Alaska Ranked Choice Voting; Sullivan vs Sullivan vs Peltola

 Alaska has a Byzantine, convoluted ranked choice voting election system that confuses the allocation of fractional shares of votes to various candidates one hasn’t really voted for. That is, there is a penalty for not listing candidates in order as if one approved of all candidates except the one ranked last. The system is comparable to buying shares in a time share condo with some kind of ranked choice about occupancy or roles in responsibility for meeting home owner criteria.

There are innumerable internet experiences equally as frustrating as ranked choice voting such as logging unto a site to buy a product and finding a myriad of screens arising that take one away from what one wanted to do. Maybe ranked choice is perhaps comparable to spinning the wheel at Temu when one wanted to buy a solar panel. I would guess the clan might have enjoyed the ranked choice system in the reconstructionist south if that sort of thing had occurred to them.

Democrats have some trouble winning major elections in Alaska and hoped to improve their wining percentage with ranked choice voting. This year incumbent U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan running against Mary Peltola- Democrat challenger, will also face competition with a 5th grade school teacher named Dan Sullivan. The ambiguity created for some voters regarding which Dan Sullivan is the real Dan Sullivan, as well as how to rank the Dan Sullivans in light of the algorithm of rank choices they don’t understand, is deplorable yet understandably corrupting if one care about democracy being plain and simple.

https://abcnews.com/Politics/democrats-eye-potential-senate-flip-alaska-2-republican/story?id=135591188

Western Leadership Failed to Adapt to the New Post Cold War Russia

 The military industrial complex of the United States was conditioned for more than a half century to regard Russia as the main adversary. When the Cold War and Soviet Communism ended most of the American establishment failed to adapt to the change and to engage positively with Russia. Fundamentally they transitioned from anti-communism to anti-Russia.

Russia did move toward being a free enterprise country. It largely ended communism although elites and government made property rights rather exclusively. Without heavy western investment in Russia that conditioned worsened in the sanctions era. Even so Russia has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world.

Russians and communists are different. There is no reason to regard Russians differently from anyone else when the communist burden is removed and continues. Russia sought to reform its society, create an income tax (the Ukraine war helped with that as it did Abraham Lincoln during the U.S. Civil War). And establish institutions including government for a democratic society. With N.A.T.O. expanding eastward and the loss of Its Ukraine properties and hegemony over Ukraine the development of democracy in Russia was put on hold. War loomed with the west. Russia looked to its former communist brother in arms China for help and found China more than willing to move their relationship closer since China wanted to keep communist supervision and authority over its partially market oriented society.

The failure for western leadership to adapt after the Cold War to the new Russian political reality is costly. Toynbee observed the challenge and response nature of leadership of civilizations. Toynbee could have included adaptation in his formula paradigm as well. The west in effect has driven Russia closer to China, and has strengthen Chinese leadership because the west refused to adapt to recognition of Russia as a worthy, friendly potential fellow travelers in freedom, free enterprise and national security, Since Russia is not fascist or communist the de facto position of western leadership to Russia is racist (reductio).

The failure of American leadership to adapt to the new Russia (with some notable exceptions like Donald Trump) may cost the west dearly as it

On the First Democracy

The first modern Republic occurred in Holland led by the Dewitt brothers who were eventually torn apart by a mob of political opponents in favor of a return to royal rule.  Locke, Hume, John Stewart Mill and even Aristotle seemed to favor democracy in some form; they did not excoriate it.

The Roman Republic was created in 509 BC.  It actualized some of the shape of the Republic Plato wrote about. Rome had two consoles and The Republic had two philosopher-kings. Plato wrote The Republic circa 375 BC. Socrates wanted a restoration of oligharchy and  Rome may have provided and abstract template to synthesize with a Spartan social structure. Rome's Republic was more like a democracy than Plato might have liked.

   American founders of democracy were in revolt against authoritarianism and social class supremacy; those were perennial challenges for the polis in needing to get rid of royalty.