Goodbye!

I never said they won't be counted, just that it doesn't matter if your goal is to get as similarly minded a group elected. You made up that claim, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that's because we view the goal of voting through very different lenses. If that isn't your goal and it's just to "see number go up" as it seems then sure you're 100% right. Depends on what is important to you. To me practical results matter more than getting to feel morally smug.

Either way, lots of your responses (not just to me in this thread) are sounding right out of right wing playbooks so I'm gonna say so long since I don't think you're arguing in good faith.

I won't disagree with you that it is voter suppression in the sense that it supresses votes for third parties, but I didn't set up the system so maybe channel your anger towards more productive means other than shooting the messenger. The way things stand today, that's how the math works out if you care to check the link I shared.

It's not misinformation to state how things end up functioning in practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law?wprov=sfla1 It's a well known thing for anyone who's studied the tiniest bit of political science (or you know, was around in 2000 for that US election).

The way the votes get counted only matters insofar as their tangible real world outcome. The fact that your individual vote went to a specific third party or even abstaining ends up being irrelevant. The outcomes are the same and the party you prefer least is more likely to win. Again, I'm not advocating that this is a good system, but it is our current reality and stating that to be misinformation is ignorant at best or straight up manipulative propaganda at worst.

Except not in a first past the post system. Voting 3rd party is just a vote for whichever of the two main parties you like least. Sucks, but that's reality.

I've actually met this guy a few years ago... crazy... he was a pretty nice guy from what I recall - brought homemade cinnamon buns to a party.

Anyways, his friends set up a gofundme to donate for his legal fees, since of course it costs thousands to continue defending himself and his actions...

Yeah.... no... https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/15/nikki-haleys-israel-advocacy-defined-her-tenure-at-un-advocates

It's solid -> liquid -> gas, but now replace all lithium (li) with sulfur (s). So spelling wise liquid becomes squid.

A really nice owl

Yes

It takes energy to produce them, sure, but it's way less than even just the production needs for coal or natural gas. Not to mention that's a one time carbon cost (per lifespan which is close to 30 years these days) vs ongoing emissions. And additionally, as the energy mix where the panels are produced cleans up, the carbon footprint of the panels go down as well! Is it the perfect solution? No, but there is no silver bullet to get off fossil fuels. Solar is just one part of that transition and it is exciting to see more groups exploring the solar/shade synergy (there's some cool shaded farming solar experiments going on that also make use of the solar panel's shadow for additional benefits!)

Aye