Guy. Relax. I'm being honest with you about what I think and asking some questions. You can stop yelling.

You sent me 15 different links. I didn't read them all because I don't have all night. I sort of looked them over. If you're going to start yelling because I didn't read your half day presentation, you can stop talking with me.

Aspen, CO 2009 Burlington, VT 2009 Telluride, CO 2019 Arlington, VA 2023

Okay, so by many places repealed in the last few years, you meant two. Telluride and Arlington, and then 15 years ago, two other places. Do I have that right? Any locations to add to that that are post-2009? It looks like Glenn Youngkin had something to do with taking it away in Arlington That's not exactly a crushing endorsement for its badness, from my point of view.

Places where politicians are fighting against the effort means nothing to me. I told you that. You can yell as much as you like. I'm pretty convinced that any type of reform is going to get that kind of resistance. Places where the voters tried it and didn't like it will make an impact on me, but as far as I know, anywhere it's been tried recently, the voters have liked it. Do you have any counterexamples? Interviews with voters, polls of voters, places where with some experience people thought it was bad?

I'm trying to honestly make sense of this, give you an honest hearing-out without staying up all night. What's your take on this?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jIhFQfEoxSdyRz5SqEjZotbVDx4xshwM/view

What's your take on that paper? It looks like something happened in Burlington in 2009 that's a real flaw. But it looks like the Condorcet winner wins with RCV pretty much all the time outside of that one time. Look at the long list of checkmarks. I like this paper's proposed fix fine, since even once that it happens is a problem. Off the top of my head, STAR and 3-2-1 also sound fine. Mostly, I'm in favor of moving away from FPTP and unconvinced by your panic about RCV.

This is completely pointless to have this discussion then. Preemptively banning it is a great sign that you’re not going to have a strong enough market to retain the voting style after it’s implemented. If it’s already this difficult to get it implemented then having entire states that are hellbent on banning it is exactly the kind of thing you shouldn’t be trying to get past. You should choose a method that 1. doesn’t have any of the problems that republicans could even slightly pin on the voting method. 2. is easier to understand and therefore harder to convince citizens it’s a boogieman 3. doesn’t have an organization that is repeatedly lying about the problems with the method in order to convince voters. All it does is make it easier to attack.

It sounds like you don't draw a distinction between the voters trying something and not liking it, and a bunch of politicians trying to fight it to stop it from happening. I do draw that distinction. All you're doing by yelling at me that the second one is a problem with the voting method itself, instead of an inherent difficulty in anything that changes the system that you're going to have to overcome regardless, is just wasting time that I could be using to read your other arguments.

All of this you would have known if you bothered to read anything I linked, which I know you didn’t because those links take hours to read. You didn’t even do a good job scanning one of them.

It's getting hard to take you seriously. Do you seriously expect me to spend hours reading all your links in order to respond to your message? I doubt that you'll be able to find one person on Lemmy who would ever be willing to do that. Would you? If I sent you fifteen different links of this type of length, would you click them all open and read them and not get back to me until you had? That's absurd. And to keep yelling like this and then turn people around to your way of looking at things?

I am trying to keep an open mind and look at your ideas, but you're making it pretty difficult.