RCV trends: Four states ban RCV in 2025, bringing the number of states with bans to 15.
(Okay idk why it says 15 up here then later says 16, somebody on that site probably didn’t update the title text)
As of April 30, five states had banned RCV in 2025, which brought the total number of states that prohibit RCV to 16.
- Gov. Mark Gordon (Republican) signed HB 165 on March 18.
- West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey (Republican) signed SB 490 the March 19.
- Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (Democrat) signed SB 6 into law on April 1.
- North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong (Republican) signed HB 1297 on April 15.
- Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Republican) signed HB 1706 which became law on April 17.
Six states banned RCV in 2024.
Why YSK: If you’re a US-American, its time to pay attention to State and Local politics instead of solely on the Federal. There is a trend in conservative jurisdictions to stop progress in making elecoral systems more fair. Use this opportunity as a rallying-cry to pass Ranked-Choice Voting in progressive jurisdictions, and hopefully everyone else takes notes. Sometimes, all you need is a few states adopting a law to become the catalyst for it to become the model for the entire country, for better or for worse. Don’t allow anti-RCV legislations to dominate, counter the propaganda with pro-RCV arguments. Time to turn the tide.
Edit: fixed formatting
Edit 2: Added in the map so you don’t have to click the link:
See the pattern? 🤔
Tl;dr
I was curious so I had to go look and see what states banned it. I was shocked, shocked I tell you to see the states that banned it are:
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, WyomingEdit to add:
Why did you add like a hundred spaces in front of the list of states? That makes it a code block that requires tons of horizontal scrolling to read. I didn’t even recognize it as such at first.
You know Lemmy has spoiler syntax, right? If that’s what you were going for?
Does it also shock you that Iowa is on the short list to do the same?
Nope. I live in Minnesota and I’m well aware of what I.O.W.A. stands for.
I’m curious what you got for I.O.W.A. I hate this place, so I love anything that bags on us.
I’ve always known it as “Idiots Out Wandering Around”
Idiots out wandering around. Not everybody in the state is an idiot but the ones that are, are out wandering around.
As a Texan, it’s a relief to finally not be included on one of these lists for once.
Don’t worry, there’s always 2026!
Don’t be too relieved. There’s a bill banning RCV that passed the Texas Senate and is being considered by the House: https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1751192
[yeehaws sadly]
Yet. Texas was one of the states where it’s not banned but it’s also not in use anywhere.
A lot ofAbout half the states that haven’t banned it actually use RCV in some or all elections.
For those non-USians reading this, the pattern is: states which tend to vote Republican and thus have majority Republican governance. So called “red states”.
You’d think it would be democrats worried about another Bernie Sanders coming along.
What is it the republicans are worried about with RCV?
I don’t know because they shouldn’t be.
Republicans like Senator Tom Cotton and Donald Trump have garnered headlines for stating their opposition to ranked choice voting after election results didn’t turn out exactly as they hoped. Their preferred candidates, Sarah Palin in the House and Kelly Tshibaka in the Senate, didn’t win. Both are Republicans. So, they claim (loudly) that RCV is biased against Republicans or “rigged.”
The left wing vote is split, so the Republicans can win just by getting the largest number of votes with first-past-the-post.
The magas only gained their stranglehold on the party, despite being a minority, due to the neocons splitting their primary ballots.
They gained their stranglehold from 20+ years of systematic takeover. The Tea Party became MAGA. It didn’t happen over night
I never said it did. First past the post is what allowed that to happen.
Don’t worry. Voting altogether will be next.
There was a STRONG effort to ban (or at least end) RCV here in Alaska, and it failed, but barely. They even did the super misleading wording, too, in order to make it unclear if the measure banned RCV or supported it.
I was always so confused by the adamant support that was being shown by general people, though. Like, I get why both Dems and Republicans would be against it: they want to be the only two players in the game. But why any general people would want less choice is beyond me. And it’s funny, because the staunchest proponents (at least where I am) were conservatives, when (again, where I live) RCV basically drove out the Democrats. There were Progressives, there were “centrists,” there were Libertarians, and then there was Republican/MAGA. Dems didn’t even get enough support to be on the ballot. So their hated Libs were wiped off the board entirely for being so ill-liked, but they want to get rid of that system? I just don’t get it.
People are stupid. They think RCV is “too confusing”
I feel like it can kind of be confusing to understand how the process works for it.
But it is not even remotely confusing as to what you do. Choose, from most to least, who you want. It’s that simple. You want to get into how those votes are tallied, do a little dive, there’s plenty of videos very simply explaining it. If you don’t, and just want to be able to go vote? Just go vote. If even ranking them is too complicated because you have a worm in your brain, just choose one and ignore everything else.
It might be complicated to tally, but it is not complicated to do. It’s just people being duped by the Big 2 parties to not want choices.
It occurs to me that the electoral system might be used in Pres elections to work (very slightly) in that direction. What if a number of associated candidates made a pact that their electors, if elected, would vote for whichever of the pact makers got the most popular votes overall? Like if Sanders and Biden and Harris were in a pact like that of Democrats (named chosen of unlikely future candidates). People could vote for whichever, avoiding split-the-vote tactics. If Sanders won a state, but Harris got more pop votes nationwide, his electors would instead vote for her. Complicated maybe, but it wouldn’t need any constitutional changes, and might make disasters like a Trump win less likely. Dumb idea?
it wouldn’t need any constitutional changes
You need a lot of states to change their laws. Some states ban faithless electors unless the candidate they pledged for dies. So unless we’re yeeting the candidates off a building in order to stop fascism, you can’t change your electorsl votes.
Also, if you’re method of avoiding fascism is by relying on the electors to keep their promise, you’re ending up with disaster.
In the 1800 US presidential election, the system at the time was that 2 votes are cast by the electoral college, the one with most votes is the president and the with the second-most votes becomes president (stupid system, right?). Electors of the Jefferson-Burr ticket was supposed to have one of their electors vote for Jefferson, but not Burr, so that Jefferson has just 1 vote more than Burr, making Jefferson President and Burr vice-president.
But NONE of the electors did that. They all voted for both, which resulted in a tie, resulting in a contingent election. (They later added an amendment to make Pres and VP two separate vote counts, which we have today)
I don’t have faith in Electors to make good plans. Although Electors are handpicked hardcore supporters of a candidate, sometimes their fanaticism can make irrational decisions, including even ignoring instructions from the candidate they supposedly support. (For example: Some Sanders supporters did not vote Biden in the General election, even when Sanders endorsed Biden)
Seems about right. This reinforces my reality. If something good happened to humanity, I might wonder if I somehow might be going mad.
Meh. There are better voting systems such as range voting and STAR.
There are, and my state would have banned those too it they’d heard about them when they were banning RCV. They weren’t making principled objections like monotonicity failures. They likely noticed that most of RCV’s loudest advocates were from the wrong party (and some of the were the wrong color too!), and figured that was a good enough reason to shut it down.
You also have to account in human stupidity. If you make the ballot too complex, dumbasses are gonna mess it up and the ballots will be invalidated.
Ok, I’m sold, let’s do this
RCV isn’t monotonic, meaning that in the right circumstances you can harm your chosen candidate’s chances by ranking him higher. Doesn’t matter how rare it is; what a ridiculous quality for a voting system to have.
I think most people would agree that it does matter how rare it is.
Even if imperfect, ranked choice voting would give voters considerably more voice than they have now. That could be used to, for example, vote in another method in the future.
I agree it’s a flaw, but the answer isn’t to move to an even worse and more gameable system, it’s to move to proportional systems like MMP.
Cardinal voting systems are terrible because strategic voting is as trivial as it is in FPTP. In IRV situations where strategic voting would be possible exist, but they’re rare and hard to predict. In cardinal systems it’s always best to give the maximum score or the minimum score, and never anything in between.
And when that happens it just defaults to approval, which is still non-monotonic and better than IRV, but it’s been proven anyway that that doesn’t happen and most people are honest (or would learn to be honest after few iterations). IRV is also not devoid of strategy, as it can be better to rank your true favourite lower
IRV is also not devoid of strategy, as it can be better to rank your true favourite lower
I think you missed the part where I said that it can happen, but that it’s rare and hard to predict.
Approval Voting is bad because of the simple fact that it doesn’t let you express any preference. There’s no ability to say “I’ll take this guy if I really have to, to avoid the worst outcome, but if possible I would much prefer this other guy”. In single-winner systems, having some mechanism to express that one candidate is better than another is absolutely crucial.
I think you missed the part where I said that it can happen, but that it’s rare and hard to predict.
Yea, sorry, my wording wasn’t the clearest. I meant to say that it is actually not that rare, and hoped that the linked source would help support that claim. From the same website:
We can [assume that] “all votes [are] equally likely except that the probabilities that A,B,C will be middle-ranked of the three in that vote are 30%, 30%, and 40% respectively” where C is the 3rd-party candidate. Then in IRV as #voters→∞, C’s probability of winning is probably exponentially tiny so that Joe Voter is justified in assuming C only a very tiny […] chance of winning. Indeed C only has a tiny chance of merely surviving the first round.
However, Joe reasons, if Joe and friends by honestly-ranking C top do manage to make C survive the first round, then that will almost certainly happen only at the cost of eliminating Joe’s second-favorite candidate A. If the A votes then transfer equally to C and B (which in “1-dimensional politics” with C A B arranged along a “line” in that order, seems likely) then C will almost certainly still lose, and will have deprived A of victory in the process.
The idea then would be that the behavior of mid-ranking the 3rd party candidate would be self-reinforcing in IRV: an assumption of a slight bias that way like we just made (40% versus 30% […]), then leads to it being strategically wise for Joe Voter to do it, leading to a larger bias that way, etc. – positive feedback, self-reinforcing 2-party domination.
Approval Voting is bad because of the simple fact that it doesn’t let you express any preference.
I agree and that’s why I support Score Voting over it! The mechanism to express that one candidate is better than another one is to just give them honest scores! And there’s studies proving that’s the reality is, the vast majority of people are at least somewhat honest when filling out a Score ballot
And there’s studies proving that’s the reality is, the vast majority of people are at least somewhat honest when filling out a Score ballot
- It’s never been used at the scale of an actual large country’s national election. The stakes are so fundamentally different than any small-scale study.
- Even if true, that’s not necessarily a good thing. It just makes the vote of those who do vote strategically all the more powerful.
Cardinal systems devolve into approval, and approval doesn’t allow expressing preference. And being unable to express preference lends itself to some of the worst strategic voting and reintroduces the spoiler effect in the place it’s most important to avoid the spoiler effect: serious 3-(or more-)way races. If I’m an A voter, B is centrist, and C is worst, then under approval it’s fine for me to approve of A and B if I know A can’t win. But the moment A is a serious contender, choosing to approve of B decreases the chance A might win. But not approving of B increases the chance C might win. I’m stuck with having to make a terrible decision.
Ordinal systems don’t do this. Some ordinal systems might be better than IRV and avoid the biggest criticisms of that system, but ordinal systems beat cardinal systems nearly every time.
But the main thing about all of this is that every single-winner system is always worse than proportional multi-winner systems. Moving to any system other than FPTP should be the first priority, but if you’re going to spend time knocking down suggestions to improve to the most well-proven alternative, you might as well go all the way and advocate MMP or direct proportional, and on shoring up some of the weaknesses of that system (such as problems with party lists letting parties choose who gets in even if people don’t like the candidate of the party they like, or how minimum thresholds can lead to some people’s votes being effectively wasted).
The point of RCV isn’t to ensure your chosen candidate wins; it’s to ensure that whoever does win has at least some amount of approval from the majority of voters.
It does still have flaws, but it’s still far superior to the current system the US uses.
Really, anything other than FPTP is fine. RCV only has the same outcome as FPTP, where the least liked candidate can win, in ~10% of outcomes which is fairly uncommon. Really we should be okay with promoting most of the alternatives since they can be modified down the line as well. I personally promote Ranked Robin, STAR, and Score more but RCV is always worth supporting if it’s on your local ballot vs FPTP. Most people are more familiar and accepting of RCV if they have heard of some of these alternatives.
The ballot is the same for all ranked voting methods. The method of determining winner from those ballots varies, and some are clearly worse.
For instance, if a candidate would beat all others 1-on-1 (Condorcet winner), then should a decent method always select that candidate as winner? RCV doesn’t do that.
Example
- A > B > C: 2
- C > B > A: 2
- B > C > A: 1
Who wins according to instant run-off? C. Who wins against every opponent 1-on-1? B.
This nice table compares voting methods by a wide range of properties. I don’t think it hurts to make a more informed decision before backing a method that will be difficult to change. The US got stuck with FPTP through inadequate research, and it’d be great not to repeat that mistake.
While rated voting methods fail the Condorcet winner criterion, by rating instead of ranking candidates they satisfy another set of criteria also worth considering.
Among ranked voting methods, ranked pairs seems most compelling to me. Among rated voting methods, approval seems pretty good (and extremely simple).
I retract this portion of the comment and put in this spoiler
Among ranked voting methods, ranked pairs seems most compelling to me.
I think that’d fail miserably in the real world.
Think about the average voter. They see this ballot:
A vs B?
A vs C?
A vs D?
B vs C?
B vs D?
C vs D?
Yea I think they’re gonna freak out upon seeing this ballot. Right now, the most important goal should be to get rid of the spoiler effect and FPTP, rather than finding the best system.
approval seems pretty good (and extremely simple).
I can see a bit of strategic voting happening.
Let me demonstrate:
For the sake of simplicity, let’s say we have 3 candidates, and no term limits:
Trump, Biden, Sanders
Biden and Sander voters dispise trump, their preference in RCV is (example):
Biden>Sanders>Trump: 30%
Sander>Biden>Trump: 25%
Trump>Sanders>Biden: 23%
Trump>Biden>Sanders: 22%Okay, so lets say they all approve their top 2:
Biden: 77%
Sanders: 78%
Trump: 45%Okay we have president Sanders! Congrats, right?
Well, now the trumpers who approved sanders are like: “Hey wait a minute, we made our daddy lose because we approved Sanders”
All the trumpers now have a meeting and decided that next election, they don’t approve Sanders or Biden as a strategic vote.
So now, Election 2 Results:
Biden: 55%
Sanders: 55%
Trump: 45%Oh great, it’s a tie. The law says that the election have to be re-done to solve the tie:
Now this next election, all people who preferred Sanders first go to a Sanders supporter meeting and started saying: “Lets disapprove Biden so Bernie can win!”
Simultaneously, Biden voters will be like: “Lets disapprove Sanders so Biden can win!”
Next election results:
Trump: 45%
Biden: 30%
Sanders 25%Congrats, we have a glorified FPTP and spoiler effect yet again!
Now, other election systems could also have strategic voting, but its less likely with, for example, RCV, since you can rank candidates.
Yea I think they’re gonna freak out upon seeing this ballot.
I think you missed the first sentence I wrote:
The ballot is the same for all ranked voting methods.
Maybe explaining what you think that means would clear up confusion?
I can see a bit of strategic voting happening.
Yes, approval voting is indeed susceptible to strategies including burial, which leads to a “chicken dilemma”.
Ah nvm, I thought the ballot was gonna lok like this:
A vs B?
A vs C?
A vs D?
B vs C?
B vs D?
C vs D?
I misunderstood, I get it now, its all tabulated in the background, same ballot as Ranked-Choice voting.
But my point about the approval voting still stands.
Got some videos here that explains various voting systems if yall are interested.
Electoral Reform Videos
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems
STAR voting
Your STAR voting video doesn’t exist on my end, America here if that matters for copyright/prohibition.
France here, the video is unavailable to me too.
Really bugs me how americans talk about “ranked choice voting” because you guys seem to mean STV, which is a form of proportional representation with multi-member districts.
But in Canada, “ranked ballots” meant IRV, which was basically FPTP with a ranked ballot, and ironically exacerbated the worst parts of FPTP like the trend to a two party system.
Stick with the real names of electoral systems!
Really bugs me how americans talk about “ranked choice voting” because you guys seem to mean STV, which is a form of proportional representation with multi-member districts.
But in Canada, “ranked ballots” meant IRV, which was basically FPTP with a ranked ballot, and ironically exacerbated the worst parts of FPTP like the trend to a two party system.
Stick with the real names of electoral systems!
This is in the context of US State Legislations, Ranked-Choice Voting is what most laws refer to them as.
In most contexts, we’re mostly talking about Single-Winner elections.
Sometimes, the same concept has different names to different people, there isn’t a name that’s more “real” than others.
In most contexts, we’re mostly talking about Single-Winner elections.
In the context of electoral systems, “Congress” and “Senate” are multi-seat legislatures. Hence the talk about proportional representation, IE how many Americans vote Democrat vs how many Democrats get elected. Without that discussion you’ll never get a 3rd party elected.
The senate is voted only within a state, one senator at a time. the house of representatives again is done by states, but has a different number for each state.
I don’t really care what the law calls it. One time an American law tried to call pi equal to 3.2. Had it passed both houses instead of only one, that still wouldn’t have changed what pi actually is.
Ranked-Choice describes a feature of a large number of voting systems. Namely, any system that involves ranking candidates in order of preference. Instant-Runoff Voting and Single Transferable Vote are the two most popular such systems, but there are many others, including the Borda method and Ranked Pairs. It’s better to just be clearer about what it is you actually mean, rather than use an ambiguous term that’s going to lead to more confusion.
and ironically exacerbated the worst parts of FPTP like the trend to a two party system
Umm. Hi, Australia here. We’ve used IRV for our House of Representatives since 1918. IRV is definitely flawed, and I’ve said in the past it’s the “worst acceptable system”*. But it’s better in every way than FPTP, and definitely doesn’t exacerbate a trend towards two parties. It doesn’t create a proportional result that truly helps break the two-party system like STV (most notably used by Australia’s Senate or Ireland’s Dáil) or MMP (notably used in New Zealand and Germany) would, but it doesn’t entrench it any more than FPTP. In fact, as of today, Australia’s crossbench consists of only 1 fewer person than its Opposition, because independents and third parties have been rising considerably over the past 15 years or so, particularly at the 2022 and 2025 elections.
You’re right that people should be clear about whether they mean IRV, STV, or another ordinal system, though.
* the intent being to highlight that FPTP is an entirely undemocratic and unacceptable system to ever use.
We studied it in Canada, including how it was used in Australia, and it was the only electoral systems out of all the ones listed that actually widened the gap between voter intention and seat distribution from FPTP.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/42-1/ERRE/report-3/page-174#49
Specifically here, where it is called “Alternative Vote”:
I’m mostly just frustrated about how it keeps getting renamed.
But it is entirely possible to invent an electoral system that is worse than what we have now, and it seems politicians might have done that with IRV.
Specifically here, where it is called “Alternative Vote”
Yeah that seems to be a very common alternative name. I’m especially not a fan of that name, since all it tells you is that it’s “not FPTP”. At least “Preferential voting” or “ranked choice voting” tells you something of the ballot.
The whole entry is enlightening.
Sarah huckabee did something awful??? Shocked I say
Americans complain about the two party system and do absolutely nothing to change that. It’s like watching a soap opera but everyone’s fell of the horse and lost their memory.
Lol go to r/conservative and you’ll see all those idiots having doublethink simultaneouly saying that they support term limits for congress and support for ranked-choice voting, yet continues to vote in conservatives that oppose the very policies they claim to support.
Its actually quite ridiculous. Republican legislators consistantly oppose raising the minimum wage or abortion, yet, the republican voters votes in favor of those policies, while simultaneously vote for the legislators that oppose them.
I’m just like… Why??? Why do y’all vote like this? 🤦♂️
I think we should just go the Swiss-route and do direct democracy; representatives don’t even represent their constituents anymore.
I think we should just go the Swiss-route and do direct democracy;
That’s literally the Anarchy system. I.e Laws and no leaders.
As an Australian who has ranked choice (we call it preferential) it’s not the panecea folks here seem to think it is to bring about the enlightenment.
I’m 58, have voted in every election from when I was eligible through to this year. We don’t have ICE but we have Border Force and we routinely deport non citizens, we inspect digital devices at the border, we off shore legal refugees in internment camps, we have zero care for the enviorment and love penis shaped defence spending, we are a car dependent shit hole with few redeeming qualities… It’s ever been thus, Donad Horne oponed on this in the 1970s.
We don’t have feedom of the press or freedom of speech, so often these things are unable to even be reported on at all and our most egregious atrocities have widespread support amongst the broader population. In that respect its not as big a divisor as. n the US as we’re all arseholes :) We’re happy to allow religious scumbags to discriminate against LGBQT folks, happy to have our privacy removed, are quite fond of fucking over our indigenous peoples and the wider enviorment and near zero concern for exestential issues like climate change. We’re happy to shit over homeless people and have unaffordable housing and racism is broadly endemic.
We have never elected a government that i think is anything but objectively fucking horrible, we have our tongue firmly stuck up the US foreign policy asshole and follow them into every stupid dumb shit military action. We have had the occasionally decent poltican but then so does the US (Bernie etc) .
Like us, your people are broken and you’re not going to cure what ails ya’ with RCV.
Put simply: if RCV had been in place for the US presidential race in 2024, the Gaza issue wouldn’t have split the Democratic vote.
I’m just like… Why??? Why do y’all vote like this?
Looks awkwardly at the voting history of every (non-local) politician I have voted for…
Yeah. Those Republicans sure look silly rallying behind people who immediately betray them once in office.
Awkward cough.
It’s almost like those in power make the laws that are used to elect those in power 🤔
In Colorado last year RCV was on the ballot as part of an initiative. It was shot down easily because both parties campaigned against it. Not sure what to do when the weight of all incumbents is thrown against something
In Colorado, one of my wife’s friends is what most people (I say this, knowing the Lemmy political scale is vastly different from most Americans) would consider super liberal. She’s also very outspoken and politically active, so she has no problems telling everyone she knows how to vote on every issue.
Last election, we were at her house and she mentioned that she was against ranked choice voting. When I asked her why, she pointed to her voting guide provided by the Colorado Democratic Party. She just blindly accepts that because the party says it’s bad, then it’s bad.
After seeing that, it wasn’t surprising to me when the proposition failed.
Fuck thai boils my blood
This may shock you, but there’s a lot of us. It’s not the same people doing both.
It’s even worse than that - they don’t just “do absolutely nothing to change that”, they actively whip each other into line by loudly blaming third party voters for not giving them the votes that they somehow owe to their big money party.
Ranked choice should be the standard
We voted for it at the county level here in CA. That was back in 2020. San Diego county voted to use RCV, as did several other counties in CA. The county registrar of voters is refusing to change from FPTP, and is waiting to see how the lawsuits turn out.
Even if your state hasn’t banned it, they will fight you tooth and nail not to change it.
🇦🇺 heh, amateurs… But seriously this is ridiculous, and straight up anti-democtatic. Single member first past the post is the worst voting system out there.
Inb4 they make mulit-member electorates winner-take-all (all seats to the party who got the plurality of votes).
This is THE fight USA. In my opinion, your ridiculous voting systems is probably why it’s so easy to suppress you.
Did y’all think the regime gonna just let you change the rules of the game that keep it in place…
Cute
“Obey! Resistance is futile 🤖” Thats how you sound my friend. I know it is not easy to see any ways out of the shit the U.S. is in but giving up beforehand is called doomerism and it is one of the biggest cancers alive.
Did you read the same comment as me? I read that as “why would the powers that be wilfully give up the path to that power?”
They’re not saying “obey”. They’re saying this shouldn’t be a surprise.
This is in fact what I meant to convey.
This is a fight worth fighting even if it is futile as it will expose how nasty the oppression really is. Most people assume everything is kosher because they never try to step out from the normie way of thinking where they accept everything as is.
No.
The comment is belittling a call to action as if it is futile because ‘the powers that be’ won’t let you act against them. Which is bullshit. Republicans biggest power comes from political inaction and resignation. They aswell have used the system to play us all and now want every opposition to believe it is too late. Talking about nefarious powers will do exactly nothing but invoke doomerism.
You are injecting heavy opinion here. That’s not what I meant and there others who didn’t read like you did… But sure fight you a wind mill boy
To add on to this: Maine did add RCV, as well as many blue cities in blue states, refer to the map I just added to the post (it’s a screenshot from the source).
If we keep growing interest locally, people will become more familiar with the alternatives. The more cities and counties that use alternative voting systems, the easier it gets to pass these alternative systems statewide.
While many state lawmakers are determined to push back against alternative voting systems, there is always the possibility of flipping the rules back down the line, especially if more states in general flip blue, progressive, or independent.
For real, you better count on sunzu1/2/3 to come out and give up all hope while indirectly giving us his infinite wisdom.
I am not giving up. I am commenting on the current political conditions.
Also, my work speaks for itself and obey aint it ;)
People must exhaust this avenue among others before borne understands the conditions imposed on him/her
At least people are waking so team peasant got that going. It will take a generation or two.
Remember that by the time FDR stepped in plebs spent 2-3 generations shedding blood for the cause. But it still took a cripled nepo baby with sympathy for the common man, along with parasites botching the economy for the change to happen. And it only lasted like 40 years.
My bad. I guess i took the “Cute” the wrong way.
Love how it’s the cousin fucking states and the flyover Midwest.
