News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
As usual trans women are just seen as "acceptable" targets. Those cops have been itching to murder a minority and finally got what they saw as their opportunity. They knew what they were doing.
Ok, but how many films or shows have you seen where the cops shoot at fleeing suspects? I think it's about way more than that - it's about US police's attitude to pursuit.
She needed to be interviewed by police, no question, right? But the police thought that, because she was running away, any means was justified in apprehending her. I think in the mind of a lot of the public too, someone "wanted" for questioning has earnt whatever comes to them if they run.
Whipping up a rage about this murder from the point of view of identity is dangerous, even though it may be a component. We don't know from this, and accusations that may turn out to be wrong are counterproductive. But this was a murder, so we should be directing our rage at what we do know.
In a civilized country, that officer would be tried for murder.
I am not aware of any other democracy where the police can run around killing people at will and even in their homes, without being tried for murder.
When I write democracy I know USA is not really a democracy, but only a flawed democracy, or a 2nd rate democracy.
"Representative democracy" - representative of the control freak rich holding the purse-strings that have long financed the vast majority of election campaigns.
The best democracies in the world are also representative. That is not the problem, the problem is that USA instead of improving regulation to reign in capitalism, has chosen to allow it to run wild taking over elections, and hasn't improved on the flawed FPP system.
Some places have ranked voting, and hopefully they will be pointers to the future, but there's a long way from where USA is currently to having any chance of that.
I'm 100% in the ranked choice voting camp. And ideally, we'd find a way to do it proportionally but I acknowledge that would be a bit of a heavier lift within the current US framework, so I'd be happy with RCV as first step so we can work to elect folks that will help get the proportional aspect implemented.
For anyone who wants to know more, check out https://rcvresources.org/why-adopt-rcv and https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/proportional-ranked-choice-voting-information
And I also think we should have Democracy sausages! :) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_sausage)
People sleep on proportional representation but it would honestly be so much better than either FPTP or even ranked choice.
The problem is that to implement it here would probably require a constitutional convention and a complete restructuring of our electoral and representative systems. Which, yeah I don't see that happening anytime soon and with the current government, if something big like that happened it would not have a good result.
So yeah, ranked choice to improve our elections until we have enough decent representation to implement proportional.
I mean it could still go by state, but we'd have to ditch the concept of districts. Each state could still have the same number of representatives that they already do, but instead of each district electing one rep, the whole state would vote, and the parties' seats would be allocated by overall proportion of the vote they received.
It would be fairer for everybody, and eliminate gerrymandering. And it would enable more parties than just two. But yeah, it would require a constitutional amendment.
Oh and the Senate could either stay FPTP or have a set threshold for each seat. Like there's two seats total, so if you get 50% of the vote you get a seat... but you shouldn't get both seats just because you got 51% of the vote. So there needs to be a threshold, for the second seat, like maybe 67% or 75%. So then the threshold for the first seat would really be 33% or 25%. But of course that gets more complicated when you add more parties. So Senate could honestly stay FPTP but with ranked choice, for the sake of simplicity.
Do you have a reason to prefer ranked choice over STAR?
https://www.starvoting.org/
I hadn't heard of this before! I'm still reading all their info, but if I'm understanding the jist correctly, I'd support this as well for the same reasons I like RCV, and I really like how this method factors in how strongly you support the candidate! It seems like we'd still need to figure out the "proportional" aspect, but, this would definitely be a step in the right direction! Thank you for sharing and sending me down a new voting research rabbit hole! Haha.
Glad to help! And yeah it's less intuitive than rcv as a solution and it's relatively new (like a decade old), but it's designed to resolve a lot of the issues that have arisen with both rcv and single choice voting.
The only real drawback imo is that it'll confuse people until they get used to it, but we can account for that with instructional information and people to explain at polling places early on. And even if they are confused, they're unlikely to cast an invalid ballot like people who are confused by rcv do.
Imo it's: star - 5, rcv - 4, jungle primaries - 2, single choice - 1
I also think just spreading the word about it is a great way to help convince people it might be worth a go. Hopefully Oregon will adopt it soon