Harm reduction is shoved down the throats of people living under first-past-the-past while they gleefully try to get distract the people away from proportional representation in Portland and contribution limits.
Considering the other side is – in multiple states – outright outlawing proportional representation, voting for the person not actively making that goal more difficult is, definitionally, still harm reduction.
I’ve somewhat misspoke as they targeted, specifically, Ranked-Choice Voting rather than specifically the multi-candidate part but I feel like the proportional part is missed if you leave FPtP in place without an alternative like RCV so I don’t think that’s still wrong, per se; and I’d fully expect someone who’d outlaw RCV to be against anything fully proportional.
Harm reduction is shoved down the throats of people living under first-past-the-past while they gleefully try to get distract the people away from proportional representation in Portland and contribution limits.
Considering the other side is – in multiple states – outright outlawing proportional representation, voting for the person not actively making that goal more difficult is, definitionally, still harm reduction.
Where are they outlawing proportional representation?
I’ve somewhat misspoke as they targeted, specifically, Ranked-Choice Voting rather than specifically the multi-candidate part but I feel like the proportional part is missed if you leave FPtP in place without an alternative like RCV so I don’t think that’s still wrong, per se; and I’d fully expect someone who’d outlaw RCV to be against anything fully proportional.
These are the states RCV’s been outlawed: