67
Gavin Newsom vetoes California gender education bill, hasn't signed other trans protections
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
67 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10948 readers
115 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Harm reduction is shoved down the throats of people living under first-past-the-past while they gleefully try to get distract the people away from proportional representation in Portland and contribution limits.
Considering the other side is – in multiple states – outright outlawing proportional representation, voting for the person not actively making that goal more difficult is, definitionally, still harm reduction.
Where are they outlawing proportional representation?
I've somewhat misspoke as they targeted, specifically, Ranked-Choice Voting rather than specifically the multi-candidate part but I feel like the proportional part is missed if you leave FPtP in place without an alternative like RCV so I don't think that's still wrong, per se; and I'd fully expect someone who'd outlaw RCV to be against anything fully proportional.
These are the states RCV's been outlawed: