RunawayFixer

The statewide efficiency gap is when you look at wasted votes across all districts of that state, it is not applicable to any single district. It is not correct to state that aoc was elected despite a state efficiency gap, because that gap is not applicable to the single district that she was elected in.

I'm not with the tankies, but I do think you have a misunderstanding of how gerrymandering works, so I wanted to try explaining it.

Part of gerrymandering is packing:
The committee packs as many voters of the party they want to discriminate against, in as few districts as possible. This creates a lot of wasted votes in those packed (now safe) districts, which will benefit the other party in other more contested districts. So yes, the gerrymandering benefits the republican party when looking at ALL districts, but democrats within the packed districts have very safe general elections.

AOC is elected in one of those safe packed districts, so in that way she "benefitted" from the gerrymandering. I'm not going to hold that against her though, she didn't make the map and the fpp voting system isn't her fault either.

This picture shows it best imo: in one of the disproportiate examples there's a majority of blue voters, but thanks to 2 packed blue districts, there are more yellow representatives. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#/media/File%3ADifferingApportionment.svg

There's several systems in use. In short and from memory:

Ranked choice voting is good for electing 1 representative per voting group, so would be good for electing a president for example or a senator in a small us state.

A popular method in parliamentary democracies is the D'Hondt method, which is used for electing multiple representatives per voting group (country, district, whatever). The D'Hondt method still gives a minor advantage to larger parties over smaller ones.

With the D'Hondt method, you can either vote for the list or for a person on the list. The sum of list + direct votes will determine how many representatives will come from that list.

List votes will be distributed starting at the top of the list, according to need to meet the threshold. It's basically as you described. Sometimes a celebrity might be dropped somewhere in the middle of the list (or in the very visible last spot) and get elected without benefitting from list votes.

Being a career politician takes years of work and politicians who got a lot of votes in past elections, will receive better list positions in future elections. So persons at the top of the lists will typically get more direct votes as well.

The method of vote distribution does not determine how the voting lists are created. The different parties can have different rules on how to create their voting lists, but typically it will be the regional party leadership that creates the lists for their regional elections, based on past performance but also on political chicanery. The regional party leadership will have been typically elected by the regional party membership.

If I like a party platform but dislike an individual within that party, then I weigh my decision on the chances of that person getting into a position of power if that party was to form the government. If they stand to become a minister, then I won't vote for anyone from that party.

I personally never vote for lists, always for persons. Even if that person does not get elected, receiving more direct votes will give them more say within their party.

And the most damning part of all imo: "the owners and the scientists familiar with the effects of radium carefully avoided any exposure to it themselves. Chemists at the plant used lead screens, tongs, and masks.".

The plant owners definitely knew that they were killing people, there should have been murder charges imo.

Blinkers should be blinking before you turn the wheel. I once drove as a passenger with a driver who only started blinking after he started his manoeuvres and those 40T trucks were hammering their horns for a good reason. Scary as hell experience, would not recommend.

If you've already looked it up, please share the link (next time) so we don't have to also look it up. I'm not going to look this one up, because I don't really care about it, but I would have clicked the link.

Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were murdered in 1919. The Iron Front was founded in 1931. Claiming that all Iron Front members in 1931 and 1932 supported those 1919 murders is nonsensical.

The claim is a straw man fallacy, a fabrication to paint people who actively oppose their version of totalitarianism in a bad light.

I have a hunch that this cat was roleplaying that he killed a big ape and was now eating it.

Currently this post sits at 5 down votes, so it's not just that some people are unable to learn from the past, it's people who are unwilling to learn from the past.

If you're presented with evidence that what you want to do, will not work and will have negative consequences and you still want it to go ahead, then I have to ask: Why?

Why insist on doing something again which has failed in the past and which will undoubtedly fail again in the future? What is this meant to accomplish?

Simplified: Energy is stored as heat in matter (the jostling of atoms and molecules) and there are many more water molecules under the bridge than there are molecules/atoms in the bridge. So both the water and the metal heat up during the day and cool down at night, but since there is much more water, the water has a much more stable temperature. In short: Larger volumes of atoms have larger heat capacities.

If the water under the bridge was stagnant and a shallow puddle, then it's temperature would vary much more throughout the day as well, but it would still warm up less than metal or soil, since a body of water loses some of it's heat through evaporation.

This is also why coastal climate is a thing: the huge mass of water in the ocean makes it so that coastal areas are warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer.

Some people are unable to learn from the past. And the last time this happened isn't even that long ago.

In 2012 then candidate president Hollande did a surprise announcement of a 75% tax on earners of 1m+. And it was such a surprise that even the fiscal expert on his team was surprised.

Before Hollande was even elected, rich people started responding by changing their domicile to outside France, often also actually (part time) emigrating.

After getting elected Hollande then tasked his government with implementing such a tax. And that whole lengthy process was a political disaster, ending with the implementation of a heavily watered down temporary tax.

The chronology: https://www.lesechos.fr/2015/01/chronologie-de-la-taxe-a-75-sur-les-tres-hauts-revenus-avant-disparition-197994

After implementation the tax failed to bring in the projected money, because well, people react to what they perceive as overtaxation + the overall economy wasn't doing so great due to this and other policies of Hollande: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/france-s-75-percent-tax-rate-offers-lesson-revenue-estimating/

Half an article with a graph of the effect on wages, the rest is behind a paywall: https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2019/06/28/quand-la-taxe-a-75-a-ete-supprimee-le-nombre-de-contribuables-declarant-plus-de-1-million-d-euros-par-an-a-augmente_5482849_3232.html

In 2017 Hollande was the most unpopular french president in history and he did not run for reelection. Not solely because of this tax, but it certainly didn't help.

And that was 75%. So a 90% tax on the rich is just incredibly dumb populism.