3RU7AL

You examples above are more in line with "infrastructure" which can occur in most forms of nation states.

You question Richman's authority  in #98.    

You must give an example where socialism did not seek domination of nominally private owners.

You must cite real world examples of a socialist nation that meets your standard of  "good" socialism.

Now you must cite a work that supports your view. Otherwise it is just your opinion, and should be labeled as such.

Socialism requires centralized government. All capital rests with the state.....all power rests with the state....human nature then kicks in.  There is the logic.

Examples include Germany, Italy and Argentina.

Richman is an "authority"

You fail to understand the definition of "totalitarianism".  Per Oxford.."Totalitarianism is a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state." 

Perhaps we should debate.

Where socialism abolished money and prices

Where socialism abolished all market relations outright

fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners

Where socialism sought totalitarian control 

Explain exactly what you mean by "proper" socialism.

Religion exists because there hasn't been established scientific evidence one way or the other.

fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer

Even Marx knew that socialism made for bad government  ( it needed to "wither away")

Since you have descended into pejoratives, I win this discussion by default

Limit the retabulation to two rounds. The first round, if no one gets to 50% then remove everyone except the top two and retabulate with only those two choices. This is exactly how a run of election works except you wouldn't need to hold two separate elections. What do you think about that option?

It doesn't Rob your first choice of it's power. Your second choice would only count if your first choice is eliminated, and it would only be eliminated if it was the least popular of the remaining choices.

Under the current system, if it's Trump, Biden, RFK and you vote RFK who lands with 5%, then your vote is effectively wasted. With RCV in that scenario you can still have a say as to who in Biden v Trump wins, but only if you choose one as a second pick.

so you can make statements that easily appeal to most people like "Both candidates are buffoons"

You have a life long public servant in Joe Biden

personally I prefer more options.

it's simple if you have chick and pizza each getting 33% of the vote and also the 2 highest vote counts, you just have a run off election and people can narrow the debate down to both choices and whichever one argues their position best, gets more votes now. This way you have all the most liked candidates win, while also solving the issues of a plurality win, with a run off and mitigating all the issues with RCV

now you have stopped arguing in good faith.

for someone who seems so interested in mitigating "low voter turnout" and "wasting the time of volunteers"

When I am making an argument listing pro's and cons am I better off including arguments that appeal to your ideology or to my own?

As long as I am being factual, I don't have to agree with a premise I present. If you disagree that lower voter turn out is bad, simply ignore the argument. I did elaborate a bit by pointing out that some people confused by it, still can make great decisions. However I think for the most part if you disagree with the premise ignore it. I gave other premises that I think should be taken into consideration and certainly ones I weigh more heavily before determining whether I would vote in favor of RCV, if the issue comes up where I live

Well that's how you title it, to make it sound unreasonable. The majority of people support RCV until informed of the errors and delays I pointed out and then the number drops to 25% support. I don't know that it is the idiots changing their mind when new information becomes available or if the idiots are the ones who see new information that shows why RCV is bad and then just double down because in an ideal world RCV is awesome and only their idealized vision of it is what should be counted when determining if it is good

such as delayed results, incorrect results and 30k man hours to do recounts

Recounts do definitely require a hand count which is why paper ballots are required and in places where they are not required, a physical paper copy of your vote on a machine is created for accountability. In the minneapolis election cited with a mere 50k votes, a recount was required by hand and it took 30k man hours.

This is not happening in the real world where RCV is implemented in the united states, so it's a moot point. We need to look at how it is implemented in the real world not in somebodys imagination.

This has been disproven and in the video I bring up several real world examples of elections with only 50k votes placed being delayed by 2 weeks.

You can see how it would confuse an elderly person with bad eyesight and how a shaky hand could easily invalidate a ballot.

Instant Runoff Voting is not precinct-countable. It has to be counted centrally to ensure the correct winner. Most other voting systems, including plurality, do not have that flaw. 

It's a fair point, but if you just spent 50 years studying economics, political philosophy and policy, perhaps we could really use that wisdom for making better decisions. Them having a brain less adaptible to changes, wouldn't make their hard work at crafting a great philosophy and intuiting it wouldn't go away.

I assume primary voters are fewer than in the general election, which makes sense if you are trusting your fellow party members to make an intelligent decision and you plan to trust that decision. Perhaps you have less time to research those candidates but are fine researching the party leads . Or perhaps you are fine just voting with your party because you think the platform is aligned more with you than the alternatives.

why make everyone vote twice ?

To encourage the winning primary candidates to have to appeal to and take into account the needs of the losers voting block

1. Delayed election results

2. lower voter turn out

3. Votes actually thrown in the trash not metaphorical such as when you vote 3rd party

4. more errors in determining outcomes

5. increased volunteer hours to count the votes

6. undermined confidence in the election process, which also harms voter turn out

also in practice it confuses the elderly and their votes get thrown in the trash.

The primary system is fair though. It means the winning caandidate has to appeal to a larger amount of people, meaning everyone's voice gets heard.

Ok. So if other candidates are a distant second choice or worse, voters can choose to override RCV given enough numbers by only selecting one candidate.

while IRV is non-monotonic, doesn't meet the participation criterion, and is hardly any friendlier to third parties than plurality.

It looks as though selecting a 2nd choice robs your first choice of its power. Knowing this, what is to stop voters from only putting down a first choice?

Historical Timeline of US Government Benefits. Social Security Act of 1935. This act provided the first national system of social welfare benefits in the United States, providing for old-age, survivors, and disability insurance.

explain how having to research 20 candidates is easier than researching just a few?