Bravo

That's a rug pull, though. Both the American and EU states only agreed to join their respective unions in the first place on the promise that these systems of balances would give them this level of input on union policy. Without such assurances, what small nation would ever agree to become inevitably subordinate to the whims of a larger state? It would never happen, and the western world would remain fractured into small nation-states constantly warring with each other, failing to cooperate and probably getting picked off, one by one, by nations like China or Russia which have no such qualms about forcing a union through conquest.

No, these unions were negotiated in good faith and if we're unhappy with them now, then the answer should be secession. Brexit proved that nobody is forced to remain in the EU if they don't like the deal.

Buy fairtrade bananas; it's relatively easy to switch

The EU has a similar system:

• Each EU member state gets ONE seat at the EU Council, regardless of population. This is comparable to the US Senate.
• Differences in population size are accounted for by EU Parliament, where the number of MEPs (Members of European Parliament) a member state gets is determined by population. This is comparable to the US House of Representatives.
• Finally there is the EU Commission which is the executive branch, comparable to the US president and cabinet.

The point of the EU Council/US Senate is to protect isolated regions from getting steamrolled by urban regions. Farmers are comparatively few relative to city industry workers, but any nation, union or federation is built on the back of farming. However, due to the distance and lack of interaction between city dwellers and rural dwellers, it's easy for city dwellers to grow disconnected from the reality of just how important the rural dimension is, and vote for laws that only suit the city. It is utterly necessary to create a system which balances the two. Otherwise you'd have, like, three states (New York, California, Texas) making all the decisions, with the other 47 states having to like it or lump it.

I still maintain that as great as DS9 was, it started Trek on a self-destructive path of constantly trying to go even darker and edgier. Gene had utopian rules for a reason, and although some of them were probably too restrictive, the whole point of Star Trek, the unique selling point it possesses that no other franchise has, is that it offers us a vision of the future that isn't a dystopian hellscape. A positive look at what the future could be for us if we follow our nobler instincts. DS9 eroded that by suggesting that it was all bullshit, that the Federation was just as unenlightened as we are today, and although it made for a great show in the short term, in the long term it hurt the franchise because darker and edgier yields ever diminishing returns.

In fairness I think the memetic virus was meant to stimulate individualism and perhaps general revolt in the Borg, and Picard and co didn't think it would result in the collective simply purging entire cubes remotely just to keep the contagion contained. The memetic virus was meant to be the nonlethal option. It turned out to be lethal only because Picard and co underestimated just how ruthlessly it would be crushed. Of course, then again, perhaps I'm misremembering.

Put simply: if RCV had been in place for the US presidential race in 2024, the Gaza issue wouldn't have split the Democratic vote.

Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos

or sometimes no candidate

How does FPTP help in that scenario?

risks more people accidentally voting different than they wanted

Can you describe how that might happen?

It's not just the USA that's in dire need of it. The UK should also adopt it. First Past The Post (FPTP) voting encourages polarized extremism. Because it functions on a Ricky Bobby-esque "if you're not first, you're last" philosophy that punishes moderates for being moderate.

Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Poe's law is based on a comment written by Nathan Poe in 2005 on christianforums.com, an Internet forum on Christianity. The message was posted during a debate on creationism, where a previous poster had remarked to another user: "Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious".[4]

The reply by Nathan Poe read:[1]

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.

The original statement of Poe's law referred specifically to creationism, but it has since been generalized to apply to any kind of fundamentalism or extremism.[3]

I have to wonder: if headlines didn't specifically point out how this is a snub to Trump, would Trump even notice shit like this happening? Or understand its negative implications for him? Sometimes it feels like the news media is intentionally trying to get him riled up.

It's been deleted so don't blame lemmy