What about the husband vote cancelling out the wives vote?

Both humans have agency. If you are going to frame the issue as treachery, then the husband shouldn’t vote against his wife. Or, is the husband owed two votes and the wife none?

Fuck that.

That’s true. We are a racist country on the whole. Like the US, it really shows in the regional areas.

I agree, but take a fucking chill pill. Everyone has an opinion.

Well, his sister, same thing…

Guaranteed to fail the next health inspection too after Trump’s leaking diaper wreaks every floor surface.

You seem to be implying that handguns don’t count even though it has happened, or actual attempts, multiple times. Ok…?

Handguns did the job on Ronald Reagan and almost for Gerald Ford.

Leaving Abe Lincoln to one side, but if you are lucky and your security detail is a bit lax, a handgun can get the job done. I’m Australian, so we don’t see much of that sort of thing.

This will not go well.

Europe is not designed for oversized cars. As soon as you are off the “A” roads, it is goat tracks in every direction. And, you can forget about parking. Regular cars have enormous trouble already. Every new car gets panel damage within a couple of weeks. Put those monster US vehicles in the villages it will be carnage.

Not to worry, I’m sure that there are websites around that cater to your squirrel tastes

I’m from Australia and don’t mind engagement with the (mostly) US content.

Let’s face it, the US election is the most interesting event on the planet anyway.

deleted by creator

Yep, I had my data deleted. They told me so, but I don’t for a second believe it.

Doesn’t the Supreme Court limit the powers of the house and the presidency, like, a lot?

Ok

I’m afraid that I still don’t get it, most probably because I am thick.

Someone has to be eliminated. That’s the whole point of elections. OPV means that your choice counts, well your preferences do. It also means that you don’t have to vote for the person you don’t want to, but you can rank your preferences. It is very rare that I would rank a bunch of people the same value. It is generally easy to rank candidates.

In our senate we sometimes have to rank over 100 candidates. If you do that you must number every box and can’t make a mistake. Or, the parties have registered their preferences and you just tick one box for your chosen party and that’s it. So it’s either one box ticked or 100 or so. The optional thing is that you don’t have to pick all 100, but that changes sometimes due to party politics playing with the system. One the whole, our electoral system limits how much political parties can mess about with elections. For instance, no party chooses electoral boundaries. Gerrymandering doesn’t happen here anymore. It used to, but not now.

I shall have to investigate the STAR system.

Ok. But why rank them the same?

I don’t see the point. In preferential voting you choose your candidates in a ranked order, so if number 5 doesn’t make the cut in the final count, your next vote (number 4) kicks in, and so on. Not exactly - all number 1 votes are tallied, and the losers are eliminated and then the second vote from the loser candidate gets tallied and so on until the winner is chosen. In this way your ranked choice is never exhausted until a winner arises. Your number 3 choice may get voted in. All votes are potentially important. FPTP sounds like a crap shoot.

Don’t the states choose the voting system for their particular state? If so, it will never happen.

Australia has optional preferential voting. If there is 10 candidates, you can list them in order you want, but you don’t have to pick them all. You can stop at any point. Pick 3 or 4 in order, or say 7, but you don’t have to rank the nazi at all.

Even worse, we have a nasty habit of informing on our fellows. Not for murder, or other serious crimes, but for breaking stupid council rules and such. We call it dobbing. We dobb.

Some people will pick a fight about anything. Ok, I’m wrong, you discovered the killer point in my entire thesis!