That’s not really the point.

The higher the turnout, the better. It’s easy for them to do a repeat of the 2000 election. But not if there is a wide enough margin.

It’s a double edged sword.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/01/politics/insulin-price-cap/index.html

You seem to be saying that the voters are irrational.

Some are, some aren’t. Either way, saying “just have better policy” is ignorant at best.

I’ve been slowly working on it for the last year or so. It’s gone a lot smoother than I thought it would.

I disagree. While that’s probably the case nine times out of ten, just because somebody is in a higher power seat doesn’t mean they got there because they’re greedy.

There needs to be change and protections at higher levels of government too.

Unless it is a local election, you have no chance of winning unless you’re in one of the two main parties. So candidates almost always choose to join one of the parties.

I thought it was the satanic church that was ghe shenanigans one, not the satanic temple?

Yes, which is why I included the qualifier “quality” to my statement.

As stated lower down in the thread, there are more options than just suburban sprawl and tight apartment buildings.

And apartment buildings aren’t the only high density options available. Half the issue is just the bans on subdivisions and requirements for minimum parking, lawn setbacks, etc.

There is a great deal of difference in density between these options:

I can understand not wanting to live in a multi story apartment building. But for those people, some percentage of them would still be ok with one of the first two images here. We don’t all have to go with the third one if we want something more independent.

But the conversation is implicitly about how we should be building going forward.

This is a slice of the electorate that the dems haven’t won over yet, but could.

If we’re just repeating things, then I guess that’s what we’re doing.

The spoiler effect is based on geometric proximity, not the quality of policy.

Why do liberals assume they are entitled to leftist votes?

Your confusing that with the fact that an overlap of two circles is a venn diagram.

The spoiler effect is based on geometric proximity, not the quality of policy. They’re a waste of a vote, because they have no chance of winning.

If the greens want to do something they should work at the local level where they actually have a chance.

That, and even if she has sudo perms so to speak, that doesn’t necessarily make it impossible for her to be a manifestation or byproduct of the borg collective consciousness.

This is pretty much what’s happened with my latest character.

I’m playing a reborn/dragonborn, who had previously tried to fight Strahd but lost. And a part of that loss means that my character lost a good chunk of his memories of fighting Strahd before.

But Strahd still remembers my character. So it has lead to some interesting interactions.

Yeah that’s kinda how a reductio ad absurdum works.

Are you really compare the two things?

Yes

This person decided to be a member of a party supporting a genocide just like someone decides to become a trump supporter

Here’s the thing though, Americans don’t have the luxury of going to another party, because only two of them are viable. So if you want to make political change your choices are incredibly restricted.

In the original position, one is asked to consider which principles they would select for the basic structure of society, but they must select as if they had no knowledge ahead of time what position they would end up having in that society. This choice is made from behind a “veil of ignorance”, which prevents them from knowing their ethnicity, social status, gender and, crucially in Rawls’s formulation, their or anyone else’s idea of how to lead a good life. Ideally, this would force participants to select principles impartially and rationally.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position