IzzyScissor

A few weeks ago, I'd have agreed with you, but now? The Democratic party that just lost 10 million votes.. We'll spoil that party? The one that just lost a fair election to a convicted felon? You want to protect them from being spoiled?

We have 4 years, which is, again, the most time we'll ever get to try something like this because that's how 4 year election cycles work. What is it exactly that they're doing successfully you don't want to spoil?

It's "moo".

Oh, I'm all for ranked choice voting, but in order for it to have any meaning we also need a plurality of parties. They also need time to build and I'm sure these two would start a good one if allowed.

Although the likelihood of political parties having any weight at all past January is anyone's guess..

Or maybe they should just leave the Democratic party and start a new progressive party? We have less than 4 years, but that's also the most time we'll ever have.

I just want to point out that even you qualify these benefits.

It MAY ease symptoms. Or it may not. It may EASE symptoms, but it won't get rid of them entirely. It may ease SYMPTOMS, but it's not a cure.

They're like on the first page of results of anyone who has depression when they look up how to break out of it, so there's an incredibly high likelihood you're not the first person to discover hydration and exercise. They also don't work for everyone, so it can be especially disheartening to hear the same advice over and over when it hasn't worked for you in the past. It starts feeling like no one listens before they give the same 'hydration and exercise' mantra.

It's probably assuming that you're also getting fries, a drink and an ice cream cone each or something. That simply cannot be enough.

Because there's no "wrong" answer in an experiment. AKA no accountability.

I still have hope... just not for America. I can make somewhere else better.

Yeah, and they act like learning about a new skin cream on the street is going to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as learning about a new study on "gun bans", even though people have been studying this for decades and the results largely don't change, only the public perception of them.

It's like if they showed people a new study for "Earth gravity" vs "Moon gravity" and act surprised when people don't immediately catch on when their numbers say the moon makes you weigh more. You wouldn't be expecting that result OR trust a random person on the street to change your view of gravity with a chart of 4 numbers.

Yes, they found bias. Cool.

Alternate title: A single "study" presented from someone on the street is typically not enough to change anyone's perspective on a subject, especially if that "study" presents "facts" that are contradictory to the listener's previous knowledge.

Humans aren't rational. Humans are rationalizing. If someone on the street giving you a basic chart with 4 numbers on it is enough to change your mind, you likely didn't have much of an opinion to begin with.

Sure, Jan.

Nah, the problem is that it makes complete sense in the imperfect would we actually live in. You want to have a perfectly logical reason to vote, but you're never going to find it, so good luck. You're going to have to compromise somewhere. I'm just honest about when/where.