Voters are “so confused” because of the vested interest in confusing them using misleading, if not wholely false claims about how it works.
I’ve seen the same methodology used on lots of elementary school homework worksheets. The concept is not confusing unless that’s your predetermined conclusion.
So voters are choosing other options than the conservative candidate? That sounds a lot like simply losing.
That is not what I highlighted. THEFP literally wrote “The fact that the autopen was authorized to sign the pardons is itself a potential violation of the Constitution”. And this is literally false, unless I am misunderstanding this? Are they saying that someone other than the President authorized the use of the autopen, and that authorization is unconstitutional? I didn’t see this in the article and it still doesn’t make sense, since I doubt there’s anything in the Constitution about the autopen, which was invented in 1930s.
You both make fine points. Sure, if the President didn’t authorize the pardons, then they were falsified. But I would think that, as with any other legal question (except those related to taxes 
), the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I think it’s mostly just careless wording. The autopen means Biden didnt authorize the pardons with his signature. It also ignores the possibility of the pardons being authorized some other way.
I understand and agree with the notion about the absence of evidence. But this isnt some random person, it’s the President of the United States, virtually every minute of his life is documented. Even if he decided to grant the pardons while laying alone in bed one night, he still needed to execute those pardons and that execution should be documented in meeting minutes or other White House records. But all documentation regarding those parden appears to exclude Biden’s participation - the only indication he was involved at all is the physical signatures, and turns out he wasnt even involved in that.
I don’t think it’s just careless wording. Other articles call out the use of the autopen specifically and separately from whether its use was authorized. There’s also Biden affirming in a July interview to NYT that he “had orally granted all the pardons”. Him confirming that he did it should make this impossible to litigate.
Should? Or Must? And according to what law? Just because there’s no written evidence doesn’t mean that such written evidence was required. It’s similar to how Trump has blown up all norms because they weren’t codified in law (and some that were).
So 6 months after Trump leaves office he can “remember” that he pardoned me for my (alleged!) financial crimes after I coincidentally made a large donation to the Trump Library’s Swimming Pool of Media Tears?
If Biden had said so at the time, that’s one thing and pretty much incontestable as you say, but he was being hidden in a basement or something for the last year and only let out rarely to stumble around on stage didn’t say anything publicly about the pardons until many months later.
He might well have said so at the time the pardons were being granted that last day in office, but the staff sure didn’t have convincing documentation of that.
I’m just saying that when virtually every aspect of the Presidency is meticulously documented, it is very conspicuous that this is somehow left out. Not even a “11:10AM - discussion of pardons with XYZ, 1,267 granted.” noted in the tick-tock.
Your example is a retroactive pardon. In this case it appears to be a retroactive excuse. Similar, but not the same. I don’t think a President is required to announce all the pardons. I don’t remember Trump announcing the name of every Jan 6 criminal he pardoned.
But there is no evidence of that. If he says he remembers ordering the pardon, you have no reason to dispute it.
The pardon had been… what’s the word, executed(?) right after it was issued, right? So the fact that it was granted is indisputable, only whether that was done legally is in question.
For the above I’m thinking of pardons for convicted criminals though, not “just-in-case” pardons for Fauci and others who were never prosecuted.
And yet you are disputing xerty’s pardon, despite verbal confirmation it was and having no evidence that it was not granted. Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You are making claims with no evidence. I have evidence that it does not work and produces the opposite results to what you claim. I live in far left Silicon Valley, California, and I’ve seen RCV implemented in my area. It has produced disastrous results. Look up, Chesa Boudin Sheng Thao, and Pamela Price, all of whom were elected using RCV and removed from office by the voters after they realized that the system had led to terrible results.
you keep making pie in the sky, assertions that RCV leads to some promised land with no vested interest, but can provide no evidence for it. This discussion is not productive, but I will continue it as long as it takes in the fond hope that at some point, you will provide some actual evidence for your assertions.
And no, the claim that RCV is implemented in elementary school is ridiculous. I suffered through public elementary school and there was absolutely no use of the method in my experience.
You have evidence that someone you dont like has won some elections.
So your “evidence” is that far left voters elect far left candidates? That happens everywhere with a critical mass of far left voters, regardless of the election method used. You could stop blaming election methods, and just admit that your priority is to prevent the candidates with majoirty support from being elected because too many voters are too ignorant to make good informed choices.
I am not making pie in the sky anything, I’m stating exactly how RCV works. YOU are making unsubstantiated claims based on your “evidence” that voters elected candidates that end up sucking, and blaming that on RCV without explaining how the final head-to-head results of RCV are any different than any other election’s head-to-head results.
Well, that isnt ”the claim”. I said elementary school homework has worksheet exercises that use similar ranking methods. You know, the “list the following in order from slowest to fastest”, with pictures of a person, a bicycle, a car, and an airplane. Again, you are just trying to make it sound confusing because you want it to be confusing and refuse to even attempt to understand how it actually works and how simple it really is.
Apparently voting is employment in North Carolina.
Absent waiting in a line, voting takes what, about 10 minutes? That’s a $600/hr or $1,248,000/year rate. Maybe that’s why liberals are in favor of RCV, to ensure they wont need to pony up for run-off elections as well?
I’m surprised they didnt mention how he’s likely to also end up getting the back pay he’s missed during this furlough.
They can’t really control who those people voted for. Seems like they’re throwing away money.
Also you have the patience of a saint and I appreciate your effort in educating the proletariat.
Straw man. I presented evidence that the voters did not like the results of an RCV election.
“So your “evidence” is that far left voters elect far left candidates?”
No, my evidence is that the voters regardless of their political persuasion disliked the RCV election result enough that they funded and passed recall elections
“I am not making pie in the sky anything, I’m stating exactly how RCV works.”
No, you keep saying that it is a system the produces representative results. I have presented evidence to you that the voters do not agree with you.
“Again, you are just trying to make it sound confusing because you want it to be confusing and refuse to even attempt to understand how it actually works and how simple it really is.”
It is confusing. Many people, including left leaning newspapers, like the Salt Lake City Deseret news say so
https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/06/11/republican-states-ban-ranked-choice-voting/
Unlike Utah, none of these 17 states ever implemented ranked choice voting, which is marketed by its cheerleaders as a way to give voters more options, incentivize centrist election outcomes and turn down the temperature of political rhetoric.
But the Beehive State, too, may be seeing enthusiasm wane for its experiment with ranked choice voting. Some municipalities that tested the unique process have reported unintuitive election results, voter confusion and decreased turnout
Dude, that doesnt make it bad. It makes voters unwilling to accept responsibility for the results they chose.
In literally every single RCV election, the winner had the support of at least 50% of the voters in that election. That is an indisputable fact. If they have buyers remorse, they need to learn from their mistakes, not pass the buck so they can make those same mistakes over and over.
Authorized or not, presidential pardons are sometimes used as a form of corruption:
Some times more than other times 
No, most of the voters did not understand the complex ballot so the end result of the software tabulation was someone they did not want.
In literally every single RCV election, the winner had the support of at least 50% of the voters in that election. That is an indisputable fact.
that is not correct. Because of the complexity of the ballot, many voters only make one selection, so their ballot is “exhausted” and not counted after the first iteration. The final result does not include their vote so it is not 50% of the voters.
And their choice was no longer a candidate so effectively they chose not to vote. Just like how I’d vote for onenote for my local city counsel, but he wasnt an option so I chose not to vote.
You keep harping on “complex ballots”. How complex is “Who do you choose”, then “Who’s your second choice if your first is no longer an option”?