I didn't see this comment when I wrote a few other ones, but you can absolutely use proportional representation as a solution for single-winner elections. Just look at how most prime ministers are chosen in any country that uses proportionally-represented parliaments.
namingthingsiseasy
It brings up an interesting question of wasted votes. By definition, in plurality voting, at least 50% of all votes must be wasted. Anyone who votes for a losing candidate (and thereby doesn't receive an elected representative) wasted his/her vote. And anyone who voted above the threshold for the winner also cast a wasted vote (because the candidate wouldn't win anyway). It's easy to see why turnout would be low in such a system.
(You could of course argue that a candidate winning a race with 60% of the votes is much stronger in the office than a candidate that wins 51:49, so this is a bit of an oversimplification, but hopefully you get the idea of how wasted votes work solely within the context of decided who wins the race.)
Ranked Choice Voting is an improvement over plurality voting, but as I've written elsewhere (too lazy to look it up), I think any election with a single winner is still going to end up with weird/disappointing outcomes at least 90% of the time. I think this post is referring to the governor of New York, no? I would rather see a system where the state legislature is elected proportionally, and then the governor would be selected from a coalition agreement between the governing parties - similar to what you see in many national, state and provincial systems across Europe. This system isn't without its downsides, but at least it's harder for incumbent parties to force voters to support them even if those voters don't want to.
Of course, this is a much more fundamental reform, so it's harder to adopt. RCV is definitely an improvement. It's great to see some progress happening out there in the USA.
If I were forced to choose between two choices and I didn't like either, I would not consider myself living in a democracy. Democracy is pointless if you aren't able to vote for a candidate that you actually like.
The solution is reform. If your democracy is not proportional, then it is not a democracy.
It's a little stupid to bring this up. You have to treat the Trump administration like toddlers, ie. when they ask for something, you just have to be firm, ignore it, and wait for it to go away. Raising the topic again will just make your toddler throw another tantrum.
I get that he was asked this by a member of the media, but nobody should be talking about this. You just have to change the topic - again, exactly the same way you deal with toddlers.
This would be a stunning own goal by Red Hat (and let's face it, they are the largest driving force behind Fedora, if not in complete and total control of the project). Steam and gaming have brought so many new users to Linux - maybe even doubled the entire userbase - that if anything, they should be doing all they can to support it even better if they really want to increase the size of the userbase.
Even if flatpak is still an option, it will still drive a lot of new and existing users to use non Fedora-based distros, which would be sad for the project. I myself have never been a Fedora user, but I'm really grateful to see a lot of the positive things they do for the Linux community, so this would be a very sad step in my opinion. On the other hand, it would make me even happier if we see more users switching to Debian-based distros instead.
Yeah! At this point, Windows is even worse than Minix!