If we keep growing interest locally, people will become more familiar with the alternatives. The more cities and counties that use alternative voting systems, the easier it gets to pass these alternative systems statewide.
While many state lawmakers are determined to push back against alternative voting systems, there is always the possibility of flipping the rules back down the line, especially if more states in general flip blue, progressive, or independent.
I believe there are downsides only if you are drinking too much caffeine or if it is in conflict with one of your medications or existing health conditions, afaik.
Healthline weighs the pros and very few cons of caffeine.
Do you drink any coffees or teas? I don’t really touch caffeinated sodas these days, but I believe coffee and tea with caffeine are great since the caffeine is a stimulant which can help with focusing. The most important thing is consuming caffeine in moderation and at the right time, I believe. Drinking coffee only really helps in the first hour or so of waking up for instance or before a twenty minute nap.
I feel that Healthline does a pretty decent job of weighing the pros and cons.
I believe the job market dictates some of it. It depends a lot on your company’s structure here in the USA for if this is the standard or not as well. Plus different states have more protections for hired on workers which could further complicate how picky organizations get.
If it’s a mid to large size employer this becomes more common practice to do multiple interviews, I believe.
There could be time conflicts for organizing an interview, such as the need to hire someone during a busy season vs slow season, or when different key decision makers are out on PTO. The company could also be having a difficult time making a final choice between two or more candidates so they are trying to find anything to help weed some of them out. I think that last one is pretty pathetic though since it is wasting everyone’s time if can’t make that determination from the initial interview.
From my experience it’s usually because management doesn’t want to meet the applicants until person A, B, and C have all individually thought the candidate is worth the upper management team’s time.
Corporations don’t care unless they are regulated to care, but it’s also mixed with some corporations getting lots of flakes for the interviews. A hour wasted of upper management time spent studying up on someone that doesn’t show up for the interview could be a few hundred or a thousand dollars down the drain in “missed productivity”. Still, if they cared about the candidates they would do a team interview, and bring the executive team in right after if they thought the candidate was solid.
“That was the turning point. Since that day, I’ve lived a lie. The lie of living. My name too was a lie. My personal history, a lie. Nothing but lies. I was sick to death of a world that couldn’t be changed. But even in my lies, I refused to give up in despair. But now this incredible power… it’s mine… Well, then…”
How is it redundant?
Great, the government is committed to funding the bill, then they should increase taxes to fund the bill.
We should only be incurring debt in specific situations where there is a long run value add. I’m not saying we should be cutting spending at all, but we should be funding our spending by increasing taxes on corporations.
I don’t see the issue with having a separate vote in these situations which should be uncommon, where you are not able to fund the spending because it’s for one of the specific costs that add values to our society.
I agree that private sector budgeting doesn’t operate in the same way as public budgeting, but at a certain point in future it will start chipping at the value of the dollar if our nation is not able to pay off its interest on the debt. My point is that we should be taxing corporations more to fund the spending.
Edit: I don’t see what’s controversial about this take, what’s wrong with just funding the bill?
I would say it would only be irrational in the long run if we are not making a plan to increase taxes to go along with the increased costs, at least for costs which don’t have a value add later down the line. If X amount is what it will cost to pay everything then we should increase taxes on corporations to be able to collect at minimum X amount, if not more.
I still don’t think increasing the country’s debt should be the first choice, increasing taxes should be the first choice when the spending bill shows we would be spending more than we would be taking in. I’m not sure if they can show they want to increase taxes at the same time on that bill in not, but increasing taxes to cover the additional spending is important.
I do agree that the country even being able to be shut down is a major problem. I would say a shut down does hurt Republican voters more, but Democrat politicians care about their constituents.
It really doesn’t make a ton of sense for either party to get rid of the filibuster at this current point in time. If Democrats won big in 2024 then I believe they should have gotten rid of the filibuster, but they didn’t win big. They needed to win the swing states and at least gain an extra seat or two in the Senate but that didn’t happen. They could have expanded the House under such a situation so it is really unfortunate that did not occur. The main hope now is for Democrats to pick up seats in the midterms and in 2028 to try to make up some of the losses.
Really, anyone that wants to see positive change stick should consider moving to purple states and purple districts from their deep red state/deep blue states. If the swing states became solid blue states then we would have a much easier time passing legislation that is beneficial.
The debt ceiling is used that way by Republicans for the most part. They don’t want to increase taxes even for corporations, but they try to force a budget resolution by cutting spending when there really is only so much you can cut without hurting people.
The debt ceiling is a reminder that there is a cost to the money we spend, I personally believe we are still far from it being an issue but we should be increasing taxes to properly allocate money for spending. Ideally you want to collect more than you spend, but some instances it makes sense to go into a steeper debt to get those tangible benefits I mentioned.
Really a shutdown should trigger elections because it just shows that the governing body can’t do their jobs.
Having a debt ceiling isn’t really the worst idea to an extent. You can reach a hypothetical point where you’re not able to realistically pay off your debt to other nations for instance. That’s why instead of raising the debt limit and weakening the dollar in the process, it makes more sense to tax corporations more to cover your country’s added expenses. There are specific things it makes sense to increase the debt limit to do though such as funding education, science and research, renewable and nuclear energy, and public transit systems as these are all value adds for a society in the long run.
The smaller caucus in their party is more closer aligned to the presidency though. A populist president would have a better chance to making progress for a smaller caucus. A small caucus in the Senate is what prevented most helpful or progressive legislation from passing as well, as seen in Manchin and Senima who are both Independents.
I would say it’s a post-jaded reformation era.
Where you’re trying to will positive change for the sake of it. Potential fruitlessness of the effort be damned, I am willing my hope into this world
I believe it’s still possible through a program; you can send iMessage through an Apple laptop or copy and paste from a notes app on your phone or computer into iMessage and fill in the appointment specifics into the template.
They likely have a prompt they copy and paste into a text messaging portal. Although it could very well be an automated service that sends those texts, but it is a manual service receiving and verifying the replies.
Jesus basically came in to say: just follow the commandments, love one another, love your enemy as yourself, don’t be greedy and selfish, and you guys don’t have to keep doing those self-imposed rules the Israelites made themselves do like don’t eat pork or shell fish, etc.
Israelites believed that they were supposed to be purists about everything they do to some degree and saw being a purist as being holy; such as never mixing two different kinds of fabric together or don’t raise your goats with your sheep. Jesus said you don’t need to be a purist about all this unimportant stuff, but be good people.
Then go for the option where all the voting happens at one step based on preference. If you still want a best of two you can have the primary election earlier in the year with a score vote tally, and the two candidates that have the highest scores votes from that process then go into a head to head FPTP style for the general election.
For the record both Alaska and Maine are currently using an Alternative Voting system as well as many countries in Europe. Australia also uses an Alternative Voting system. So it can be done successfully in many countries without issue.
How is it crap and how does this overcomplicate any of it?
The person with the most votes does win under other voting systems I have brought up. What I want is exactly that. I my second example for instance person C has 29 votes compared to person A’s 24 votes, how is that not person C having the most votes and winning?
That’s a great argument in favor of an alternative voting system. Because we both agree that the most votes should win for each representative. Hence the added benefit of having the two rounds of voting since those additional vote preferences are taken into consideration. Through of one these alternative voting systems, we can truly say that the majority of people wanted that person for the job rather.
It’s also a great argument for score voting as well since that is only one round of voting, but you can give a score for each candidate and the candidate with the highest total score wins.
Really, anything other than FPTP is fine. RCV only has the same outcome as FPTP, where the least liked candidate can win, in ~10% of outcomes which is fairly uncommon. Really we should be okay with promoting most of the alternatives since they can be modified down the line as well. I personally promote Ranked Robin, STAR, and Score more but RCV is always worth supporting if it’s on your local ballot vs FPTP. Most people are more familiar and accepting of RCV if they have heard of some of these alternatives.