And of course you could be such a fanatic jihadist pretending to not even be muslim. So you want mind if the FBI goes through all your communications and belongings anytime they feel like it. And of course you won't mind the occasional week long questioning session..
It's a fair point if you are deluded.
Programming has better tools for such uses now. It's easier for "regular people" to build useful software now.
Sure, if they wanted to sell it "in Australia". But since they don't and instead just have it available on things like gog.com outside of Australia, they don't have to worry about that.
Please provide some more details about "The Australia Project", which I guess was Australia's famous experiment with communism that somehow no one has ever heard of?
1. In astronomy all the elements except for Hydrogen and Helium are in the category "metals", so no.
2. In astronomy planets are things which orbit stars (plus some other criteria), so no.
When you are turning and hence going to drive across the pedestrian crossing that is counting down at that moment, which should be pretty obvious.
But you are completely changing the claim being made in the first place. There's no claim that there's an increase in accidents with pedestrians. The claim is simply that collisions between cars, in particular rear-end accidents, increase. They propose that this is due to drivers seeing the counters and trying to make it through before the lights change and running into the car in front of them that instead of doing the same thing just stopped at the lights as they changed.
It has helped. Can you not read or something?
The timers lowered the number of accidents involving pedestrians.
So the opposite of "not helped", it worked just fine.
However, in addition to reducing the number of pedestrian accidents it also increased the number of rear-end collisions.
Who doesn't want to cast aluminium in their oven?
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.