volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@WritingFactory

The thing is, I'm talking to you, so I want to know how you define it. Even if you are adopting some standard definition, that's fine, but I want to know what you mean by the term so I can talk to you about it.

@WritingFactory

How would you define currency?

@WritingFactory

You get into this sort of gaslighting situation where people who actually in their real lives use Bitcoin as currency are being told that they don't do the thing that they absolutely do.

And that's why those arguments don't really carry much water. People know for a fact based on their own personal experiences that the argument is false.

Yes, Bitcoin is a currency. It is an investment. How do I know? Because I know a bunch of people who personally use it as a currency and as an investment!

It's like claiming water doesn't run downhill as I am watching some water run downhill.

@doctorjaymarie@mastodon.world

Turns out there was no case?

@wiseguyeddie @JDS

Railroads are highly, highly regulated...

@stux

I always react that Mastodon absolutely uses an algorithm. Chronological order is an algorithm. It's just a particularly stupid (or simple if you prefer) algorithm that cannot help you get to the content that you want to see.

That's for better or worse.

These days I'm having to do an awful lot of scrolling to get to any interesting posts as people are using hashtags a bit liberally.

@kendraserra

Reading the letter, it comes across as a giant strawman argument, appearing to intentionally misunderstand the writings that it is citing.

I don't know what the paper is supposed to do about that. It sounds like it is being blamed for perspectives that it hasn't actually published, with people getting upset about words that they are themselves putting in the mouth of the publisher, action that the publisher itself can't exactly stop.

You also get statements like this: "The natural destination of poor editorial judgment is the court of law." That's quite a stark claim issued without any particular argument or even particular reason that it would be made in the first place, other than to open the door to citing some other question-begging current events.

So the letter comes across as an exercise in choir preaching instead of any that would actually draw outside support or even promote action on the case of the paper.

I think the letter could have been written better in a way that better promotes the cause it wants to promote.

@bobwyman @lauren @TCatInReality

So I just pointed out that relative trends in vote splitting are irrelevant, but you decided to double down on the relative trends?

I really don't know why you decided to go that direction.

This doesn't matter. I don't question it. You didn't need to provide any evidence for it because I wasn't doubting it in the least. It just is not relevant.

That ballot splitting is happening in a significant amount is all that matters. Was it more or less than before? Doesn't matter! That it is happening at all is the point.

If anything the record of it happening proves my point here, that it is happening, that people are judging candidates and not parties.

@bobwyman @lauren @TCatInReality

But that doesn't change that it is an indicator of voters looking at candidates as candidates and not parties.

That it is more or less common than some other arbitrary point of time is not particularly relevant. That it exists in a significant amount at all shows that voters look at individuals outside of party.

If you say that ballot splitting is exceedingly rare, then alright, that would say otherwise. But it's not that rare, and it has been significant even in the last election cycle. So that indicates voters looking at individual candidates.

Whether it happened more often or less often in the past doesn't change that it does happen now.

@bobwyman @lauren @TCatInReality

I understand the theory that you're laying out, but I think the best counter argument to it is looking at the number of people who don't bother voting at all.

When the candidate for a party is just not compelling people don't show up to vote, which shows that people really are voting for the candidate and not for the party.

Alternatively we could look at people splitting ballots. Even in the recent election we had parties winning state office but losing federal office, showing that people were voting based on candidate and not party.

Heck, I think people's opinions toward Trump might be another really great example, all of the people who focus on him as a individual candidate, either positive or negative, regardless of party is meaningful.

@lauren @TCatInReality @bobwyman

Well maybe I misunderstand your position, but my immediate reaction is that in the US we don't vote for parties but for individuals, even if the individuals are aligned with parties.

For example, I vote for a particular individual to be my representative in Congress. I vote for a particular individual to be my mayor. And I judge and hold that individual accountable for their performance.

This is different from other countries, especially with parliamentary systems, where you really do vote for the party and not for individuals.

I think this is a fundamental aspect of the US system.

And feel free to correct me and tell me that in your area they do have elections for parties. I'm just not familiar with that!

@lauren @TCatInReality @bobwyman

Well what is unfair about it?
The candidate is on the ballot just like the others, right?

@lauren

Alright, fine, then even focusing on the major parties, RCV makes it easier to avoid one-party ballots by allowing more competition between major parties.

@TCatInReality @bobwyman

@ColbyDigsSoil

I suspect hashtag autocompletion not including the caps.

@lauren @TCatInReality @bobwyman

Who is on the ballot is a separate issue from how we count the votes on the ballot.

You can have ranked choice voting on a ballot that's all one party, or on a ballot that has candidates from five different parties. It's a separate matter.

But, ranked choice voting does make it easier for people to vote for minor parties since they can also vote for major parties as a backup.

So RCV helps empower third parties, helps avoid one-party control of ballots.

@TCatInReality @lauren @bobwyman

*shrug* we get the government we vote for.

@Axel_Hugsky

Probably not.