reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @Leon_vid_cast

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

Will 2026 be the year we finally see reforms that signal the end of the two-party duopoly in our political system? If that is the case, how many years would it take before viable third options begin to emerge? System implementation is scheduled to begin in June 2026 in Washington, D.C, and in 2027 in Seattle. You will soon see what this is all about 🧵

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

1 - Origins of the Current Political Framework In the 1960s, the New Left and the New American Right emerged, the latter often described as reactionary. The 1960s are a key period: the starting point from which contemporary U.S. politics develops. In 1963, following the JFK assassination, AIPAC officially adopted its name as a supposedly American lobby organization, avoiding registration under FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) as a foreign agent. Now, let’s examine how this framework was reinforced.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

2- The 1967 Turning Point: Locking in FPTP First-Past-The-Post (FPTP), also known as a plurality voting system, is an electoral method where the candidate with the most votes in a specific constituency wins the election. Although FPTP was already the dominant electoral system, a 1967 federal law made single-member districts mandatory for U.S. (Public Law 90-196) This effectively banned alternative electoral systems that could have weakened two-party dominance.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

3- Immediate consequence Duverger’s Law describes the tendency of plurality voting systems to result in two-dominant party systems. In this type of system, "no vote is wasted" because the main concern is to prevent the candidate perceived as extreme from winning. The Democrats and Republicans polarize in part to ensure that people do not vote outside their parties. It is a symbiotic relationship, political asymmetry helps them maintain it. We will explore this further later.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

4- This change permanently locked in the single-member district model Nationwide! Exactly what Duverger’s Law identifies as the primary structural driver of a two-party system. Since the 1967 mandate, no federal law has altered the plurality/FPTP requirement. However, several states and cities have recently begun experimenting with alternatives.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

5- Duverger’s Law : Spoiler Effect The spoiler effect occurs when a third-party or minor candidate draws votes away from a major candidate with similar views, causing a different candidate (often one with opposing views) to win.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

6- How the Spoiler Effect Works Vote Splitting: When two or more candidates share a similar ideological base, they divide those voters between them. Minority Rule: Because the similar candidates split their support, a candidate from the opposing side can win with a plurality (e.g., 40%) even if 60% of the electorate preferred one of the other two Strategic Voting: To avoid this outcome, voters often feel pressured to vote for a "lesser of two evils" rather than their favorite candidate to avoid "wasting" their vote.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

7- The Uno "Reverse" to Tactical Voting To overcome tactical voting from a plurality voting system/FPTP it was concluded that the electoral system itself must be changed. This brings us to the central topic of this discussion. To reduce tactical voting, some jurisdictions adopt: -Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) -Single Transferable Vote (STV)

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

8- Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) How it Works: Voters rank candidates (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). If a candidate gets a majority (over 50%) of 1st-choice votes, they win. If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their supporters' votes are redistributed to their next choices. This "instant runoff" continues until a majority winner emerges.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

9- New Term: Rigged Chaotic Voting (RCV) Simple, No problems, right? … Right? Yes, there are indeed. Ballot Exhaustion: If a voter only ranks a few candidates and all of them are eliminated, their vote is "exhausted" and does not contribute to the final round where a winner is chosen. "False" Majorities: Because exhausted ballots are removed from the total count, the eventual winner may have a majority of remaining votes but not a majority of all ballots originally cast. Elimination of the Front-Runner: A candidate who receives the most first-place votes can still lose in later rounds of tabulation if they lack sufficient second- or third-place support. Strategic Vulnerabilities: While intended to stop "spoiler" candidates, RCV can sometimes suffer from its own mathematical paradoxes (like "center squeeze" or non-monotonicity), where voting for a favorite candidate could unintentionally help a least-preferred candidate win.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

10- Status of RCV in America (January 2026) So far Statewide Adoption: Three states currently use RCV for certain statewide and federal elections: Alaska, Maine, and Hawaii. In Alaska, a measure to repeal the system narrowly failed in late 2024, keeping it in place for the 2026 election cycle.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

11 - RCV Now I will run a simulation RCV is inherently an iterative algorithm. Its core objective is to ensure that the winner has 'genuine' majority support, more than 50% of active votes, in elections with more than two candidates, a result that single-round plurality voting often fails to produce. The process operates through a repeated cycle of elimination and vote redistribution. In effect, it simulates a series of hypothetical runoff elections, using voters’ ranked preferences as built-in “what if” contingencies rather than requiring separate rounds of voting.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

12 - Simulation Results Hypothetical RCV Don’t worry Frens, I’ll get back to talking normally. Demonstrating Moderation Incentive in Round-by-round breakdown: Round 1: Conservative eliminated -lowest votes (shocker, lol) Round 2: Most Conservative voters' second choices go to Moderate → Moderate surges to 497. Round 3: Extreme Left eliminated → Their voters' next choices mostly go to Progressive → Progressive wins with 503 - 50.3% (shocker, lol) The Moderate led initially but lost because extremes' transfers favored the adjacent ideological side (P over M). Quantitative Deviation Analysis (Moderation Effect)Assign ideological positions on a 0–10 scale: EL: 0 P: 3 M: 5 (center) C: 8 Average voter ideology (weighted by first choices): 3.92 (slightly left-of-center).Plurality winner (Moderate): Position 5 → Deviation from mean: 1.08 👉🏻RCV winner (Progressive): Position 3 → Deviation from mean: 0.92👈🏻

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

13- What just happened? Imagine an election with 100 voters and 4 candidates: A: 'Extreme' Left B: Progressive (left, 'not too extreme') C: Moderate (in the middle, not too left or right) D: Conservative (right-leaning) So far so good Who Was Disadvantaged in This Simulation? The ones labeled as "extremes" were disadvantaged first. D (Conservative) – eliminated in Round 1 (lowest first choices). A (Extreme Left) – eliminated in Round 2. Both candidates, labeled as extremists in political discourse, were eliminated early because they lacked sufficient support to survive the initial rounds The initial leader (the Moderate) was disadvantaged in the end C (Moderate) started with the most first-choice votes (30 – more than anyone else). After Round 2, C was way ahead with 45 votes. But in the final round, C still lost (48 vs. B’s 51). 👉🏻Here the candidate who was "first" for most of the process ended up losing. Who had the advantage here? B (Progressive) – 'not the most extreme', not the perfect middle, but close enough to the Extreme Left voters to get almost all their 2nd choices when A was eliminated. B wasn’t everyone’s favorite, but was an acceptable backup for a big group. Why do those labeled as 'extremes' in political discourse seem to lose most of the time, if not always? It appears that something deeper is at play. Let’s examine this. (Simulation completed)

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

14- I’ve mentioned this in other posts: the framework of the New Left and New Right is the foundation of our country’s politics. These are not political parties; it’s a framework with parameters that define each extreme. As I said, this framework determines what is politically acceptable and what is not, each extreme sets a boundary. Any party or politician that shifts beyond these boundaries, falling outside the designated spectrum, becomes politically irrelevant. And from what I can see, in the simulation, that is exactly what I assume will happen gradually in reality. What is the initial reason this framework developed? -Partly … the Weimar Republic -How does this system maintain itself and perpetuate?" Who runs it?

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

15- Public Law 90-196 Remember that the 1960s were a pivotal period, marked by the emergence of both the New Left and the New Right in the America. Now, who introduced the bill that eventually became Public Law 90-196? 👉🏻 It was Representative Emanuel Celler (D-NY), a jewish congressman. However, these efforts did not begin in the 1960s. The groundwork extended much further back. Celler, along with others, had been introducing redistricting legislation since the 1950s, yes, as early as the 1950s!! These proposals included single-member district requirements, modeled on the 1842 Apportionment Act.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

16- Public Law 90-196 #2 Who else pushed for this? It was Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee. What tactic did he use? The provision was added as a Senate amendment, led by figures such as Sen. Howard Baker, in a bipartisan context, to an unrelated private bill (H.R. 2275, a relief bill for a physician). This maneuver bypassed stalled, broader redistricting legislation. The amendment passed both chambers by voice vote, with widespread support, reflecting a general consensus on avoiding the risks of at-large elections.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

17- Public Law 90-196 #3 Which others can we mention? The push was primarily driven by civil rights advocates and Democratic lawmakers in Congress, who framed it as a natural extension of voting-rights reforms. Or at least, that was the justification. But which civil rights advocates were actually involved? There is no documented evidence of direct participation, such as congressional testimony, formal lobbying records, or public endorsements, by specific groups. That said, the major civil rights organizations most commonly cited in this context are: NAACP LCCR And last but not least, ACLU

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

18- First-past-the-post (FPTP) voting and Public Law 90-196 marked a starting point that allowed a political duopoly to become entrenched and perpetuate itself up to the present. Several prominent leaders explicitly warned against the dangers of a two-party system, believing it would foster tribalism and ultimately corrupt the Republic. One of them was George Washington. In his 1796 Farewell Address, Washington issued a stern warning against what he called the “spirit of party.” He argued that the alternating domination of one faction over another, driven by revenge and rivalry, would eventually lead to a “frightful despotism.” In his view, political parties would replace the “delegated will of the nation” with the narrow “will of a party.”

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

19- The Weimar Republic Lesson What does the Weimar Republic have to do with this? A lot. 👉🏻 Political Fragmentation 👈🏻 One of the central problems of the Weimar Republic was the extreme fragmentation of Germany’s political landscape. Dozens of competing parties made stable governance nearly impossible. This fragmentation was both a cause and a consequence of the fragility of its democratic institutions. Proportional Representation (PR): The Weimar Constitution implemented a pure form of proportional representation with no minimum electoral threshold (unlike today’s 5% rule). As a result, even very small, niche parties were able to gain seats. Over just 14 years, roughly 40 different parties were represented in the Reichstag. Coalition Instability: Because no single party could secure a majority, governments were formed through fragile coalitions. These coalitions frequently collapsed over relatively minor policy disputes, leading to 21 different governments in only 15 years. Ultimately, conservative elites persuaded President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor in 1933, believing they could control him within a coalition. They were wrong. This historical experience is one of the reasons the modern political duopoly was later justified: to reduce extreme political fragmentation and prevent a repeat of the conditions that led to the collapse of the Weimar Republic.👈🏻

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

20- How New Left | New Right Self-Sustains itself The answer to this is quite simple: positive feedback loops. However, the chain is extensive, it encompasses the entire system, including the people themselves, the “normies.” This is the mechanism that keeps the New Left | New Right system running. Therefore, this is not primarily a problem with political parties. It is a problem embedded in everything, and affecting everything. Regardless of which electoral system is used, whatever falls outside the limits defined by the framework will, by default, be labeled as extremist.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

21- Last Topic: Feedback Loop - Political Asymmetry I left this feedback loop out of the list so I could expand on it . It is very important, because it affects both us and the Normies.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

22- Political Polarization Political Asymmetry refers to imbalances or uneven distributions within political systems. These asymmetries can appear in governmental structures, institutional power, and the behavior or composition of political parties. One major factor contributing to political asymmetry is political polarization. Key Types of Polarization Ideological Polarization: The degree to which political beliefs and policy preferences, such as positions on climate change or healthcare, diverge toward opposing ideological extremes. Affective Polarization: Also known as emotional polarization, this refers to increasing levels of personal dislike, distrust, and hostility toward members of opposing political groups or parties. Elite vs. Mass Polarization: Elite polarization describes divisions among political leaders, policymakers, and party elites, while mass (or popular) polarization refers to divisions within the general public or electorate.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

23- All Social Media Platforms compromised Do you remember Duverger’s Law, right? And how the two major parties create a spectacle of polarization so that voters do not give support to minor parties? Well, all social media platforms function as another feedback loop that sustains the political polarization feedback loop itself. Then the system optimizes for this, because polarization is what people react to the most. At least for me, I won’t do free labor for the government. I don’t vote. And engaging in polarization with “normies” such as liberals, MAGA supporters, etc., is a mistake, at least that is my opinion based on this information. So I’m sharing this only as context, and everyone can decide what to do with it.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

@IanMalcolm84 Thank you! I'm doing my part🫡

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

@p8stie Js : “Don’t blame the🧃 for your problems.” Also the Js: “The White Race is the root of all evil and must be αbοlishεd.” https://t.co/qxwy15iS7I

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

Know Your Enemy: Critical Whiteness Studies (CWS) This comes from the broader set of Critical Theories pushed by the New Left, heavily influenced by the neo-Marxist jews from the Frankfurt School. In simple terms, it’s ideological propaganda designed for subversion. 🧵 https://t.co/vO3fG0PggE

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

🧵1 Understanding what CWS is about helps us build counterarguments, or better yet, create smarter counter-propaganda. These days, everything is politicized and propagandized. Like it or not, that’s the playing field. So the only way forward is to outperform them at their own game. CWS is an "academic framework" rooted in woke ideology that frames “Whiteness” as a social, cultural, and political construct. Here's a breakdown of the core claims:

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

🧵2 🧠 Whiteness as a Social Construct: The idea is that “Whiteness isn’t biological, it’s something society created to grant privilege and power." It's defined "in opposition to non-whiteness, shaping social structures, hierarchies, and interactions." 🏛️ Whiteness as a Political Construct: This sees Whiteness as a "deliberately crafted political identity used to dominate and control through laws, institutions, and policies." It argues that Whiteness "helps maintain systemic advantages for White people." 🎭 Whiteness as a Cultural Construct: Here, Whiteness is described as "the invisible default in media, values, and norms." It’s seen as "shaping expectations for behavior and identity, while sidelining other cultures and reinforcing privilege." 🔗 Whiteness & Intersectionality: Intersectionality is about how race, gender, class, sexuality, etc., combine to shape someone’s "experience of privilege or oppression". In this case, it’s about "how Whiteness, class, and gender work together, or contradict, to reinforce systemic inequality." This image is an example of these woke statements.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

🧵3 Core Concepts of [CWS] 🔵White Privilege: "Unearned advantages" just for being White. 🔵White Supremacy: Not just "Klan-style racism", but "everyday systems that favor White people." 🔵White Fragility: A term by Robin DiAngelo about "White people getting defensive when their privilege is pointed out."

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

🧵4 Goals of [CWS] 1.) To make Whiteness visible and expose its "role in inequality." 2.) To push White people into self-reflection (what they call critical consciousness, often felt as White Guilt). 3.) To tear down systems that support White dominance. https://t.co/8keTj89aK9

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

🧵5 This helps explain where the “White Guilt” mindset comes from. All of Critical Theory basically leads to what the Frankfurt School called Critical Consciousness, what we now see as the “Woke Mind Virus.” This also explains why you hear things like “You can’t be racist toward White people,” or why ESG policies and DEI quotas often result in fewer opportunities for White males "because it’s about redistributing privilege." And it’s why liberals get weirdly uncomfortable when someone like Sydney Sweeney shows up in a commercial, her very presence doesn’t fit their narrative.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

🧵6 If you remember my posts about propaganda, trying to appeal to logic doesn’t really work with normies, liberals, and so on. The fastest and most effective way to get their attention, without triggering their defenses is by appealing to their emotions. https://t.co/DmmBPmo6Vv

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

🧵7 Perfect example: That’s exactly how propaganda (evil in this case) works if you know what you are doing. It is effective because it appeals to emotions, finds people's weak spots, and breaks down their defenses. We can do the same; come up with effective counter-propaganda about Critical Whiteness Studies. That’s it for now, Frens!

@KimDotcom - Kim Dotcom

Visibility Limited? What’s going on at @X? After doing his ‘research’ about religions @DanBilzerian expressed his opinion about Judaism. Free speech is supposed to enable the free expression of opinion. Especially when Judaism is under scrutiny because of the Gaza genocide. https://t.co/Qb52GrqYgt

@IanMalcolm84 - IanMalcolm84

@KimDotcom @X @DanBilzerian What’s going on? Could it be that @x is in the control of JEWS? They’re marking raw data as “hateful” when inconvenient to JEWS https://t.co/aZVhlXdkkz

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

@IanMalcolm84 @KimDotcom @X @DanBilzerian Also: https://t.co/kngQeDgHM4

@IanMalcolm84 - IanMalcolm84

Hey @elonmusk, why did you obscure the fact that so many of your investors in @x were ISRAELI JEWS? H/T @hippyresident https://t.co/fanJ5lo4bJ

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

Ask Grok about: "1990s post-Soviet aliyah" How the (Also from Ukraine and Belarus, etc) who migrated to Israel influenced its modern politics, economy, and culture. In short, Russian speaking jews are the biggest supporters of Zionism in Israel. 🧵

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

1/ Only 30% actually came from Russia, with the rest from other Soviet republics. About 1.2 million jews in Israel belong to this group, many of whom arrived after the Soviet Union’s collapse. The influx of increased Israel's population by about 20%, making them the largest immigrant group in the country's history. This demographic shift had a profound impact on Israel's population dynamics, with Russian jews making up around 15% of the total population.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

2/ Russian-speaking jews lean strongly , with about 70% supporting Likud (Netanyahu's party) or the Yisrael Beiteinu Party. They tend to have a approach, and have high rates of military service in combat units of IDF. They also identify as Zionists at a higher rate (90%) than other jewish groups.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

3/ Self-reported rates of weekly synagogue attendance are very low (4%) among jews who primarily speak Russian at home. A significant portion of Russian-speaking jews in Israel may not be religiously observant. Israeli jews from the former Soviet Union are more secular, less religiously observant. The vast majority of FSU-born jews in Israel (81%) self-identify as secular (Hiloni). Most Russian Israelis are atheists or otherwise non-religious.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

4/ Initially, highly educated Soviet immigrants struggled to find jobs matching their qualifications, but over time, they have become key contributors to Israel’s economy, with high workforce participation (90%). Russian jews have made significant contributions to Israel's economy, particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). They are particularly influential in medicine (30% of Israel’s doctors), Manufacturing, and Defense Industries. Regarding Russia, Israel is a major player in the global arms market. As for China, Israel has sold military technology and hardware to China in the past, particularly from the 1980s to early 2000s

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

5/ Russian speaking jews in Israel played a role in the development of Yiddish culture and literature in Israel. Notable figures such as Abraham Sutzkever, a prominent Yiddish poet, moved to Israel in 1947 and significantly contributed to Yiddish literary culture. Other writers in Sutzkever’s group, Yung-Yisroel (“Young Israel”), including Shlomo Vorsoger, Tzvi Eisenman, Rivka Basman, and Rokhl Fishman, also made significant contributions. These writers and their contributions helped to preserve and enrich Yiddish literature in Israel, despite the dominance of Hebrew in the broader cultural landscape. Together, they ensured that Yiddish remained a living thread in Israel’s cultural fabric, sustained by the passion of Russian speaking jews and their connection to a shared Ashkenazi legacy.

@Leon_vid_cast - 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟

6/ The influx of Russian jews to Israel has led to a re-evaluation of Israeli identity and what it means to be Israeli. Many Russian jews have maintained their Russian heritage and identity, while also embracing their Israeli citizenship and integrating into Israeli society. In this article is mentioned that: "According to Orthodox rabbis, the immigrant intake is less and less Jewish by the year. At first, the bulk of them were "halachically" Jewish - born of a Jewish mother. Now nearly two-thirds are not. Many immigrate for no better reason than they want better lives than they can have in the wreckage of the former USSR. They often arrive with no knowledge of Judaism or Israel. Yet the Russian vote has proved capable of determining the outcome of Israeli elections, including Ehud Barak's victory in 1999." Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russian-influx-splits-israel-over-jewish-identity-699676.html