The vice president doesn't have the power you argument asserts she does.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-is-the-constitutional-role-of-the-vice-president
stop being illogical.
Stop ignoring evidence that refutes your argument's central point.
https://5thsrd.org/gamemaster_rules/monsters/skeleton/
In D&D rules they're only 1/4 cr monsters so one level 1 adventurer could in theory take them on 1v1 and come out on top more often then not.
https://5thsrd.org/gamemaster_rules/monsters/lich/
Unless this is your skeleton, in which case hopefully the skeleton's alignment is closer to neutral good than neutral evil.
That's a factor of our first-past-the-post system. We end up having to strategically vote against the ice cream we don't want instead of for the ice cream we do want.
Voting for Harris is useful for ending the genocide because she wants a ceasefire. Trump want's Israel to finish what it started.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-israel-gaza-finish-problem-rcna141905
I've seen this same disinformation multiple times so I keep posting the refutation. Kamala wants a ceasefire.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13069715
She’s taken a stance, multiple times. The left doesn’t want to hear it.
March - https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1234822836/kamala-harris-benny-gantz-gaza-cease-fire-israel-hamas
July - https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/25/harris-netanyahu-israel-cease-fire-00171315
Biden is complicit in genocide, but people in his administration have spoken out.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/02/politics/us-government-employees-gaza-policy-statement/index.html
Trump wants Israel to finish their genocide.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/04/politics/trump-israel-comments/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-israel-gaza-finish-problem-rcna141905
Democrats want a ceasefire. Republicans want genocide. Despite attempts to conflate these two positions they could not be more different.
Do not let anyone tell you we have two fascists parties. We have a neoliberal party and a fascist party. The neoliberal party is terrible on this issue, but they do not want the genocide to continue. The Palestinians, along with everyone else, will be harmed by a second Trump term. Voting for Kamala is harm reduction. If you care about anyone please vote for Harris and Walz because doing so is useful for ending the genocide.
Faithless electors are not that common. Many states have laws against faithless electors which have been upheld by the Supreme Court. According to the ruling, states do not need a law to deal with faithless electors. They probably should still should make a law if they don't already have one.
The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously upheld laws across the country that remove or punish rogue Electoral College delegates who refuse to cast their votes for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support.
Monday's Supreme Court decision, however, is so strong that it would seem to allow states to remove faithless electors even without a state law. Duke University School of Law professor Guy-Uriel Charles said that nonetheless, it would be prudent for states to pass laws to prevent electors from going rogue.
The problem with the Electoral College is that it favors minority rule. The votes each state gets are comprised of both House of Representatives and Senate seats from each state. The Senate and the House both favor low population states. The Senate because it gives each state two seats and the House because it's capped at 435. Take a look at both graphs from 538.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/435-representatives/
Republicans tend to do well in low population states, so the electoral college favors Republicans, who won the popular vote once in the last six elections. So it's not the illusion of a vote that's the issue. We really do have a vote in this system.
The issue is that some people's votes are more equal than others. Low populations state votes, when normalized for the electoral college, are worth more. A lot of people will say that only certain swing states matter, but that assumes everyone in non-swing states keeps voting at similar levels as before. If enough people in California who would vote Democrat decide that their votes don't count and then don't vote, then California turns red. So Democrats need more people to vote everywhere to compensate for this bias that Republicans benefit from.
The electoral college is why not voting or voting third party disproportionately effects the Democrats, they need more votes, because they tend to appeal to high population states whose votes are worth less.
Also, our first-past-the-post system mathematically results in a two-party system.
That's fair. Especially when it's open secret that at least 30 of 37 conservative organization's polls where skewed in Trump's favor to make it look he's building momentum.
Oh, like you would jokingly expect it to be Canadians because Wisconsin is on the border with Canada, but the idea of a bunch of Canadians apologizing as they commit a physical tidal wave of crime is surprising?
Is there a different put route for updating where the meta data is processed differently or given a longer timer? Because the federation seems to work fine in that case.
https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2025-33892-004.html
We recruited 2,180 participants on Lucid between January 31 and February 17, 2020, about 9 months before the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Lucid, an online aggregator of survey respondents from multiple sources
https://support.lucidhq.com/s/article/Sample-Sourcing-FAQs
How are respondent incentives handled in the Marketplace?
Our respondents are sourced from a variety of supplier types who have control over incentivizing their respondents based on their business rules. Each incentive program is unique. Some suppliers do not incentivize their respondents at all, most provide loyalty reward points or gift cards, and some provide cash payments. Lucid does not control the incentivization models of our suppliers, as that's part of their individual business models. The method of incentivization also varies; for instance, some suppliers use the survey's CPI to calculate incentive, others LOI, or a combination of the two. Each respondent agrees to their panel's specific incentivization method when they join.
So the study didn't use a random sample. They took people who volunteered to do promotions that were funneled to together by one site. This is how we got those bogus polling data that Gen Z was secretly conservative because all the data was from YouGov.
The study they cite as justification really is about using Lucid over MTurk, not using Lucid over random samples. So they cite another study.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053168018822174
We would note, however, that even extremely idiosyncratic convenience samples (e.g. Xbox users; Gelman et al., 2016) can sometimes produce estimates that turn out to have been accurate.
https://researchdmr.com/MythicalSwingVoterFinal.pdf
The Xbox panel is not representative of the electorate, with Xbox respondents predominantly young and male. As shown in Figure 2, 66% of Xbox panelists are between 18 and 29 years old, compared to only 18% of respondents in the 2008 exit poll,4 while men make up 93% of Xbox panelists but only 47% of voters in the exit poll. With a typical-sized sample of 1,000 or so, it would be difficult to correct skews this large, but the scale of the Xbox panel compensates for its many sins. For example, despite the small proportion of women among Xbox panelists, there are over 5,000 women in our sample, which is an order of magnitude more than the number of women in an RDD sample of 1,000.
The idea is to partition the population into cells (defined by the cross-classification of various attributes of respondents), use the sample to estimate the mean of a survey variable within each cell, and finally to aggregate the cell-level estimates by weighting each cell by its proportion in the population...MRP addresses this problem by using hierarchical Bayesian regression to obtain stable estimates of cell means (Gelman and Hill, 2006).
Maybe this is a lack of stats knowledge on my part, but can a person really successfully math out the responses of demographics the study didn't sample from when it mostly had respondents predominately from one age, one racial, and one sex demographic?
This seems like they are using math to make stuff up. It seems like the main driver of online surveys is to cut costs and save time for researchers. I'm taking this survey with a grain of salt for now. Maybe that's just my bias though. =/
So funny story on trying to get this to federate:
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18177682/11384061
If anyone has any insight, please let me know.
Kamala is running for president not Biden, so your argument poses a false equivalence.