Basically the same thing under different names AFAIK. Single-choice plurality voting.

I live in a country with a radically different voting system and it doesn't change the fact that the people with all the money win the elections. And people still have to make tactical votes, except that now sometimes it's a vote to get someone from third place into second rather than second into first.

FPTP means the first candidate to achieve an absolute majority (50% of the vote + 1, the "post" in the "race") wins a given seat.

If absolute majority is not attained, the two front-runners have a followup run-off election.

So when 3 people run, and they get 20%, 35%, and 45% respectively, the 35% and 45% candidates go again without the 20% candidate pulling away votes.



Contrast with a system of Proportional Representation (used in Germany , Israel), wherein the number of seats available are allotted based upon a parties' relative success. So if there are 100 seats up for election, party A gets 20 seats to fill when their candidates win 20% of the vote.

I don't have first-hand experience with the PR system, so I might be slightly off, but it works generally like that.

or maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about


yeah, I think I am totally misusing "FPTP". fml



FPTP is simple majority. I'm now remembering that back when we learned about this I thought it was a poor name because it confused me that the "post" was in a relative position...

When I say verboten I mean more about the actual workings of the uniparty as a single entity rather than how the two parties merely work together to maintain the two party system.

But yeah that was definitely my experience in high school as well.

But re Soah's point about the elites always winning....it should make one wonder if democracy is just a sham. Birdman can chime in whenever..

I don't think the "uniparty" idea is "forbidden", but it is absurd given the extent of the imperfection of the policy overlap of the two parties

It's the warmongering bifactional uniparty establishment.

I'll stop here for the day on this particular road of conspiratorial thought...but I disagree.

what's the difference between a "bifactional uniparty" and "two parties"?

Sounds like made up rulings by judges making up reasons for things they want anyway. Unless we are going for the "if judges say it's constitutional then it's constitutional"sort of thinking.

What about mental tests to suppress due process or other rights? Why the exceptions for some?

I'm still wondering if they citizens united the cake case somehow.

It's slightly more descriptive.

This ****ing guy

Paul Manafort promised a Chicago banker a job in the Trump White House in return for $16 million in home loans

There may not be a high school student in Florida in class today.

do you propose an alternative standard of objective interpretation?

if the right to possess a firearm is grounded in personal security, doesn't allowing mentally unstable individuals to possess firearms actually frustrate the purpose of the right?

contrast with due process - does allowing mentally unstable people the right to a trial by jury frustrate the purpose of ensuring a fair adjudication of guilt?

the replies are awesome:

"The budget for hiring all these crisis actors must be astounding...it's almost as if this is a passionate grassroots movement in response to a horrific & totally avoidable mass shooting."

"Soros got a cramp from writing all those checks."

"wow, that's the crowd @realDonaldTrump wanted at his inauguration"

"According to Fox News George Soros just declared bankruptcy from having to pay all those actors to stand outside"

please list the DSM-V conditions which should prohibit someone from purchasing a firearm

This is just post decision rationalizing imo. The right is grounded in the second amendment.

I don't have a significantly better alternative. We're dealing with humans, of course!

commission joint task force of FBI, DOJ, and HHS to accomplish

* looks like FBI operates under DOJ jurisdiction

should the right to possess a firearm not be restricted in any event? after a conviction for a crime of violence? after a finding of insanity?

not trying to strawman here. I'm genuinely curious how far you think the Right goes. Neither of the above outcomes are spelled out in the text.

is the right to possess a kraken enshrined in the 2A?

I’m officially on strike



Bring down the system

Obviously not while in prison, if released probably should be allowed like with voting. Finding of insanity also seems like a criminal proceeding so removal could be fine. So yeah after being found guilty of stuff then you can have rights removed. Just not on you to prove your innocent.


After being convicted of something is more marginal though.

but if the right to carry is enshrined in the Am., on what authority do you revoke said right post conviction? in jail?

how is post-conviction different than pre-conviction, if you are looking just at the text?

538 had a good article on a somewhat related topic to the voting system stuff today

UUU8 is a privilege not a right