-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
National Emergency Gun Control
- Thread starter K_W
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Kinda but not really. They were worried states would just vote for their state's "favorite son", and then the state with the most electors would always win. So with the original EC, they required electors to vote for two candidates, one of which had to be from a different state. The candidate receiving the most votes won the presidency, the second place, vice president.
With ranked order voting you typically rank all the candidates from best to worst. So if there are 5 candidates, 1st place is 5 points, 2nd 4, and so on.
Of course the 5 candidates was just an example.
Ranked order would solve the primary problem. But I would not implement it as a nation-wide popular vote. I'd keep the EC, but change the formula for electors to better protect rural areas from uber-urban population centers. So presidents would still be chosen by electors the same as today.
So with ranked order voting there'd be no need for primaries. For a given office, all the eligible candidates would declare their candidacy. Eligibility would have some criteria which would keep the number of candidates to rank to a reasonable number. Doesn't matter what party they're from. Parties could put up multiple candidates, but there would need to be a way to prevent one party from nominating most of the candidates. The duration of election season could be kept to something more reasonable. Maybe 3 or 4 months. Ideally everyone would vote on the same day, but there has to be an early voting provision because it's not always practical for everyone. But there needs to be better protection from mail-in voter fraud.
ROV would make the ballot more complicated. But that could be mitigated through technology. I really don't see a reason why people couldn't fill out ballots ahead of time online, or even in a public library. But not the actual voting. Just filling out the ballot and printing it. The online ballot would have an interactive UI which asks you questions about which candidate you prefer, and helps you rank them. When you're satisfied with all your choices, you print it out. The printout would be formatted in a way that's readable by both humans and machines, so that you can verify that it tallied your choices the way you put them in. Being able to fill your ballot out days or weeks before you vote gives the advantage of knowing exactly what's on the ballot and who is running for which offices, local, state, and federal. It would give people time to make more informed decisions.
Then for most people, they'd take their printed ballots to a polling place. The printed ballot would have some code that corresponds to a voter ID to help prevent fraud. Of course you'd also need to show your DL or state ID to prove you are the person registered and you are the person who that ballot was created for. You put your ballot through a reader which interprets and tallies your vote. I think the ballot counter should give you a receipt showing your choices, so that you can verify it tallied your choices correctly.
Ranked order would solve the primary problem. But I would not implement it as a nation-wide popular vote. I'd keep the EC, but change the formula for electors to better protect rural areas from uber-urban population centers. So presidents would still be chosen by electors the same as today.
So with ranked order voting there'd be no need for primaries. For a given office, all the eligible candidates would declare their candidacy. Eligibility would have some criteria which would keep the number of candidates to rank to a reasonable number. Doesn't matter what party they're from. Parties could put up multiple candidates, but there would need to be a way to prevent one party from nominating most of the candidates. The duration of election season could be kept to something more reasonable. Maybe 3 or 4 months. Ideally everyone would vote on the same day, but there has to be an early voting provision because it's not always practical for everyone. But there needs to be better protection from mail-in voter fraud.
ROV would make the ballot more complicated. But that could be mitigated through technology. I really don't see a reason why people couldn't fill out ballots ahead of time online, or even in a public library. But not the actual voting. Just filling out the ballot and printing it. The online ballot would have an interactive UI which asks you questions about which candidate you prefer, and helps you rank them. When you're satisfied with all your choices, you print it out. The printout would be formatted in a way that's readable by both humans and machines, so that you can verify that it tallied your choices the way you put them in. Being able to fill your ballot out days or weeks before you vote gives the advantage of knowing exactly what's on the ballot and who is running for which offices, local, state, and federal. It would give people time to make more informed decisions.
Then for most people, they'd take their printed ballots to a polling place. The printed ballot would have some code that corresponds to a voter ID to help prevent fraud. Of course you'd also need to show your DL or state ID to prove you are the person registered and you are the person who that ballot was created for. You put your ballot through a reader which interprets and tallies your vote. I think the ballot counter should give you a receipt showing your choices, so that you can verify it tallied your choices correctly.
And eliminate R or D from being on the ballot.
And no pulling the lever for the party.
Let people have to think on their candidate.
And no pulling the lever for the party.
Let people have to think on their candidate.
Thinking about how to keep the number of candidates to a sane number, since the ranked order is only compiled for a state, the criteria could be left to the states to decide. So an obvious one would be each candidate has to get so many signatures to make the ballot in that state. There isn't usually a problem with too many candidates for most offices, but for president, that's probably the big one. You don't want to make people rank 50 or 100 presidential candidates. That'd be too much like filling out your taxes. But they could put a limit on how many you have to rank in case 50 or 100 candidates get past the requirements.
Ranked order voting is transitive if you rank everyone on the ballot. That just means that if the tally ranks the candidates, the candidate at the top really does represent the one with the most support. But the effects would be acceptable if you only had to rank, say, the top 10. After that, no one really cares anyway, and those lower candidates aren't going to have much impact on transitivity.
There's another complication that doesn't favor political parties, which I think is a good thing. in our current system, the party of the incumbent president typically doesn't want challengers because, the incumbent has an advantage in the general election. That advantage kinda disappears with ROV. The incumbent is then just one of many candidates on the ballot, so that changes the dynamics for an incumbent.
Ranked order voting is transitive if you rank everyone on the ballot. That just means that if the tally ranks the candidates, the candidate at the top really does represent the one with the most support. But the effects would be acceptable if you only had to rank, say, the top 10. After that, no one really cares anyway, and those lower candidates aren't going to have much impact on transitivity.
There's another complication that doesn't favor political parties, which I think is a good thing. in our current system, the party of the incumbent president typically doesn't want challengers because, the incumbent has an advantage in the general election. That advantage kinda disappears with ROV. The incumbent is then just one of many candidates on the ballot, so that changes the dynamics for an incumbent.
With ROV pulling a party "lever" wouldn't really be possible. There could be many candidates of a given party on the ballot. They have to be ranked. So pulling a party lever doesn't rank the candidates within the party. But I definitely agree with not putting the candidate's political party on the ballot. If you're a party voter and you don't know which candidates are of your party, too bad. You better learn something about the candidates before you vote.
I'm also thinking that if balloting is accomplished online, the UI for the web site could really help voters learn something about the candidates as it helps them rank candidates. Candidates could fill out a questionnaire about the issues. The answers could be used to formulate questions which would be asked of voters. As you answer the questions, the UI could suggest rankings based on the answers the candidates gave to their questions.
Just a trivial example, maybe it asks "is the size of government about right, too big, or too small?" When you answer the question, it sorts the candidates according to the way the candidates answered questions about, say, the size of government. Then you move onto the next question, which might further explore the role of government, the answer to which would refine the sort order accordingly. And so on until all the questions are answered, or you're happy with the sort order. Of course the UI would also allow you to drag-n-drop candidates to sort them manually.
Web UI's have really gotten a lot better and I think this would help people who have a hard time deciding such things. Of course a UI which employs some AI to help match candidate rankings with candidate answers needs to be transparent. So open source it.
"User Interface"
It the part of a computer program that displays stuff to the human, and takes commands from the human.
guess what I do for a living?
argue with people?
Arguing was a way of life when I grew up.
Arguments of insults.. well that was for an incompetent, or a loser.
My parents also "disagreed" quite vocally. Yet are still together.
I think they taught me relationships can stand arguments, better than any romantic TV show/movie.
Of course, I'm still single. So maybe that means nothing.
JeepHammer
SHOOTER
Arguing was a way of life when I grew up.
Arguments of insults.. well that was for an incompetent, or a loser.
My parents also "disagreed" quite vocally. Yet are still together.
I think they taught me relationships can stand arguments, better than any romantic TV show/movie.
Of course, I'm still single. So maybe that means nothing.
There is debate, there are arguments, and there are fights.
Too bad people don't learn to debate anymore, not take extremest views, not insult, not lie so you don't burn bridges.
Think of how many marriages that could have worked if you only learned to debate instead of argue/fight...
You can't debate an extremest, they are locked into a dogma and can't accept changing or complicated facts.
There is no compromise, no discussion, you are either with them 100% or you are 'The Enemy'.
Having 'Enemies' I have to actively pursue is exhausting... So I simply don't.
The best 'Revenge' is to live well, so when I die of natural causes at a relatively old age, not having missed a meal in many decades, and not having thought about people that have wronged or insulted me in the past in decades means I won the rat race.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhs...uld-include-how-guns-save-lives/#2d45965c5edc
[h=1]Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives[/h]
But regardless of whether “gun violence” research is being conducted by the federal government, states, universities, or private organizations, there are three key principles all public health researchers and firearms policy analysts should remember.
The first principle is:
* Firearms save lives as well take lives.
…
A second key principle in judging gun violence research:
* The value of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens should be measured in terms of lives saved or crimes prevented, not criminals killed.
…
Finally, a third principle to remember in analyzing public health gun violence research:
* The right to self-defense does not depend on statistics and numbers.
[h=1]Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives[/h]
But regardless of whether “gun violence” research is being conducted by the federal government, states, universities, or private organizations, there are three key principles all public health researchers and firearms policy analysts should remember.
The first principle is:
* Firearms save lives as well take lives.
…
A second key principle in judging gun violence research:
* The value of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens should be measured in terms of lives saved or crimes prevented, not criminals killed.
…
Finally, a third principle to remember in analyzing public health gun violence research:
* The right to self-defense does not depend on statistics and numbers.
I am only afforded the blessed opportunity of voting every two years. I would never be so hasty as to push the straight party button.
I prefer the sheer psychological and emotional neurological response that comes with voting against every Democrat and castrated, country club milquetoast Republican the experience can provide.
Arguing was a way of life when I grew up.
Arguments of insults.. well that was for an incompetent, or a loser.
My parents also "disagreed" quite vocally. Yet are still together.
I think they taught me relationships can stand arguments, better than any romantic TV show/movie.
Of course, I'm still single. So maybe that means nothing.
It means you're smarter than I originally gave you credit for.
