Sludgeyy

I don't know much about RTW

From my understanding, not all unions benefit their members. Some just charge money and do nothing.

Why would someone want to be forced to join one?

Doesn't it make more sense to have the freedom to choose if you want to be a part of one or not?

Like make a law that corporations have to have joinable unions available that are funded by the corporation.

The idea that someone pays dues in hopes of getting benefits is wild to me. They shouldn't have to pay dues to make sure the business treats them fairly.

Certain flavorings contain a diketone chemical. They were mostly used in butter or cream flavors.

Orignal vape juice contained Nicotine, Vegetable Glycerin, and Propylene Glycol. Then a flavoring was added to make it taste.

The flavorings are used in baking or even making popcorn. "Safe" to eat but not to inhale.

People that worked in movie theaters would develop "popcorn lung" from breathing in the butter flavoring all day. That's where the term comes from.

Any reputable vape juice company would not use these flavorings today.

Extention cords are dangerous because they are not always the right gauge.

People get cheap extention cords and try to pull more power than the cord can handle and it ends up heating the cord and causing a fire.

It's why a lot of things say "Do not use an extention cord! Plug directly into wall." Because they know someone is going to use a dollar store extention cord on a space heater.

Not because the space heater won't work with an extention cord

Most people care about plug type (low profile) or color more than they do the quality or gauge of the wire.

Anyways, this cord could be dangerous like that if the gauge isn't the same or thicker than what's in the wall.

You don't have a peanut pan to cook two pancakes at once?

This is not a discussion about how likely it is to happen, but that the electoral college is unbalanced because NOT EVERY VOTE WEIGHS THE SAME.

If you had been reading my comments, you'd know I know the electoral college is unbalanced.

It being unbalanced is the whole reason it exists

To make sure the high populated states don't always get what they want and give smaller populated states more voice

This is not a discussion about how likely it is to happen, but that the electoral college is unbalanced because NOT EVERY VOTE WEIGHS THE SAME.

This is a discussion about how likely one voter is to affect the election

You are trying to make it not about that

The question is, "Does someone voting in Wyoming have more "voting power" than someone in California?"

It's like if I wanted Candidate A to win. Would it be better if I lived in Wyoming or California?

I've said before that someone in Wyoming has more EV per capita. "NOT EVERY VOTE WEIGHS THE SAME."

My point is one voter swinging Wyoming and then Wyoming swinging the EC, is never going to happen before one voter swings California and California's EVs just mattering like they always do.

Lower population does not automatically mean more "voting power"

That Pennsylvania, 19 EC 13m Pop., has more "voting power" than both California and Wyoming

Pennsylvania has 1/3 population of California. But 1/3 EC would be 17.5.

A single voter in Pennsylvania has higher chances of being the deciding vote than in California, and Pennsylvania gets more EV per capita.

19 EC is enough to realistically change the election. 3 EC is not.

That's why Pennsylvania is a "swing state" and Wyoming is not.

One vote in wyoming weighs more than one vote in California

So you're saying that a single voter in Wyoming voting for Candidate A means more than a single voter in California voting for Candidate A?

In order for any of Wyoming votes to even matter, the two candidates would have to be at 268-267 and need Wyoming to be the tie breaker. It would have to come down as a perfect swing state.

California's 53 EV always matters. Harris had to win California to even have a chance at winning.

Neither candidate had to win Wyoming to win

Odds that California comes down to a 20m vs 20m tie or Wyoming coming down to a 250k vs 250k tie are basically the same.

Even if Wyoming was tied like that and 1 voter could make a difference. It would still have to be 268-267 EVs to even matter

TLDR:

Only 2 states to simplify things

Wyoming 3 EV

California 53 EV

56 EV total, 29 EV need to win

Wyoming still has more EV per capita

California wants Candidate B

Wyoming wants Candidate A

Who decides the election? (California)

If what you're saying is that the smaller population with more EV per capita has more pull in an election, then Wyoming would actually have a shot at making Candidate A win by themselves.

California has 53/538 EV.

California controls 10% of the total EVs

Wyoming controls .06%

TLDR again:

As a voter, being able to effect 10% of the total EVs is more powerful than being able to effect .06%.

It wasn't about how much the states electoral votes matter, but how much a single persons vote matters in the entire election.

How electoral votes matter is the whole point. If it was done by pure population they would have equal voting power. They do not have equal voting power because the electoral votes matter.

1 person in Wyoming makes more difference in how Wyoming election turns out. Less population, more influence.

There are 538 electoral votes divided over 50 states

Wyoming has 3

California has 54

Wyoming has 584k people

California has 39m people

In Wyoming each voters has 5.137E-6 electoral votes to cast

In California each voters has 8.98305085E−7 electoral votes to cast

Now winner takes all electoral votes aside. Someone in Wyoming is contributing more electoral votes to their candidate than someone in California.

This is what's always argued when talking about voting power based on population

If the candidate needs 270 to win, if I am able to give more to a candidate with my vote, my vote is more powerful in a way.

There has been two elections decided by 3 electoral votes. 1876 Hayes and 1796 Adams. Total electoral votes at the time were 261 and 138, respectively. It would be equivalent to winning by 6 and 12 votes today with the 538 electoral votes. So while it was 3, those 3 votes meant a lot more back then when it was 3/261 or 3/138.

If 50.000 people in California changes their vote it hardly matters. If 50.000 people in wyoming do that, it heavily influences the outcome of who wyoming votes for.

Like I said earlier, yes, Wyoming voters have more influence on who wins their electoral votes and they have more electoral votes per person

California with 53 electoral votes is a 106 point swing. Taking 53 electoral votes from the winning candidate and giving it to the runner up would change the majority of all the elections.

Think of it this way:

2 states just California and Wyoming. California has 53 votes, Wyoming 3.

56 votes total. Need 29 votes to win.

Biggest issue the candidates are running on is spending money on beaches.

Candidate A: For spending

Candidate B: Against spending

California wants A, Wyoming wants B.

If what you're saying is true, then Wyoming should have the most power in this election because each of their votes count more than a person in California.

584k deciding 3 electoral votes vs 39m deciding 53 electoral votes

Yet every single person in Wyoming could vote candidate B, and it's still going to be up to California to decide

So would you want to be a voter in Wyoming or California?

California because your vote doesn't matter in Wyoming. No matter who you vote for in Wyoming, California is going to decide. You want to be able to cast your vote in California to hopefully swing the state

If you gave those 584k Wyoming voters the chance to not cast their vote in Wyoming but instead cast their vote in California against the 39m, they would be wise to do it. Doesn't matter where 3/56 electoral votes go, it matters much more where the 53/56 electoral votes go.

So yes, while each voter in California has less effect on the California electoral votes. California has more effect on the total electoral votes.

Being able to participate in a more important election is worth more than having more influence in an election that is next to meaningless.

Wyoming has the lowest population.

Makes sense why candidates spend all their time trying to get these powerful voters on their side. Those 3 electoral votes really makes it the most powerful swing state.

Someone in Wyoming has more electoral votes to their votes, yes. And I believe that is the point you're making.

If everyone in Wyoming voted for Candidate A. Candidate A has basically the same chance of winning or losing.

If everyone in California voted for Candidate A. Candidate A has a lot better chance of winning.

It's more powerful to be able to vote in something that actually matters than to vote in something that doesn't.

You could just not count any votes in Wyoming and still call the overall winner 99.999% of the time. It would have to come down to 3 electoral votes tie breaker for their votes to even matter. Whereas every vote in California always matters.

Like in this last election. If Harris won every "swing state". But Trump could have won California and he'd win the election.

Electoral college has It's pros and cons but "The smaller the state's population the more their vote counts." Isn't true.

It's the middle size, "swing states", that the voters have the most powerful.

You aren't a drop in the bucket like California, but your state has enough electoral votes to actually swing things.

Ah yes the solution to tips is boycotting my favorite restaurants, that will show them that I don't want to tip!

"You have my favorite food and great service, but I would rather you just raise your prices and pay your staff more."

Yep that's what they would see from my boycott

The waitresses and waiters and everyone can't survive without tips, so let's just give them no business and no tips!

It's the idea of the Applebee's 10 dollar meal that's actually 12 dollars. What business wouldn't want to give their employees top dollar and have to advertise higher prices? It's a win-win for the business. They aren't going to change until forced or highly encouraged.

Getting rid of "Tip wages" would be the solution

No one should be required to rely on tips as income

It should be known no one is required to rely on tips as income

Then we can all stop with the tips

Disclaimer: I wrote this all for myself not to change your mind or argue. Helps if I write down my thoughts and I don't see a problem sharing. Feel free to discuss if you like.

35 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

35 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

30 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

Vs.

41 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

29 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

30 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

Alice wins

Vs.

Carol wins

Say you have:

41 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic

29 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican

30 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican

If those 29 voters couldn't vote Third-party they would vote Democratic. So when the Third-party candidate is knocked out, their votes should favor their second pick. Democratic wins 59-41.

If it was:

41 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic

29 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic

30 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican

Which makes more since on why the 6 votes moved to Republican because Republican was their second choice.

Then Republicans win 70-30.

In America you'd have 4 basic senarios

25 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic

25 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican

25 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic

25 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican

In RCV, Third-party wins.

Let's say this

30 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic

25 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican

20 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic

25 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican

Third-party still wins

40 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic

10 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican

10 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic

40 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican

It would be a tie

45 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic

10 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican

5 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic

40 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican

It would still be a tie

45 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic

5 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican

10 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic

40 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican

Republicans win

Let's change it to this:

35 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

35 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

30 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

Vs.

41 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

29 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

30 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

Alice wins

Vs.

Alice wins

They couldn't make their whole point if you just switched Alice and Carol. And it makes much more sense that someone with Alice second would change it to Alice first.

But when 29 votes still hold Alice as last, it does have some weight.

Something just seems off about it and it's because they cherry picked a senario that would work for their point.

Alice > Carol > Bob

Alice > Bob > Carol

Bob > Alice > Carol

Bob > Carol > Alice

Carol > Alice > Bob

Carol > Bob > Alice

There are 6 ways to vote and they leave out half of them. Then they make Carol supporters favor Alice as their second choice.

20 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

15 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol

15 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

20 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

20 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

10 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice

Carol eliminated, +10 Bob +20 Alice. Alice would win.

If 5 voters from Bob > Alice > Carol were moved to Alice > Bob > Carol

20 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

20 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol

10 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

20 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

20 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

10 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice

Alice would win

What if everyone from Bob > Alice > Carol moved to vote for Alice > Bob > Carol

20 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

30 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol

0 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

20 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

20 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

10 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice

It would be a tie.

In bold are the three they selected:

20 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

15 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol

15 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

20 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

10 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

20 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice

5 voters from Bob > Carol > Alice moved to Alice > Carol > Bob. Just like their example.

26 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

15 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol

15 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

14 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

10 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

20 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice

Alice 41

Bob 28

Carol 30

Bob is eliminated.

15 votes goes to Alice. 14 goes to Carol.

Alice still wins.

But they set it up like:

20 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

15 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol

0 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

35 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

10 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

20 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice

5 voters from Bob > Carol > Alice moved to Alice > Carol > Bob. Just like their example.

26 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob

15 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol

0 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol

29 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice

10 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob

20 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice

Then when Bob is eliminated all 29 votes go to Carol.

Then they say "It's unfair that Carol wins". When in reality those 29 people would prefer Carol over Alice.

RCV might have some flaws but that article has some flaws.

I haven't looked at the others. I might later.

Edit:Formatting

The whole Noah story arc proves that God would totally cause storms to cleanse the evil.

Doing it Thalnos' style and only killing/moving? the bad people isn't God's style. He could do it, but "God snapped his fingers and all bad people were sent to Hell, the world instantly became a better place." Doesn't get you a New York bestseller.