SoylentNews

DeathMonkey writes:

Ranked-choice voting adopted in New York City, along with other ballot measures

New York City will move to a system of ranked-choice voting, shaking up the way its elections are run after voters approved a ballot question to make the change.

The city will be by far the biggest place in the U.S. to put the new way of voting to the test, tripling the number of people around the country who use it.

A ballot question proposing the shift for New York primaries and special elections was approved Tuesday by a margin of nearly 3-1. It's now set to be in effect for New York's elections for mayor, City Council and other offices in 2021.

Under the system, voters will rank up to five candidates in order of preference, instead of casting a ballot for just one. If no candidate gets a majority of the vote, the last place candidate is eliminated and their votes are parceled out to the voter's second choice, a computerized process that continues until one candidate has a majority and is declared the winner.

Ranked-choice voting is now in use or approved in 18 other cities around the country, including San Francisco, Minneapolis and Cambridge. The state of Maine also uses it. Backers say the system discourages negative campaigning, and forces candidates to reach out to more voters rather than relying on a narrow base. It's also designed to allow voters to pick their true favorite, without worrying about throwing away a vote on someone who can't win.

Previously: Maine Supreme Court Approves Ranked-Choice Voting for 2018 Elections
Maine Debuts Ranked-Choice Voting

Original Submission

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Chinese state media has urged authorities to take a "tougher line" against protesters in Hong Kong who vandalised state-run Xinhua news agency and other buildings at the weekend, saying the violence damaged the city's rule of law.

[...] In an editorial, state-backed China Daily newspaper criticised the "wanton" attacks by "naive" demonstrators, adding, "They are doomed to fail simply because their violence will encounter the full weight of the law."

Police fired tear gas at black-clad protesters on Saturday and Sunday in some of the worst violence in the Asian financial hub in weeks, with metro stations set ablaze and buildings vandalised.

Violence also erupted on Sunday after a man with a knife attacked several people and bit off part of the ear of a pro-democracy politician. Two of the victims are reportedly in critical condition, according to reports.

The past five months of anti-government protests in the former British colony represent the biggest popular challenge to President Xi Jinping's government since he took over China's leadership in late 2012.

Protesters are angry at China's perceived meddling with Hong Kong's freedoms, including its legal system, since the Asian financial hub returned to Chinese rule in 1997. China denies the accusation.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

— The United States House of Representatives passed a bill tonight that would put America's small business owners' personally identifiable information at unprecedented risk and cost them billions of dollars and millions of hours in paperwork. The Corporate Transparency Act of 2019 (H.R. 2513), which passed the House 249-173 attempts to shift a responsibility from big banks to America's smallest businesses, saddling them with an additional 131.7 million hours of paperwork at a cost of $5.7 billion over the first 10 years.

"The House today not only shouldered millions of small business owners with a tremendous compliance burden but put their personally identifiable information at serious risk," said NFIB President & CEO Juanita D. Duggan. "The reporting requirements and devastating financial penalties will affect only small businesses, from farmers to franchisees to the mom-and-pop retail shop down the street. It is a big-government solution in search of a small-business problem, and we will not cease our efforts to stand up for small businesses against this serious threat."

The Corporate Transparency Act of 2019 is legislation that would require only those small corporations and limited liability companies with 20 or fewer employees to complete and submit annual paperwork which includes the personally identifiable information of each business owner to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network upon the creation of the business and periodically for the life of the business. Failure to comply is a federal crime with civil penalties up to $10,000 and criminal penalties of up to three years in prison.

https://www.nfib.com/content/press-release/homepage/house-deals-blow-to-millions-of-small-businesses-by-passing-corporate-transparency-act/

While everyone is distracted by "impeachment", this is what the government is doing.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2513
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/proposed-corporate-transparency-act-2019-would-require-corporations-and-limited

Original Submission

upstart writes:

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

Google exec suggests Elizabeth Warren is misguided and only big tech can prevent "the next Trump situation"

A new Project Veritas report includes an undercover video, leaked documents, and statements from a whistleblower that all paint a grim picture of Google's apparent lack of fairness, and its bias.

Google's now a very powerful company, and that's upsetting both sides in the US political divide.

As a consequence, many politicians are looking for ways to contain that power – either by applying antitrust or some other type of legislation against the company.

In the comments recorded in an undercover video, Google's Head of Responsible Innovation, Jen Gennai, cheerfully and not without a hint of hubris acknowledges that Google has been called to appear before Congress many times – but simply chose to ignore those invitations.

Original Submission

An Anonymous Coward writes:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50246324

"The US House of Representatives has passed a resolution to formally proceed with the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The measure details how the inquiry will move into a more public phase. It was not a vote on whether the president should be removed from office.

This was the first test of support in the Democratic-controlled House for the impeachment process.

The White House condemned the vote, which passed along party lines.

Only two Democrats - representing districts that Mr Trump won handily in 2016 - voted against the resolution, along with all Republicans, for a total count of 232 in favour and 196 against."

Original Submission

takyon writes:

Twitter to ban all political advertising

Twitter is to ban all political advertising worldwide, saying that the reach of such messages "should be earned, not bought". "While internet advertising is incredibly powerful and very effective for commercial advertisers, that power brings significant risks to politics," company CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted.

Social media rival Facebook recently ruled out a ban on political ads.

News of the ban divided America's political camps for the 2020 election. Brad Parscale, manager of President Donald Trump's re-election campaign, said the ban was "yet another attempt by the left to silence Trump and conservatives". But Bill Russo, spokesman for the campaign to elect Democratic front-runner Joe Biden, said: "When faced with a choice between ad dollars and the integrity of our democracy, it is encouraging that, for once, revenue did not win out."

Original Submission

Mojibake Tengu writes:

Craig Murray of Information Clearing House writes about his observation at Westminster Magistrates Court:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52433.htm

Before I get on to the blatant lack of fair process, the first thing I must note was Julian's condition. I was badly shocked by just how much weight my friend has lost, by the speed his hair has receded and by the appearance of premature and vastly accelerated ageing. He has a pronounced limp I have never seen before. Since his arrest he has lost over 15 kg in weight.

But his physical appearance was not as shocking as his mental deterioration. When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over several seconds to recall both. I will come to the important content of his statement at the end of proceedings in due course, but his difficulty in making it was very evident; it was a real struggle for him to articulate the words and focus his train of thought.

Until yesterday I had always been quietly sceptical of those who claimed that Julian's treatment amounted to torture – even of Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture – and sceptical of those who suggested he may be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that yesterday changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.

I had been even more sceptical of those who claimed, as a senior member of his legal team did to me on Sunday night, that they were worried that Julian might not live to the end of the extradition process. I now find myself not only believing it, but haunted by the thought. Everybody in that court yesterday saw that one of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes. To see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known, reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable. Yet the agents of the state, particularly the callous magistrate Vanessa Baraitser, were not just prepared but eager to be a part of this bloodsport. She actually told him that if he were incapable of following proceedings, then his lawyers could explain what had happened to him later. The question of why a man who, by the very charges against him, was acknowledged to be highly intelligent and competent, had been reduced by the state to somebody incapable of following court proceedings, gave her not a millisecond of concern.

Now tell me some fine arguments justifying the legality and justness of such person destruction methodics, I wish to hear them.
 

Original Submission

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Left-leaning Fernandez hails government of people, but central bank currency move shows no quick fix to economic woes.

Fernandez's win unleashed euphoria in parts of Buenos Aires, as supporters cruised the streets honking their car horns, and a wave of people surged towards the neighbourhood of Chacarita, where the official victory party was being held. 

Speaking to supporters at his party's headquarters, Fernandez thanked voters for showing a commitment to building a more equal Argentina. 

"We're going to be the Argentina that we deserve because it's not true that we're condemned to this Argentina," he said.

Original Submission

takyon writes:

Japan grants half a million pardons to mark enthronement of emperor Naruhito

Japan has pardoned more than half a million people found guilty of petty crimes such as traffic violations to mark the formal ascension of Naruhito to the Chrysanthemum throne.

Naruhito proclaimed himself Japan's new emperor and vowed to "stand with the people" after performing a series of ancient rituals on Tuesday that culminated in his appearance on the imperial throne alongside his wife, Empress Masako.

The 59-year-old, who ascended the throne in May following the abdication of his father, Akihito, marked his official enthronement in front of around 2,000 guests, including heads of state and other royals from more than 180 countries.

[...] To mark the occasion on Tuesday, Abe's ultra-conservative government granted pardons to about 550,000 eligible applicants. The decision was not publicly debated.

The pre-war custom of clemency by the emperor, who was revered as a god in those days, has triggered criticism as being undemocratic and politically motivated. At the time of former Akihito's enthronement, 2.5 million people were given amnesty.

Also at CNN, Asahi Shimbun, and Japan Times.

Previously: MonarchyNews: The King is My Co-Pilot and Japanese Succession "Crisis"
Japan Clears Way for Emperor to Step Down in 1st Abdication in 200 Years
Big Tech Warns of 'Japan's Millennium Bug' Ahead of Akihito's Abdication
Japan's Next Era to be Called "Reiwa"

Original Submission

upstart writes in with a submission, via IRC, for Runaway1956:

California law bans for-profit, private prisons, immigration detention centers

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill on Friday [October 11] that would eliminate private, for-profit prisons, including those used for immigration detention, by 2028.

Starting on Jan. 2020, the state's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation won't be able to enter into or renew a contract with a private, for-profit prison to incarcerate people.

Operating a private immigration detention facility and incarcerating people in for-profit prisons will be prohibited after Jan. 2028, according to the newly signed law.

[...] The Adelanto Detention Facility, which is one of the nation's biggest privately-run immigration detention centers, will be phased out under the new law.

This past summer, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General released a report that found "egregious violations of detention standards" at the Adelanto Detention Facility, including "nooses in detainee cells, improper and overly restrictive segregation, and inadequate detainee medical care."

[...] GEO Group, a for-profit prison company with dozens of facilities in California including the Adelanto Facility, previously has stated that the bill "works against the state's Proposition 57 anti-recidivism goals approved by the voters," referring to a ballot proposition passed in 2016 to reduce the number of people who were re-incarcerated in the state.

The company reported revenues of $2.33 billion in 2018, up from $2.26 billion in 2017. The facilities have been criticized for employing immigrants for as little as $1 a day.

Original Submission