Saving the world, living better, & ranked-choice voting

     "Saving The World, With Or Without Sarcasm"

     In my last previous attempt, I slipped into sarcasm without realizing it.  So I probably didn't raise awareness in anyone except, later, myself.


     Since then I've been thinking of what happens aside from just "raising awareness", and thought of one thing that could happen.  I could drive my car less and generally live less wastefully.  So there you have it -- if anyone does that, it helps to save the world.  And one person could be an example for others.


     "N Ways To Live Better (In The Sight Of 'God')"

     (1)  "Pray a lot."  This is what is taught in church.  I don't really know whether it works, except that I suppose any thoughtfulness would help, and prayer could be thoughtful.  It seems to work for others, but I put it in quotes because I don't use that method, except in the sense that "Everyone prays all the time."

     (2)  Do a right thing, even if it's not politically feasible.  For example, pollute less, because it's the right thing to do, even though you think the vast majority of people are going to pollute the planet to death anyway.  If everyone stops at whatever they think is a political infeasibility, then it's a pretty sure thing that we'll make a bad world.  But if some few people do the right thing, there's always the possibility that others might follow the example, either soon or late, but eventually, and many may learn from the situation, later.

     (3)  Do a right thing, even if the world is coming to an end anyway, and no-one appreciates what you're doing, and there's no god.  This is a spiritual path.  I could say it has its own reward; however, a spiritual path can be right whether it has a reward or not.


     "Ranked-Choice Voting" (a.k.a. instant runoff elections)

     Ranked-choice voting is so good it is like a miracle.  It allows us (as voters) to do right things which are politically infeasible, and thereby change the system (or change society) such that they become politically feasible, soon or late.

     The basic idea (which is all I know) of ranked-choice voting is that if you want to vote for the dark horse candidate (or dark horse proposal) that you really want, you can, and you can also vote a second choice.  Then if your first choice doesn't win, your second choice vote is counted as a vote.

     In the example that follows, if you lean to the Republican party, then swap the words "Democratic" and "Republican".

     An example:  Suppose Ralph Nader were running for President as a 3rd-party candidate.    So, supposing I think I'd rather have him as President than the other candidates, then I vote for Ralph Nader and that would be my first choice vote.  My second choice vote could be the front-runner of the Democratic party candidates.  One likely result of this, in a ranked-choice voting system, is that lots of people would do that, and the nation would come to realize that Ralph is the first choice of, say, 20 or 30% of the population -- something that is not realized yet because, in the current way of voting the people don't bother with the dark horse because they think it would just spoil the election such that the Republic candidate would win, which they don't want, so they cast a "safe" vote which is for the Democratic party candidate.  A second likely result of this is that the Democratic party candidate would probably win (because what would have been spoiler votes are replaced by votes for the Democratic party candidate).  A third likely result is that, over time, people would realize that's happening and start rallying behind people they really want, such as, say, a Ralph Nader, so that eventually we'd have a President like him instead of the usual corporation-sponsored major-party candidate.

     (Ralph Nader isn't really my favorite candidate, but I use him as an example because he was an actual 3rd-party candidate.)