I’m asking for the individual candidates to lay out their specific political goals. The party can continue to publish its platform and planks.

Then people vote based on whether they want to see those goals met. When those politicians are up for re-election, it’s fairly easy for someone to tabulate whether or not those goals were met. If there are extenuating circumstances (overwhelming opposition, for example), then they can use that to defend themselves. This would help hold their feet to the fire.

As for voting ideologically, I attribute that mostly to FPTP - people feel as though they cannot do anything but vote ideologically because there are no real alternatives. That’s why RCV is extremely important.

shrug Where I live, cars feel (and know) that they’re invincible and likely to suffer no punishment if they kill someone.

Drivers like to think that they can do no wrong all the time, not just when it suits their purpose.

Incorrect. E-bikes are actually economically viable. Show me an electric motorcycle that actually makes sense to buy.

An ex-coworker of mine recommended Mango Languages, which is supposed to be much better and also if you have a library card, you can usually get a subscription for free through them! The lessons are probably a little longer than 30 seconds, but not too much longer. I’d say a minute tops.

This might be survivorship bias. If you get hit by a cyclist, you might - worst case Ontario - break a limb or something if they send you flying into something else. If you get hit by a driver, you are definitely going to break something and you will most likely die.

As for how likely it is that you actually get hit - do you think it’s easier to avoid a 2’ x 6’ object moving at 15 mph or a 8’ x 16’ object moving at 45 mph?

You’ve waited years for this moment, haven’t you?

Moving away from FPTP is, for democracy, the crucial first step that very few seem to have taken.

Hard disagree. It’s really easy for candidates to talk the talk on the campaign trail, and then do a 180 once they’re in office.

That being said, this doesn’t work if you let them use flowery speech and vague promises. If you had parties submit a platform of actually actionable decisions they would make (e.g. “decrease the federal minimum wage”), you’d be able to suss out what they actually want to do. It would also provide a rubric for re-election - how many of the things you wanted to do did you accomplish? Are there good reasons why you weren’t able to?

It’s extremely disappointing to me (admittedly in the US) that Covid seems to have obliterated any chance for a large-scale investigation on payment processors’ stranglehold on our financial systems. The fees that Visa/Mastercard/etc. charge, especially for tiny merchants with insanely low transaction numbers, are criminal.

Reserving judgment, but “unfiltered” places on the internet usually tend to veer one way.

Usually RCV is an initiative or referendum depending on how your state does it. In mine, it’s just a separate issue on the back that we have to vote for, alongside things like “should we institute a tax for schools” or “should we approve building a new park”. Entirely separate from voting for candidates for any position.

Don’t forget a little note saying "Think this is stupid? Vote for Ranked-Choice Voting!’

That makes a lot of sense, and very much tracks with what I’ve experienced of DHS. Scumbags.

I think they’re funded just fine, but recent events have created some unusual expenditures for the SS.

Not a car in sight. Just people living their lives.

Yeah, generally the answer is you can’t. My wife had a Faraday while they were around, and while it was a super cool design, replacing the battery was a hassle and a half even for our local bike shop (who spent 2 months asking Faraday for schematics and maintenance instructions, incidentally 🙃 ).

I think we’re both on the same page - I would love if there were similar federal programs for low-income people to get scooters/e-bikes just like we have for cell phones right now, since it’s kind of required to get to work in most metropolitan areas and most cities don’t have good transit options.

All I was saying before is that if they straight up never have more than $50 to their name, they’re going to pay $7 a day as opposed to $30 a week, which would be more cost effective.

Something I think you may not be considering is availability of funds for lower-income folks - it’s easy for us to say “why not just pay $70/month instead of paying $12/day”, but… what if they literally don’t have $70? What if they don’t qualify for the payment plan because of bad/no credit? Let us not forget the story of Samuel Vimes and his ‘Boots’ Theory of Socio-economic Unfairness.

It’s a fair argument, especially given how much… entertainment he seems to derive from owning it.

Hey, everyone deserves two or three back and forths before I write them off as not really wanting to have a debate on a thing