I agree with all of this. Except I would probably buy all the stupid shit I want because I have no concept of how all the stupid shit I want could amount to more than a rounding error.

I wouldn’t call it a bug, just that a naive ranked ballot naturally favours the centrist voices. I don’t even mean this in an extreme way: in Canada we basically have three centrist, neoliberal parties running parliament, and this would mean that the Liberals just win a majority almost every time. NDP voters generally won’t vote Conservative, Conservative voters won’t vote NDP.

This can turn into a bug because it ends up pushing other voices out: if the popular vote suggests equal support between left, right, and center candidates, you would typically hope the make-up of the government reflects that, but more likely it would look like a center majority. There are ways to mitigate this (large number of parties, electing multiple candidates on a ballot, proportional components of the vote, etc) but ranked choice on its own tends to be a centralizing force, not a way to get a more representative democracy.

Again, not a bug, and I definitely wouldn’t call it worse than FPTP, just making it clear that it has its own biases that are worth taking into account.

Ranked choice is one of the simplest ways to get a more representative, but to the question in the title it does tend to favour centrist parties. Progressives will vote for a centrist over a conservative, and a conservative will vote for a centrist over a progressive, so the centrist party will win almost every time.

It’s still an improvement over the disaster of FPTP because it will at least elect parties that the majority can tolerate, but there is still a bias present.

This is basically it, yes, but sometimes I’m drunk-ordering 40 nuggets and a milkshake and adding the mint myself is enough effort to make me reconsider my reckless disregard for my wellbeing.

As a wee lad I rented it a few times. I never actually figured out how to play it, I just ran around and died but I liked the vibe of it.

I was going away for a few days and picked up one of my cats to say bye. His reaction was to immediately kick himself off my chest and sprint downstairs. He was also meh about my return. Gotta love him.

There are lots of ways to approach meaning, and more broadly spirituality and community, without theism.

This is a weird take on atheism that reads like you’ve only seen atheists online creeping out of /r/atheism or some similar place. There’s no more reason that “why” should be answered by Christianity than by any number of philosophies that don’t require a god, and pegging someone as arrogant for ascribing to those beliefs is silly.