Alaska's Goldilocks Ballot Reforms
After a break for the holiday week, primary season will resume tomorrow. But rather than diving into the details of any of the seven states which will vote tomorrow (California, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota), I'm more interested in seeing what happens later in the week, when Alaska holds a special election primary this Saturday. Because Alaska will be test-driving a new hybrid system which incorporates two ballot reforms at once: the "jungle" primary and ranked-choice voting.
Alaskans, for the first time, will face all the candidates from all parties on a single ballot, in a special House primary necessitated by the death of a state political icon. This seat -- which represents the whole state, since Alaska only has one House member -- hasn't been open for almost half a century, so it will be a free-for-all contest that hasn't been seen in generations. Alaskan voters will have a whopping 49 candidates to choose from on their ballots, from all parties. One of those candidates is ex-half-term-governor Sarah Palin, which should generate lots of media interest ("You betcha!"). Also on the ballot is a man whose legal name is Santa Claus, who hails from the town of North Pole (you just can't make this stuff up, folks). So it'll be an interesting race, one assumes.
Rather than holding partisan primaries which select each party's nominee (all of whom advance to the general election ballot), Alaska will vote in a non-partisan all-encompassing "jungle" primary where everyone competes against everyone and only the top four vote-getters advance to the general election. In the general election, voters will mark their top three choices, in order. This seems to be a workable compromise between these two sometimes-competing ideas for ballot reform, which incorporates the best of both worlds and leaves behind some of the biggest shortcomings of both.
The "jungle" primary idea has been adopted elsewhere, in various forms. In some states, the general election is, in essence, nothing more than a jungle primary. Everyone appears on the same ballot, but if the top vote-getter doesn't clear 50 percent of the ballots (plus one vote) then a runoff election is held between the top two candidates. Elsewhere, the same basic system is used but the jungle primary happens before the general election, which will then only have two names on the ballot (the top two finishers from the primary). Either way, the voters are first offered the choice of everybody and then just the top two (whether in a "runoff" election after the general, or in the general election itself, after a top-two primary).
This system is sometimes championed for what I consider a very bad reason. People pushing for top-two jungle primaries often make the argument that the system is designed to counteract political extremism -- to give moderates a better chance of winning, in other words. But this is more than a little un-American, since it is actually planning an election system to encourage a specific ideological outcome. No election system should be designed for such a reason. The way to prove this to such advocates is to flip the idea: "Well, what would you say if someone designed a system with the intent of only electing extremists?" That would be abhorrent to them, but it's really the other side of the same coin. No election system should be designed to boost the chances of any ideology -- left, center, or right. Period.
Of course, the rejoinder to flipping the question would be: "But that's the system we already have right now!" Which is a reasonable point. The logic behind this political science argument is that when a state holds partisan primaries and then a general election between all the parties' nominees, it tends to reward the most extreme members of each party. Democrats, in a Democratic primary, will run to the left of their opponents, while Republicans will run to the right in theirs, to outdo each other among their respective bases. This tends to put the most extreme candidates on the general election ballot, since fewer people participate in the partisan primaries and the ones that do are often the most diehard of the true believers on both sides.
If you make the primary a jungle one where only the top two candidates advance, then you might wind up with either two Democrats or two Republicans on the general election ballot. One will likely be more moderate than the other one. Say there are two Democrats who make it to the general election in a statewide race in California (which often happens). This means that the race might hinge on how well those remaining candidates woo Republican and independent voters for the general election -- which might give the moderate a leg up. That's the theory, at any rate.
But what this also does is deny the minority parties any presence on the general election ballot at all -- where more people vote than in the primaries. So if you're a California Republican (they're rare but they do exist), you are faced with two Democrats in a bunch of statewide races. That's not exactly fair or representative of your political beliefs. In the states (like Louisiana) who essentially run the jungle primary when everyone else has their general election (which often leads to a runoff election a few weeks later), at least the voters get to vote for a candidate of their party on Election Day.
Ranked-choice voting is based on a different idea, one that is nowhere near as ethically offensive as "let's make it easier for moderates to win." In a ranked-choice election campaign, the candidates aren't just trying to talk voters into choosing them, they are also trying to convince people to consider them as a second (or even third) choice: "Well, you've already decided to give your vote to Candidate X, and that's fine -- but I would like to make the case that if Candidate X doesn't make it, at least I am better than Candidate Y and Candidate Z, so please consider marking me down for your second choice." The system isn't designed to boost any particular ideology in particular, it is designed to lessen cutthroat or scorched-earth campaign tactics. Rather than demonizing Candidate X to win votes, candidates will instead concentrate more on making the positive case that they're the best choice out of all the others.
Second and third votes matter, in ranked-choice. They often determine the race. But the big problem with ranked-choice is how many times the votes must be counted. If there are a dozen candidates on the ballot, it can theoretically take 11 tallies before a winner is declared. The ballots themselves must allow for deep choices (sometimes limited to a voter's top five or top seven choices or whatever). This can get too complex for the people actually counting the results. And for the voters themselves.
Alaska seems to have found the "Goldilocks" solution between these two reforms. After the jungle primary, four candidates advance to the final, not just two. This would seem to allow for a lot more representation by minor parties -- so voters wouldn't only be faced with a Republican/Republican (or a Democratic/Democratic) choice. It is a lot more inclusive than just allowing the top two to advance. And since there are only four candidates in the ranked-choice voting, a winner will be declared after a maximum of only three tallies. All four will be counted in the first, then if no candidate has a 50-plus-one majority, the one with the lowest number of votes is dropped and the next round is counted with only three candidates. If even this doesn't leave a majoritarian result, then the final count is done with only two candidates -- which is guaranteed to either result in a clear win, or at worst, a perfect tie. With only four candidates on the ballot, voters only need to mark their top three choices, which is a lot easier than figuring out their top seven or top five or whatever.
Saturday's primary is a special one in Alaska, as I mentioned. What is being voted on is who will represent Alaska in the House of Representatives for the remainder of the current term. There will also be a separate race for the next term of this seat (which will start next January), but this election will be staggered with the special one. Whichever four candidates emerge from Saturday's primary, they will be on a ranked-choice ballot in August which will determine who will be seated for the partial term. On the same ballot will be the jungle primary for the next full term. Then on Election Day in November, the top four candidates for the next term will run using ranked-choice voting. So there will be plenty to sift through for the next few months, and Alaskans will get to use their new system twice in one year.
The whole process seems like a great experiment in ballot reform. Alaska is not the first to adopt either a jungle primary or ranked-choice voting, but I believe it is the only state to have come up with such a hybrid system. And with both election reform ideas, Alaska seems to have found the sweet spot which eliminates the biggest shortcoming of either idea. The top four will advance from the jungle primary, not just the top two. This will mean that voters will quite likely see a Democrat or an Independent on the November ballot, instead of just two Republicans. The ranked-choice voting will only require voters to mark down their top three choices, and will only mean a maximum of three cycles of counting ballots. This will mean a much quicker result, and one less prone to errors than if the votes had to be counted seven or eight times.
If Alaska's elections go smoothly this year, they might wind up being a national poster child for how to do ballot reform right. Other states might consider adopting this system, since it seems designed to use the best of both ideas while avoiding the biggest pitfalls of either. So whether Sarah Palin or Santa Claus makes it to the final round, I will be watching Alaska's election this weekend to see how the process plays out.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Since my comments are moderated differently than other Weigantians comments and are at the mercy of whatever fact "frustrates" the moderator and it's obvious that the political bigotry of the moderator is the determining factor...
There is simply no reason for me to continue posting here...
Michale -
Who knows? Maybe I'll be in a better mood tomorrow...
:-)
-CW
Also, I wouldn't call it political bigotry. More like aesthetical bigotry.
-CW
Moderation: one from the left, one from the right, brings balance back to the force...
Just don't let it go to your head and become Vader...
Give me a freakin' break Michale!!!
Don't act like such a girl. For God's sake!!!
See my comment from the last FTP column (#312, 313!)
At least the moderator concedes it IS bigotry at work and not any ON TOPIC/OFF TOPIC standard...
I don't that kind of bigotry in my life right now..
So, is this Good-bye, for now?
Where did you lose your sense of humour. Maybe I can help you find it?
@cw,
My question is why it gets you down that you've made pretty much everyone here happier? Even don may ultimately be happier as a result of your decision - now he can find a place to post where he fits in a bit better.
@m,
Take a deep breath and stick around. With a little patience we'll all be singing kumbaya again soon.
Listen to Joshua, Michale!
Chris. Please define
Comment spam
and publically state (or privately email me) how much money I need to surpass whatever Michale's pollute Weigantia BRIBE is, okay?
No one comes here to read that crap, hello!
Michale is simply a moderately more sophisticated version of The Troll Formerly Known as Fredo (moment of silence) and at the end of the #SSDD day simply useless... annoying... juvenile...
boring boring boring boring boring boring boring
If you ACTUALLY gave a fuck about growing your audience you'd never let this bozo poison your Comments Section. So, how much does he bribe you?
#Free Weigantia
#Free Weigantia
#OrNotFreeButBribeWeigantia
@caddy,
Not helpful.
To say the least.
Watch your juvenile language, Caddy, until you understand how and when to use it.
CW, I don't have a job and I'm about to have new vertebrae installed in my neck. But I adopted an Orphanage in Lugazi, Uganda/Kato Amos and, by being highly motivated and by using acquired knowledge I've managed up hustle up a few hundred to help him out with mosquito nets and 50% food inflation, and I've no doubt that I'll get it up to about $4K by year's end.
Chris. What you write is valuable because you try to avoid the herd. I believe in you and YOU could be on that list but
After experiencing the community and solace I found here in my Covid-era Weigantia FAMILY -- sans "embarrassed cuz he ran his mouth" Michale,
EMOUGH!
Time to finish housecleaning!
I cannot pay to plow through yards of right-wing conspiracy crap, name calling and blind anti-Democrat invective every fucking morning.
But who cares? It's not like there's any requirement that we make a difference while we're here. No pressure.
MtnCaddy -
Hey, I'm trying. He's not happy about it, either. Go look at the end of Friday's comments... say, the last 18 hours or so...
-CW
I'm gonna start swearing like the drunken sailor I was in a previous lifetime.
@liz,
I know it's not Sunday night anymore, but that last comment earns you a Galileo.
Okay, poet and Elizabeth. I've been here for two years only so has yer buddy Michale ever actually argued something-anything in good faith?
He appears to think that getting up at 0400 to pay repetitive yards of crap is "owning the Libs."
Are you two so shallow that you want to keep this bozo around just so you can feel smugly superior to the poor troglodyte? He has no shame, no sense of irony nor hypocrisy. How is paying him a lick of attention helping things?
Very nice. And, for me, it's always Sunday Night! :)
Right on, CW! Shocked to hear from you again.
I was NOT kidding. There's far too much going on that needs to be addressed that having to monitor trollery is usage of YOUR time NOT within Acceptable Parameters.
Just give me a number, cut the poison out and let's roll! What lifetime are you waiting for?
Elizabeth "Kumbaya" Miller thinks she's Board Mother but that hadn't worked for dink. Still thinks she can "reach" the two-now-one trolls. Happy to step up to the plate, just say the word.
Enough!
Dammit!!!! [21] was meant for Joshua.
@caddy,
Depends if your definition of good faith is adhering to typical rules of logic, or arguing your true opinion the same way regardless of the context. Ask him his opinion on Ashlii Babbitt, the January 6 terrorist and right wing martyr who was killed by police while storming the capitol.
This Alaskan primary could end up being a perfect illustration of the virtues of ranked choice. In the traditional system, Sarah Palin would be likely to get the largest share of the vote, even if she got only 15%. And she may still win. But there is at least the possibility that if all the candidates say, "Vote for me at least second, after all, I'm not Sarah Palin," she may still lose in the final tally even if she gets the largest number in the first tally.
Sarah Palin is still in politics? Can she see Russia?
I can see Waterloo from my balcony.
Right on, CW! Shocked to hear from you again.
I was NOT kidding. There's far too much going on that needs your "off the beaten path" insights, such that having to monitor trollery is usage of YOUR time NOT within Acceptable Parameters.
Orig/DS9/NG, in that order.
Just give me a number, cut the poison out and let's roll! What lifetime are you waiting for?
Elizabeth "Kumbaya" Miller thinks she's Board Mother but that hadn't worked for dink. Still thinks she can "reach" the two-now-one trolls. Happy to step up to the plate, just say the word.
Enough!
Everything okay there, Caddy?
OK, the lady in that car over there said that Marco Polo was in the year 1275.
So it's not just a water sport, I knew it.
andygaus [25] -
That is an excellent point.
-CW
[Removed for offensive language]
Elizabeth. I get the Pacifist thing. But thinking like that cost at least thirty million needless European lives in WW2 because a bad peace only DELAYS WAR...aka appeasement.
Yep. Game but lame, Elizabeth.
But it's okay, Elizabeth.
T'would seem your Pacifist-despite-the-evidence filter is something like Michale's Democrats-Suck-No-Matter-What filter.
AS SUCH I'm starting to kinda lose [fill in the blank] for you.
IF it's me, say why. Set me straight, please.
Caddy,
I'm about to have new vertebrae installed in my neck.
I'm sending you all of my best wishes for a successful surgery and for a very speedy recovery!
Much of your reasonings about various voting-methods are supposition (some more likely than others).
The "Founders" rejected parties on purpose. It was a serious discussion when they were putting the Constitution together. In the end, the corruptive and disruptive influence of parties was the deciding factor.
FWIW, I agree with this. True from what I know back then and even moreso today.
As such, I don't feel that respecting parties or party affiliation in how winning candidates are determined is essential.
There have been a ton of different methods to determine how groups should select among alternative options (in a variety of contexts).
The major problem is Kenneth Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (AKA Arrow's Paradox). (He worked at Bell Labs.)
If there are more than two choices, it's impossible to guarantee that all the criteria of a "perfect election scenario" can be met.
Each of the methods meet the criteria up-to-a-point. What requires agreement is where are we willing to fall short. Unfortunately, people in power often make those decisions based on self-interest.
@speak2,
people in power make pretty much ALL decisions based on self-interest. if they didn't, we'd be suspicious.
because of technological advances in the field (combined with the case gill v. whitford), gerrymandering is by far the biggest threat to our ability to make voting decisions.
even more than cake.
JL
since michale for obvious reasons has declined to give us today's rightwing round-up, i decided to take a quick look out there myself.
one of the articles is about the recall of a san francisco prosecutor, who has according to the author not done such a great job on crime.
although many progressive policies make sense to me, the whole 'cash-free bail' thing does not. also, i know there's value and import to rooting out those cops who abuse their authority, but we still need to be extremely judicious when coming after law enforcement - their job is hard enough without having to worry that they are as vulnerable to prosecution as the criminals they're trying to apprehend.
JL
i guess alaska doesn't have to worry too much about gerrymandering comparatively speaking, since they only have one congressional district, but they still have districts for their state legislature.
here's an article i came across.
take a look at these alaska districts and tell me, do they pass the eye test?
Thank you for that, JL..
Whether intentionally or not, you have hit the nail on the head as to the exact problem here..
Excluding your first paragraph (obviously) if I had posted exactly what you posted verbatim, it would have been censored, deleted and marked as "WILDLY OFF TOPIC"...
It's this double standard that is at the heart of this matter..
It's understandable getting rid of DH...
But each and every one of my comments that was censored yesterday I took SPECIAL care to insure that they were ON TOPIC... And yet, many were deleted anyways SOLELY because they argued AGAINST the Left Wing agenda..
We then came to learn that the NEW standard wasn't REALLY ON/OFF TOPIC, it was whatever "frustrated" the moderator..
And yet, today look at MC's comment #11..
Now if THAT comment doesn't frustrate a moderator, then it's obvious that it's ONLY frustration from a certain person that qualifies for censorship...
And then, to add insult to injury, the moderator (who was obviously in a better mood at the time) kow-towed to MC's obnoxious comment by trying to appease MC..
In short, the moderator is BRAGGING about slapping down my comments so as to appease the obnoxious fellow Democrat..
As an aside to MC, no offense.. I am sure even YOU would admit that your comment was obnoxious..
The point is, we have a double standard here.. A double standard that is SOLELY at the whim of the moderator's frustration... A double standard that puts me in one moderation category and all those who AGREE with the moderator's politics in a different category..
Ergo, ONLY comments that are politically acceptable will be allowed here in Weigantia..
NONE of this would have happened if CW were still around... I miss him..
My sense is that freedom of expression should be core to every political belief. Our ability to express our political beliefs, whole stop, is the thing that makes debate and discussion about all these other issues possible.
-Nico Perrino, FIRE
I have neither the time nor the inclination to waste my time arguing facts and providing facts only to see them arbitrarily deleted because they happen to be frustrating to the moderator who is in a bad mood at any given moment..
I am owed ANOTHER apology here and will occupy my time elsewhere until such time as such apology is rendered..
@m,
I don't think that's the case. As I've said before, i believe most objections to your modus operandi have less to do with content than sheer volume. Post the same stuff but at about one third the usual clip, and i doubt anyone would say boo.
To my mind, here's the relevant standard:
One person's hijacking is another person's thorough dissertation on the FACTS..
ESPECIALLY when the first person is LOOKING for a reason to censor unpopular content..
As the moderator made clear yesterday that THAT is exactly what he was doing..
All I'm saying is I'm not a very happy camper right now. I made it 16 years without having to ban anyone, this is a first for this site.
So, said moderator was LOOKING for a reason to further censor the site..
As is his right.. No one is arguing that..
But let's not delude ourselves into believing it's anything but what it was..
Stifling the free expression of dissent so as to further a political agenda..
Democrats do it all the time..
Why should the moderator be any different? :eyeroll:
You've got everything and everyone pegged all wrong, Michale.
It's not about all of the points you are trying to get across here. It's the way you go about it.
I mean for God's sake ... freedom of expression is hardly being stifled arouond here, in other words.
And, once again ... listen to Joshua!
I was the greatest threat Weigantia had ever known. They feared me so much, they had to lock me away for eternity, and when they did that, they were saying that the individual's rights will be protected only so long as they don't conflict with the state. Nothing is so dangerous to a society.
-Quinn, STAR TREK VOYAGER
without getting frustrated by seeing it hijacked by anybody.
And, let's face reality here..
NO ONE could "hijack" Weigantia without the expressed consent and actions of ALL Weigantians..
If my being prolific is the issue, the solution is simple.. Everyone else be prolific in response..
If EVERYONE is prolific then NO ONE is prolific..
Seems silly to penalize ONE person because they have all the FACTS and all the REALITY on their side..
If people ALLOW me to dominate, then that is on THEM... Not on me...
Also, I don't think you really know the meaning of 'facts'. Not when you are always referring to "your facts" versus "my facts". That just doesn't make any sense.
It's a real shame, too. Because you could be doing all of us a great service by providing sound arguments from the other end of the political spectrum. There is often a grain of truth and even some facts in your "arguments" but they get totally lost in all of the background noise you also unfailingly provide.
So, if this is good-bye, then I wish you luck! Especially the luck you will need in finding another place from this side of the political spectrum that offered you as much freedom of expression despite your lack of consideration to Chris and to the rest of us made so abundantly clear in most of your comments.
Aloha! :)
Liz,
You've got everything and everyone pegged all wrong, Michale.
Do I?? Do I really??
Let's look at the facts..
The moderator ADMITTED he was in a foul mood..
But did fellow Democrats feel his wrath??
Responses by fellow Democrats to my ALLEGED off topic comments, that were by definition OFF TOPIC, were un-censored..
OBNOXIOUS comments from fellow Democrats like MC's comment in #11 are perfectly acceptable even to moderator in a "foul mood".. MC's comment was even APPEASED ala Odumbo's "What are you bitching at me for!! I CHANGED the law!!!"
But the ONE President Trump supporter... The ONE person who doesn't toe the lame anti-America Democrat Party line..
HIS comments are the ones that are censored and removed..
These are FACTS, Liz.
The FACTS that PROVE that I have it pegged dead on ballz accurate...
So, if this is good-bye, then I wish you luck! Especially the luck you will need in finding another place from this side of the political spectrum that offered you as much freedom of expression despite your lack of consideration to Chris and to the rest of us made so abundantly clear in most of your comments.
I am to show the moderator consideration that he, by his own admission, doesn't show me??
How does that work, exactly?? :eyeroll:
I spent a year over in the Real Clear forums... I can do it again... Makes me no never mind..
The ONLY reason I am still commenting here is that I am being asked direct questions..
And not answering would simply be rude..
It's a real shame, too. Because you could be doing all of us a great service by providing sound arguments from the other end of the political spectrum.
Exactly..
And THAT is the threat to the Democrat hegemony that is being pushed here..
See comment #47....
Dissent CANNOT be tolerated..
Toe the line or else yer censored...
THAT is what Weigantia has become... :eyeroll:
I mean for God's sake ... freedom of expression is hardly being stifled arouond here, in other words.
And yet, HOW many comments of mine were deleted yesterday??
Censorship that the moderator BRAGGED about in response to MC's obnoxious comment..
So please.. Push that "freedom of expression is hardly being stifled arouond here" BS elsewhere..
It is non-serious in light of the FACTS... :eyeroll:
Michale,
You knew exactly what you were doing. If we are playing partizan political memes as [45], you pushed until you got push back and are now playing the victim. The modus apprendi of the modern "personal responsibility" party.
It may be true you are singled out but it would take quite a few days of data to know for sure considering the extremely unequal rate of posting between you and everyone else. My guess is when the rest of us break rules it's one post and easily ignored, when you get on a roll of breaking the rules, it's scrolling through pages. Just a tad more obvious, and likely annoying to our illustrious host and moderator.
I do find it a bit ironic that you would have a problem with unequal policing...
The ONLY reason I am still commenting here is that I am being asked direct questions..
And not answering would simply be rude..
that's a good start. and in all seriousness i greatly appreciate that response.
NO ONE could "hijack" Weigantia without the expressed consent and actions of ALL Weigantians..
If my being prolific is the issue, the solution is simple.. Everyone else be prolific in response..
that's just not realistic. no one else has the time or energy every day to follow or respond to that much content on so many topics. CW's 'wildly off topic' to me is more about the 'wildly' part than the 'off topic.'
if it's rude not to respond at all, isn't it also rude to respond too much?
look, if you want to take a break nobody can stop you, but it really doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing endeavor. just as CW is feeling his way forward, maybe you could too. just stop in once a day, post something, and check back the following day to see what you got in response.
that's my best idea so far, but i'm open to other options.
JL
[Removed because it is a self-admitted duplicate, and because open tags sometimes cause problems for comments that follow...]
Apologies for the repost.. Forgot to close an attribute...
I do find it a bit ironic that you would have a problem with unequal policing...
Why so??
You knew exactly what you were doing. If we are playing partizan political memes as [45], you pushed until you got push back and are now playing the victim. The modus apprendi of the modern "personal responsibility" party.
I'm prolific.. I readily admit that..
And yet, NO ONE is stopping ANYONE from being just as prolific..
Ya'all have access to ALL the data I have access to.. A few of you even have access to bought and paid for OPPOSITION RESEARCH on me...
Just because ya'all don't have the strength of ya'all's convictions to make a point, why should I be penalized??
Ya'all want me to debate the issues with one hand tied behind my back giving ya'all an advantage??
WHY? If ya'all can't compete, just say so...
It may be true you are singled out but it would take quite a few days of data to know for sure considering the extremely unequal rate of posting between you and everyone else.
The facts (and the moderator's OWN admission) clearly prove beyond ANY doubt that I am being singled out..
Established as FACT...
My guess is when the rest of us break rules it's one post and easily ignored, when you get on a roll of breaking the rules, it's scrolling through pages
And yet, I made it a POINT to stay "within the rules" (AS THEY WERE STATED AT THE TIME) and was STILL singled out... THEN we come to find out that the "rule" of ON TOPIC wasn't really the rule.. It was a rule of "being frustrated" that was actually the rule..
Which proves that the "rules" are subject to the mood of the moderator at any given point in time..
As such, they are not RULES, as rules are commonly defined.. They are a political agenda subject to the mental fettle of the moderator at any given point in time...
Again, WELL WITHIN the moderator's rights...
Let's just not pretend it's anything beyond what it really is.. A DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO mentality imposed at whim.
Just a tad more obvious, and likely annoying to our illustrious host and moderator.
Just as the moderator's PTDS is annoying to me.. Yet I still acknowledge and respect his right to feel as he does...
Such respect should be reciprocated... If it's not, then he should respect that it will be called out..
If the moderator wants to ban me, then fine.. It's his right...
But pretending it's anything other than it is, is simply denying the facts and denying the reality..
Something you Democrats EXCEL at... :eyeroll:
JL,
that's a good start. and in all seriousness i greatly appreciate that response.
I strive for courtesy...
that's just not realistic. no one else has the time or energy every day to follow or respond to that much content on so many topics. CW's 'wildly off topic' to me is more about the 'wildly' part than the 'off topic.'
And yet, I can do it.. *I* have the time and energy to put forth my case in a logical and (most times) rational manner..
If *I* can do it, it seems strange that NO ONE else can...
The ONLY logical and rational conclusion is that my facts are not refutable..
I am nothing special.. If I can do it, ANYONE can...
if it's rude not to respond at all, isn't it also rude to respond too much?
Apples and alligators...
When I put forth FACTS on logical ON TOPIC subjects, I am not responding to anyone..
If Weigantians are at a loss to respond to the facts and subjects, then that is their failing unconnected to ANY action of mine..
that's my best idea so far, but i'm open to other options.
What is going on in the here and now is MUCH to extensive to cover in a single session...
Politics is a contact sport and happens 24/7...
My sense is that freedom of expression should be core to every political belief. Our ability to express our political beliefs, whole stop, is the thing that makes debate and discussion about all these other issues possible.
If you have an option that DOESN'T curtail the philosophy of the above.....?????
"I'm all ears"
-Ross Perot
It's like running the 100 yard dash...
You have ME, someone who has trained and trained and can run the 100 Dash in 10.2 seconds..
Then you have all the other racers (Weigantians) who say, "Com'on dood!!! Why do you have to be so good!!!?? Run on one leg and give the rest of us a chance!!!"
Where is the logic in that???
Speak2 [37] -
Good point about supposition. But that's all anyone's really got at this point. Proponents of the "it'll make things more moderate" as well as those who disagree both don't really have enough data yet to prove their cases. The reforms are so new and the candidates haven't shown clear trends, so it may be another 5 or 10 years before either one of them can make any sort of definitive case.
-CW
S2 [38] -
I will check that out! I love a good paradox...
-CW
nypoet22 [40] -
The SF recall is a lot more complicated than most national politics writers want to admit. They all frame it as "the public is now tough on crime, a big flip-flop" but there are personality issues as well in this race -- sort of Dem-on-Dem power struggles between the rest of city gov and the DA. SF is (pretty obviously) a Dem machine-politics city, so when two cogs of the machine fail to mesh, things can get ugly.
The cash bail thing is pretty easy to understand. Not saying I fully support it, but here's how I understand the logic: why should wealthy people get to stay free until their trial when less-well-off people have to stay locked up? That is discriminatory. Like I said, a fairly easy argument to make. But again, not saying I agree with it 100%.
-CW
Michale,
But the ONE President Trump supporter... The ONE person who doesn't toe the lame anti-America Democrat Party line[Elizabeth's own emphasis]..
HIS comments are the ones that are censored and removed..
Wildly Factually Inaccurate! (WFI!)
You are decidedly NOT the only one around here who doesn't toe the party line, lame or otherwise. You may think you are the only one but, you are not. Perhaps you don't recognize it when others here don't toe the Democratic party line (there is a song in there somewhere - it's on the tip my tongue!) because the rest of us have a whole other MO when not toeing the party line that is, well, considerate of Chris's blog and of all who contribute here. We show some manners, in other words.
Party Line
Why so??
Black lives matter is more about unequal policing than the flash point shootings. Most African Americans don't commit crimes, but many are treated by police as guilty until proven innocent...
I'm prolific.. I readily admit that..
And had been asked and later warned by our host about that...
Live by the Gish Gallop, get moderated by the Gish Gallop.
Ya'all want me to debate the issues with one hand tied behind my back giving ya'all an advantage??
You mean giving up your advantage of instead of concocting a compelling well backed up argument, just flooding the comments with every right wing opinion you can find on a subject even if they all say the same thing?
The facts (and the moderator's OWN admission) clearly prove beyond ANY doubt that I am being singled out..
Tell that to Don...
And yet, I made it a POINT to stay "within the rules" (AS THEY WERE STATED AT THE TIME) and was STILL singled out... THEN we come to find out that the "rule" of ON TOPIC wasn't really the rule.. It was a rule of "being frustrated" that was actually the rule..
Well, a subset of the rules. You conveniently left out the Gish Gallop to which you were warned about and as I see it moderated on. The post a picture without context was one of the more cheesy additions to your Gish Gallop...
Something you Democrats EXCEL at... :eyeroll:
I imagine Don is somewhere stewing and coming up conspiracies about how it's something BIG MONEY excels at...
JL,
that's my best idea so far, but i'm open to other options.
Which is more logical/rational and which contributes best to the overall health of society..
Reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator???
Or making the HIGHER standards the standard so that society can ASPIRE to the higher standard???
Michale,
OBNOXIOUS comments from fellow Democrats like MC's comment in #11 are perfectly acceptable even to moderator in a "foul mood".. MC's comment was even APPEASED ala Odumbo's "What are you bitching at me for!! I CHANGED the law!!!"
Yes, I noticed that foul comment, as did Joshua. I was not impressed with Chris's response or, should I say, non-response.
That's when I thought, alrighty then, Ima gonna start swearin' like the drunken sailor I was in another lifetime. Heh. Or, as the case may be according to last night here on the homefront, like the drunken sailor I currently must be! Hehehehehehehehe
nypoet22 [44] -
That's it. In a nutshell.
Michale -
He's right. About the volume. And I notice you only occupied yourself elsewhere for 1:15 before you posted (counting...) 9 more comments. For you, that's a light day. That's what annoys people, just the free-floating "here's something I read today that proves Dems are idiots" newsdump. I have gotten many complaints about the comments, and was still kind of in my COVID-era funk and just didn't want to deal.
I started with DH because, well, that one was obvious, and he had already gotten a yellow card. He was repeatedly warned, and he was so far beyond the line it was an easy call.
But everyone else should be on notice too. I am not in the mood to be lax, at least not for the near future. I want civility to return here. I am tired of reading people just ripping each other apart for no particular reason. That is my real motivation. And, with you in particular, I am tired of "this is a FACT because I say so, I refuse to accept anyone else's proof because Fox News doesn't agree with it" news dumps. Maybe there were ongoing conversations that made your posts relevant, but it's a new day, going forward. If something you post is wildly off topic and just provocative for the sake of being annoying, I may very well delete it. You have been warned.
And cheer up -- you haven't even earned a yellow card yet. This is mild.
And I warned you explicitly beforehand: don't harsh everyone's mellow. You thought I was joking. I wasn't.
-CW
Maybe it's a good time for us all to review the posted comment guidlines. These have not changed in 16 years. And they begin with:
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
For any reason.
And for any comment we don't like.
So fair warning to everyone: deal with it. These have always been the rules, and now they will be vigorously enforced. At least until everyone starts playing nice again.
You think I want to do this? I don't. I will be very happy to use a very light touch here. But we're not quite there yet.
So be warned, everyone. I'm not in the mood.
-CW
Sorry, meant to post a link with that:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/comment-policy/
-CW
And, Michale, check out [32]. Nobody gets a free pass.
-CW
Black lives matter is more about unequal policing than the flash point shootings.
Black Lives Matter has been WELL established as nothing but a con.. Even RUSS concedes this fact..
Most African Americans don't commit crimes, but many are treated by police as guilty until proven innocent...
Maybe in the past..
But THESE days black Americans are treated with kid gloves by LEOs which has gotten more than a few LEOs killed..
Tell that to Don...
DH resorted to dragging family members into the debate for the purposes of heinous personal attacks..
An act you and others are well familiar with, eh? :^/
THAT alone deserved a ban... Ironic that it's ONLY DH who got the ban and those whose politics agree with the moderators that committed the same acts escaped the ban...
Now THAT is irony... :^/
Not to mention DH made personal attacks against the moderator in the form of RL threats...
Comparing DH's acts to mine is comparing apples and alligators..
Another aspect you Democrats excel at...
BashiBazouk [53] -
The modus apprendi of the modern "personal responsibility" party.
Could not agree more. When did the GOP get so whiny? I remember when they would scornfully call the Dems "the party of victimhood." Boy, those were the days, eh?
Guess all that manly up-by-the-bootstraps thing went out of fashion or something. It's hard to even identify a GOP issue today that isn't tied to "Waaah! We're the victims here!"
-CW
Black Lives Matter has been WELL established as nothing but a con.. Even RUSS concedes this fact..
Maybe parts of the organization behind BLM, but I don't think that's true of the rank and file on the streets marching, especially in the early days of the movement. You see the same thing with that freedom trucker thing. Those who were pulling the money from the donation apps were corrupted quite fast, but the actual Truckers driving around the country likely thought themselves righteous.
Michale -
See? I got to the end of the comments, only deleted one of yours (for the duplicate/open tag thing) and I'm fine with the rest of it. For now.
Here is the general rule, restated: I will not let anyone hijack these comments, period. "Hijack" equals "ignore the column posted, ignore what everyone else is discussing and just flood the zone with whatever I want to talk about."
That's it. That's what I (and many others) are tired of. Deal with it.
-CW
Moderator,
That's what annoys people, just the free-floating "here's something I read today that proves Dems are idiots" newsdump.
Forgive me, but isn't that EXACTLY what many of your commentaries are???
"here's something I read today that proves Republicans are idiots"
I would think that you would be FLATTERED that I am emulating your style??
Or is it just frustrating that I show Democrats are as idiotic as you think Republicans are??
Bashi,
You see the same thing with that freedom trucker thing. Those who were pulling the money from the donation apps were corrupted quite fast, but the actual Truckers driving around the country likely thought themselves righteous
Do you have ANY facts to support your claim that the Freedom Trucker management was as corrupt as the BLM that bought several million dollar homes and gave millions to friends, family, baby daddies???
I await your response..
Forgive me, but isn't that EXACTLY what many of your commentaries are???
Forgive me but, you ain't the blogger who writes the headlining pieces around here. You are a guest in his house. So, act appropriately and everyone will be fine.
Moderator..
All I ask is that standards be applied equally, fairly AND consistency without ANY regard to political affiliation or personal bad moods...
I don't believe is too much to ask..
I would think that you would be FLATTERED that I am emulating your style??
Probably overly flattered by posting ten different versions of the same opinion piece over the run of the original story. Answer this: how many versions of the hunter laptop story did you post that eventually linked back to the original NYT piece as back up? I think I followed 4 or 5 before I lost interest...
Here's what I will pledge..
I will remain on topic insofar as the commentaries and other commenters are concerned...
In exchange, my comments will be moderated equally to those of "acceptable" political persuasions and will not be singled out for moderation beyond the standards of foul language, RL threats, etc etc..
Is that an equitable arrangement to the moderator??
Michale,
All I ask is that standards be applied equally, fairly AND consistency without ANY regard to political affiliation or personal bad moods...I don't believe is too much to ask..
You're right - it's not too much to ask. Not too much at all. And, it's what Chris already does.
In exchange, my comments will be moderated equally to those of "acceptable" political persuasions and will not be singled out for moderation beyond the standards of foul language, RL threats, etc etc..
To rephrase
In exchange, my comments will be moderated equally to those of "acceptable" political persuasions and will not be singled out for moderation beyond the standards of foul language, RL threats, etc etc that is applied to ALL commenters...
You're right - it's not too much to ask. Not too much at all. And, it's what Chris already does.
The facts prove otherwise..
But, in the interests of amity, I am willing to let the past be in the past and move forward...
Me, too! Let's start fresh!
And, we're all grown-ups here so we SHOULD be able to self-edit and self-moderate and keep our little inner voices to ourselves. Chris shouldn't have to do that for us, right?
Commenting on a blog isn't an Olympic sprint, it's a game of beach ball.
Commenting on a blog isn't an Olympic sprint, it's a game of beach ball.
Commenting on THIS blog is more mud-wrestling than beach ball... :D
@m,
So to follow my analogy, how do you feel if you're playing beach ball, trying to keep one topic up in the air, and some massive bodybuilder comes along, throws ten extra balls in the air, and spikes them?
Mud wrestling, eh?
https://youtu.be/J6M1cNHxA_c
It's not ALL bad, right?
Chris--the comments had become tedious to skim through, trying to find actual comments related to what you had to say, so thank you.
Even if I generally agree with some here and mostly appreciate what they have to say, too many inches were being taken up with battles between commenters, including those whose comments I otherwise read with interest.
My fingers are crossed....
Now THAT is what I call mud wrestling! Of course, there is altogether way too much plastic involved in Joshua's example but, what are ya gonna do ... minus the plastic bubble, that would be sooooooooooo much fun! Oh, one of these days ... :)
@Liz,
I thought that video was a better fit for my beach ball analogy :)
But here's one of my favorite movie scenes:
https://youtu.be/bDkPX3weLP0
So to follow my analogy, how do you feel if you're playing beach ball, trying to keep one topic up in the air, and some massive bodybuilder comes along, throws ten extra balls in the air, and spikes them?
Allow me to give you an alternative example..
Bull Riding...
You enter the ring WANTING a small light weight calf... But it's BULL RIDING where you have to deal with the brahma bull Diablo...
If one does not want their ideas and biases challenged, there are plenty of kiddy pools to wade in where you can dip yer toe in without repercussion or one's feelings not being hurt..
There are PLENTY of Democrat forums where they ban anyone who doesn't toe their Party line..
If THAT kind of echo chamber is the kind of forum that people want, there are plenty that meets that need...
Politics is a contact sport.. Don't blame the ones that are good at it.. :D
"Anything less... You should have joined the Air Force."
-Captain Ramsey, CRIMSON TIDE
I thought that video was a better fit for my beach ball analogy :)
But here's one of my favorite movie scenes:
https://youtu.be/bDkPX3weLP0
Nice... A Classic...
Sad that a movie like that could NOT be made today.. :(
You enter the ring WANTING a small light weight calf... But it's BULL RIDING where you have to deal with the brahma bull Diablo...
fair enough. if you can keep my analogy in mind when you post, i'll keep your analogy in mind when i get the urge to respond critically. and if we can manage that, my guess is that the authorities will approve.
Indeed!
fair enough. if you can keep my analogy in mind when you post, i'll keep your analogy in mind when i get the urge to respond critically. and if we can manage that, my guess is that the authorities will approve.
Deal...
Left to our own devices, it seems we can be pretty reasonable.. :D
I am reminded of what David (Akjidian) always use to say...
If people like us had the power, we could probably hash out all the country's problems over beer at the beach...
:D
hmm, i know david's been busy on his own projects, but it would certainly be nice if he could grace us with his presence again sometime.
Yea, David was one of the Founders, if I recall correctly...
I just binge-watched the Dominion War of DS9.. Founders.. heh... :D
Don't you have a link or something to his current project??
Last time I saw him (at a Netroots Nation) he said he was over on DailyKos...
just fyi...
-CW
somebody go comment on one of his articles and invite him to drop by!
:-)
(just an idea...)
-CW
wait, was that akadjian or someone else?
Those Netroots are all kind of a blur, I will admit...
:-)
-CW
(not even sure of the spelling, it's been so long...)
He has his own blog as well. http://akadjian.com/
Interesting quote from David's site..
“If you want to build a big movement, pick a big fight.” –Derek Cressman
Apparently, that is NOT the way to go.. :D
It's all about HOW you "fight", Michale.
It's all about HOW you "fight", Michale.
I "fight" to win...
All it takes is for someone to match me for facts and passion...
I can't be held responsible for all my ducks being in a row.. :D
Michale,
Quality beats quantity, every day of the week and twice on Sundays, my friend. So, just put a reasonable limit on the number of your ducks, okay?
And, all those damned links! I would much rather read what YOU think about a topic and respond to that instead of reading what every bloody columnist you've read thinks. I only have enough time to address your thoughts that come from your thinking. Besides, multiple links are for Sunday Nights, don'tcha know. :)
New column up:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2022/06/07/do-we-need-another-emmett-till-moment/
-CW