I have no real problem with primaries in general - seems a strange way of choosing the candidate that will run under a party's banner. In a democratic system having a democratic method makes sense - letting people outside the party pick seems really silly though. Primaries do have the advantage of putting some of the back room dealings out in the open, for example, preselection in say Australia can be a wondrous affair of back room deals and branch stacking.

There's still a need to a party to choose who will get to use the party name when running. No reason it can't be multiple people in an IRV system of course (though in practice there would be risks in doing so) but I don't think you want just anyone to be able to run under a party name without the party having some input into the matter.

Sure, but those seem less likely and more easily remedied than the issues people have with the act of the voting itself (because voting on a day when most people aren't working would be willy apparently) more than once.

And simple "how to vote" guides from the parties solves most of the informed voter problem. Either people care enough to find out about the policies and histories of all the candidates or they rank them the way a group they trust recommends they should.

Write ins are harmed of course, but if they haven't managed to get the word on out on election day in the current system they are already screwed anyway.

There is no perfect voting system. Simple IRV while having numerous flaws seems significantly better than the current US system and than actual run off systems though. It's not the my personal favorite, but it's simple and easy to understand and run which counts for something.

That doesn't fix anything. Did you actually read what was being replied to: "How about we junk the primary system and simply have run off elections".

So why would I want to claim that "primaries are also silly" given junking them was the entire premise?

What exactly are you trying to fix?

Obviously IRV since the purpose was to avoid having run off elections. So picking the one that gives the same results (assuming no one changes their minds between votes) is a no brainer.

And yes all voting methods have failure modes and weaknesses to being gamed. Almost all of them are better than the what the US currently uses though, so that doesn't seem worth even bringing up.

So which, specifically, of those NGOs funded by Google and Netflix list as their members organizations that have not actually ever heard of the NGO in question?

Which still leaves the question why, since the reason and justification for why that is a good idea is what is being asked. That there's a law just moves the question back a bit to "why does that law exist?".

I didn't complain. I just think its silly.

Run offs are also silly, why not just have people rank their choices in the first place and not bother wasting time with another run off election.

Right.

They can vote in the actual election. But why should Joe the Democrat have any input at all into which candidate the Republican party chooses to run under their banner?

Should Republicans get to choose who the Green Party candidate should be too?

Wind chill doesn't care if something is animate or not.

A hot inanimate rock will cool faster in the presence of a wind chill than without (holding the actual temperature constant).

4 year old children have worked this out, as evidenced by them blowing on their hot food in order to cool it faster so they can eat it faster and get back to doing far more important things.

How do you think the fan in a computer manages to keep the inanimate cpu from overheating?

Can you not read your own references?

Zicam is a homeopathic remedy plus non-homeopathic Zinc. That the zinc actually does something isn't evidence for homeopathy since the Zinc hasn't been dilluted according to homeopathy. The other "active" ingredients have, and note of course you aren't bothering to claim they do anything (which is wise since unlike the zinc there isn't actually any of them in the final product).

Then it isn't homeopathic.

That homeopathic practitioners also use non-homeopathic treatments is completely irrelevant to claims made about homeopathy.

http://www.plosone.org/article... is one study that disagrees with that.

Most of them will never learn to ride a horse because they can always use a car, is that also interesting/surprising/disappointing?

Sure, but I wasn't talking about the actual bill or article, just the post I responded too which also wasn't about the actual bill.

I find freedom or religion vile and disgusting. And I find it vile and disgusting that a warrant is required to search a criminal's house.

So I sure hope there isn't such a way. Though I'm sure some lawmaker somewhere can interpret the commerce clause to require it...

Though you would think the lack of a model release type form would make such porn illegal already anyway - unless the person in it was really dumb enough to sign such a thing, in which case they wanted it shown anyway you would have to assume.