[mdp2021]

> You mean my post

No, I meant that about «weighted votes» with heavily imperfect criteria for the weighing.

> no where near as bad

Never an excuse for skipping due diligence.

> suggest

I suggest the problem is taken into serious consideration, because already looking at phenomena like gerrymandering is astonishing, and anti-intellectualism is abasing on both sides (of the failed and the failing), etc. There are leaking faucets: stop ignoring them, plan and fix them. That means, find solutions, propose them, convince the public, have them implemented.

[kennysoona]

> That means, find solutions, propose them, convince the public, have them implemented.

How? Half the public outright denies truth and fact, proudly.

[mdp2021]

By catching the train of a party that makes fixing problem P according to new academic solution S part of its electoral campaign programme.

[kennysoona]

Yeah, no shot. Half the population will reject solution S no matter what.

[mdp2021]

That has no impact on legislation unless the rule gets later repealed.

[kennysoona]

Don't you have that backwards in assuming the solution is already implemented? My point is it would not be able to be.

[mdp2021]

No, I said that once the legislative powers biased through the influence of party P implement solution S, then the burden of the other side is to repeal it. It's how things work, already without reforms...