him as the most pro-union president in history… 🤮

How about our current situation is an economic nightmare? But when workers attempt to use their leverage to shift it back to something actually the least bit ethical then you have a problem?

JFC neoliberals are so out of touch

Reading neoliberal apologia is vomit inducing

They’re the ones that made the call to split the bill saying it was guaranteed to pass which made no sense

We need to stop saying “if there were more democrats” and start saying “if there were more socialists”

I always tell people rcv is best when there are 3 candidates and only 2 are viable.
You can safely vote for someone who is definitely going to lose and keep the status quo

If you want a voting system that encourages the emergence of new parties then you must be able to vote for people equally and you must be able to indicate significant preference between one candidate and another

Something like ranked round robin can also cover it but I think STAR is more intuitive

We need a voting system that eliminates the spoiler effect and allows for showing intensity of preference.

RCV does neither but STAR voting does both

The devastating fires in Maui, a tragedy long forewarned, are a stark reminder of the failure to prioritize human well-being over short-term cost considerations. My heart aches for the lives lost and the homes destroyed; this catastrophe underscores the systemic failure to heed warnings and underscores the urgent need for a compassionate, foresighted approach to our shared environment and community.

My experience has been the opposite. I’ve found that the majority of users tend to lean towards neoliberal and center-right ideologies. I guess most of them are probably American, so their warped worldview has them considering these ideologies as ‘left-wing’ instead 🙃

Currently using signal but have been intrigued by some of the no phone number alternatives like SimpleX

If I’m going to have a crook in office, I’d rather they be a crook that awakens people to the issues that matter such as medicare for all and ending the drug war. The bar is just that low

I strongly prefer STAR over ranked choice, for some significant issues that aren’t talked about enough. (slide deck).

But yes, I agree that voting reform is critical to this change, and it’s very telling that neither party are very interested in enacting it. They’ll both warn us like an abusive relationship to not vote third party “or else” but when you ask why not just support voting reform they both fall silent.