Johnson is stepping down, and also will not be speaker come January

Impeachment is pardon proof via the constitution. The actual limits have never been tested, but someone with gumption could argue that the crimes one has been impeached over, cannot be pardoned at all.

The massive war chest that Jefferies controlled did in fact give him the power to choose the House and Senate leaders on the Democrat side.

That war chest is gone.

Sad to see the BBC continuing to protect predators. You'd think some hard questions would have been asked after Jimmy Savile.

It was the wrong Dana.

The person recommended was a heritage foundation goon, but dementia don only knew the celebrity.

The apparent recommended candidate was someone with the same name from the Heritage Foundation. Trump just defaulted to the celebrity.

Jefferies is an AIPAC recipient. Kushner is Trump's bribery guy. And Israel's as well. Maybe Russia and the Saudies.

Point being, there's only one reason to meet with Kushner, and that's some form of bribery.

Well, it fails at number 1. Flat out.

And it also fails number 2.

All while introducing new failure conditions.

RCV is a bad system. We're already doing a version of it more isn't a fix, it's just more complexity to an already broken system.

The actual way to get the very things you want are with Cardinal voting systems like STAR.

Let's look at that track record.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-negative_responsiveness#Specific_examples

Three massive, and provable failures that flipped an election due to a spoiler candidate. The very thing RCV claims to prevent.

There's a reason why Condorcet only used his version of RCV as an example of a system that could not reliably produce the pairwise winner.

Then about 50 years later an Englishman reinvents the system but for multiple winner elections. Then later another Englishman strips out the multi-winner part and we're back to the same system described in Condorcet's 1785 Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix.

Translated that's Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Majority Decisions.

I say very slight because of the many, many, glaring flaws of the system.

The fact that it does not eliminate the spoiler effect is a major one.

All it does is kick the spoiler effect down the road a bit. It eliminates the also ran candidates. As soon as a third party candidate actually becomes halfway viable, the spoiler effect kicks in harder than ever and skews the election the other way.

And FairVote (the assholes who keep pushing a broken system) know this.

The simplest argument against RCV is thus, the current US primary system followed by a General election functions nearly identically to a version of RCV capped at two rounds.

Blue Dogs tend to vote with the pack if they can't be the single special snowflake. (i.e. the checks don't clear as well when they have to be split five ways)

Ranked Choice is a slight improvement over our current system, but it was first invented in 1785 and has some inherent flaws. Flaws that can be exploited by bad actors to subvert elections.

May I suggest STAR. It was designed in 2014, and makes it much harder to subvert an election.