Here's an article with a nice graphic: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/12/12/opinion/no-it-threatens-distort-election-outcomes/
How it worked out in Maine: https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-whats-wrong-with-ranked-choice-voting-20191101-k7o2s57h5bfrxoorisjw4zrp2i-story.html
Dems love it, conservatives not so much: https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/ranked-choice-voting-bad-choice
And even the Dems didn't get what they thought: https://www.startribune.com/ranked-choice-voting-by-the-data-still-flawed/245283691/
It's a mathematical system, and like all such, the outcome depends on your starting rules, such as what determines the winner, is there a limit on number of candidates, when are low vote getters eliminated, how many rank choices the voter gets, how the votes are apportioned. Usually it starts from the bottom, at a cutoff point those candidates are eliminated and their votes redistributed upward, but it could be different. Your rule, where your vote is nullified for a certain candidate, while I like it, upsets the scheme of conserving all the votes (The other selling point: doesn't it sound good to hear that your vote won't ever be wasted?). This rule also shows another feature of this method, you can only vote for someone and hope you end up with one you like, you have no leverage against a candidate except to only vote for one.
You have bought into the sales pitch "At least you'll get your second/third choice" whereas it would be more honest to say "chances are very few people will get their first or second choice." I used to belong to a professional organization that decided to go with this method. While it didn't matter much there, absolutely a clever person could use vote splitting and shill candidates to sway an election. I did not mention that the pooling rules feature ranked votes: you vote for your three favorites. If your favorite doesn't win, your vote goes to the next, and so on, until someone accrues enough to win. What if Joe Blow had 30% but all his second choices went to people not even in the top 3? It is entirely possible.
Honestly, why did these legislators think a tyrant would agree?
Yes, Dana Boente. Sundance has been onto him for months. Probably Wray too, but Boente more so.
This is a way to rig primaries and even a general, but mostly primaries. The issue is that in a field of several people there is an increasing probability that the plurality winner ( most votes) will not meet an arbitrary "winner" level, say 40%. In that case the votes start getting pooled until someone becomes a winner. And very often that means the "winner" is someone who was ranked 2nd, 3rd, in the original vote. You voted for Joe Blow. He got 30% of the votes but needed 35%. The next one, Joe Doakes, had 19%, then Jane Doe had 17, the next 15, etc. Clearly Joe Blow was the favorite, but depending on the rules of where the pooling starts, it is possible that Jane Doe ends up with the 35% and your less favored candidate wins.
All of them! (you know who they are)
They == the talking heads on TV gloating over a perceived misstep.
Dr. Emanuel approves of the corona virus. He used to say everyone over 70 had lived long enough and should die already.
Yet I think conservative treatment is the cultural norm, meaning "don't do anything until really bad stuff happens." This is the result of just putting up with huge amounts of flu normally and accepting many thousands of deaths.
If, as the Israeli statistician has modeled, the course of a "wave" is inevitably 70 days, it will fall a little short.
It's a two-edged sword. Now huge parts of the world have learned China is not a reliable friend, they cheat, they lie, they steal, they take value and return trash. Nothing else has undercut the globalist model so well.
Maybe the whole tranny thing was started by population control freaks like Bill Gates who knew that outright sterility "vaccines" wouldn't fly in a civilized country.
I think you are on to something, that individual circumstances sometimes don't "add" incrementally, they create a fatal cascade. Certainly plenty of cases don't--that's the problem, finding the contrast when the worst ones died right away without their details recorded.
She's realized her dream of being in a movie and the result wasn't that great, in fact it didn't help her otherwise successful career. I hope she goes back to being Bambi.
Yes, made in China--they sell ozonators (not to be confused with ionizers) using UV and do have warnings about the ozone but not the UV part.
I would think Baker had his hand in a lot, especially when he went to work for Lawfare after he was fired, but he was more circumspect.
What are the flavor names? Are any "Pizza" or "Hotdog"?
IF this is a real list, so many have "3 counts of conspiracy to overthrow the government" it sounds like 3 separate joint activities. Which would be what? Also, seems like Kevin Kleinsmith would be prominent, he was caught redhanded.
Tobacco leaves an oily gunk when it burns, and that gunk will dry up impetigo (don't do that if you have real antibiotics). Probably makes an unfavorably poisonous surface in the lungs.
Even if SR wasn't killed as an example by Podesta, the FBI couldn't let him live because he could refute the Russia collusion narrative.
And DiBlasio made them crowd more in the subway, and then they let the prisoners out. What a team.
Yes. Unfunded pensions.
Lysol used to have something like creosote oil in it. Then it relied on benzalkonium hydrochloride for its disinfectant. Now they also have a formula which contains or evolves hydrogen peroxide. You could probably use it to clean your groceries safely and it wouldn't be quite as deadly as the other kind if one were stupid enough to drink it.