minnow

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 38 points 4 days ago

IIRC two states and several major cities have also successfully implemented rank choice, and in every case it's been because of Democrats.

As more and more local governments make the change, it'll become more popular and gain more support on the national level.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The problem is that any third party that manages to eventually displace a member of the duopoly immediately replaces that party in the new duopoly.

Because the duopoly is a result of First Past the Post (FPTP) voting. As long as we use FPTP the duopoly will persist, just with different parties filling the two roles.

Anything short of switching away from FPTP for some form of Rank Choice is going to be a band-aid, mere temporary relief, and not even a very good one.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I've never had a job where my wage kept up with inflation. My annual raise was always below inflation, and I felt lucky to get annual adjustments at all.

I suspect this is simply an artifact of math. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and as long as the average of the two looks good then the people in charge can nod their heads, say "good good," then go spend a week on their yacht.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Trickle down economics, as a theory, has been around well over 100 years, and it's never been believed in by everybody. Hell, a presidential candidate gave a speech against the idea in 1896

You're correct about misinformation having been around forever, but access to and ease to create misinformation is greater than ever before thanks to the Internet.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The author assumes the Court doesn't understand the consequences of what it's doing, but I really don't think that's a reasonable assumption. It's entirely possible they know exactly what they're doing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

You're 100% correct, but don't think that's enough for Meta. It's inherent to the nature of corporations to sell to grow, ie increase market share. If Meta thinks it can increase it's market share, even a little, by destroying mastodon.social it will.