My bad for not being more clear. I didn’t mean to imply that more parties are automatically a good thing. What I meant is that ranked choice voting actually incentivizes candidates to adopt broader, more inclusive positions that reflect the unique views of voters in their district or state. It encourages collaboration and reduces division because candidates need to appeal beyond their base to win second- and third-choice votes. Just adding a third party alone doesn’t fix anything, but RCV actively reshapes how campaigns are run and how candidates engage with voters. That’s something only RCV can accomplish.

Ranked choice voting is designed to reduce the spoiler effect and allow voters to support third-party and independent candidates without fear of “wasting” their vote. While it doesn’t automatically create new parties, it can encourage their growth by making the political system more accessible. By implementing RCV first, the political environment becomes more open to alternative parties gaining traction and competing more fairly over time.

I’m short, by it’s nature, RCV creates alternatives.

You’re right that proportional representation (PR) would better reflect diverse political views, but RCV can still be a step toward breaking the two-party dominance. It lowers the barrier for third-party and independent candidates by reducing the “spoiler effect” and encouraging broader support. Ideally, combining RCV with multi-winner districts or systems like Sequential Proportional Approval Voting would create a more representative democracy.

Ranked choice voting still works with two parties by letting voters rank multiple candidates within those parties or include third-party/independent options. It helps ensure the winner has broader support, reduces “lesser of two evils” voting, and encourages more positive campaigning, especially in primaries.

We don’t need a third party. We need ranked choice voting.

Into the Breach released on netflix when its game feature launched. Its one of the best games I have ever played.

Oooooo I didn’t know this! I’m gonna give it a try tonight!

I will share my personal favorites:

Faster Than Light, Into the Breach, Inscryption (don’t look up anything just buy and play it)

That’s a lazy and inaccurate take. The Chinese Civil War wasn’t some simplistic ‘capitalists vs. communists’ fight. The KMT was corrupt but not purely capitalist, and the CCP’s victory came from exploiting peasant dissatisfaction and the KMT’s failures, not some inherent ideological supremacy. Comparing the KMT to the Confederacy is absurd—they weren’t separatists but nationalists fighting for control of all China. If you’re going to push historical narratives, at least try for accuracy instead of ideological grandstanding.

The man sent a literal mob to attack the capital, has been convicted of multiple crimes, and openly admitted to more. Teflon Don doesn’t care about dirt.

When the shitters clogged, you call the Mario Brothers to clean the pipes.

Animal Well was the best game I played this year and it was made by one dude who built his own engine.

Balatro is a close second with the best soundtrack. The Dev bought it on Fiverr.

He’s JustAnIdiot. PlsIgnore.

If America and NATO pull back support, Putin will just say “fuck it” and take all of Ukraine and then do whatever he wants. Putin wants every territory that used to be Russia.

Yes, that’s a great example of how propaganda influences the culture of discussion. Russia has been a key source of pushing this kind of rhetoric for a long time, with the specific goal of shifting the culture away from meaningful debate and toward juvenile, reactionary responses. Even though the comment you highlighted comes from the opposite point of view, it’s a perfect example of how effective Russian propaganda campaigns have been at shaping and distorting cultural discourse, muddying the waters and preventing genuine conversations from taking place. Your example is a result of their efforts as I highlighted in my original statement.

It’s generally pretty easy to spot. Just look for a short inflammatory sentence without any substance or relevance. They try to fan the flames of conservative meme culture to try and rile up angry and useless debate.

While frustration with the status quo is understandable, abandoning the mechanisms of government only cedes power to those who are already disproportionately influencing it—special interests and billionaires. The government, flawed as it may be, is still the primary tool, and often the only tool, for enacting systemic change. By participating—through voting, organizing, and holding leaders accountable—citizens can challenge the status quo and push for reforms that better reflect the collective will.

Change doesn’t come from disengagement; it comes from working within and improving the systems that already exist. To give up on these mechanisms is to forfeit the opportunity to make meaningful progress.

Go back and read my comment. I said his rhetoric didn’t match his policies.

Did you watch that clip of H.W. and Reagan? The rhetoric is clearly pro-immigration. They are the “right” I am referring to in history and where they are at on the Overton Window. It also depends on what you mean by immigration. At that point in time, the Overton Window was center right.

Reagan was an idiot about a lot of things. His policies were often at odds with his rhetoric which was quite progressive for its time and place. If you listened to him though, he was not openly hostile to immigration. Neither him nor H.W. where on the scale of today’s right.

https://youtu.be/YsmgPp_nlok