Not that I think he had much in the way of empathy prior to this, but he lacks a filter of any kind which is a symptom I had to repeatedly apologize for when my grandfather’s dementia got worse.
The dude has full on dementia, no one is doing anything and he will continue to degrade both himself and the reputation of anything associated with him as this keeps going.
Funnily enough, dipshit donny might be the best publically perceivable evidence of the need for reform we will ever get.
Plenty of countries have laws that fine or otherwise punish people that do not vote, afaik this doesn’t tend to lead to better functioning democracies. I think this is a thing where the carrot works better than the stick.
What if A gets 26% of the vote, B gets 25%, C gets 24%, D gets 15%, and E gets 10%?
The standard method of ranked choice voting: E gets eliminated as they have the least, everyone who voted for them goes to their next ranked choice. Repeat until one person has over 50%.
Please forgive any ignorance on my part, but would it be required that we’d know what the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and so on) preferences of those who voted for E in the first choice?
If so, and if such could be done, what if of those who voted for E on their first choice, in their second preference, half of them (i.e. half of 10% being 5%) voted for C, a third of them voted for B, and a sixth of them voted for A;
meanwhile two-thirds of those who voted in their first preference for A, half of those who voted in their first preference for B, and a third of those who voted in their first preference for C, voted for D in their 2nd preference?
—i.e. (⅔ x 26%) + (½ x 25%) + (⅓ x 24%) = 16⅔% + 12½% + 8% = 36⅚%.
Please forgive any ignorance on my part, but would it be required that we’d know what the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and so on) preferences of those who voted for E in the first choice?
Yes. Please look up “How ranked choice voting works” instead of asking randos on social media to explain it to you. The information is readily available.
Ranked voting is any voting system that uses voters’ rankings of candidates to choose a single winner or multiple winners. More formally, a ranked vote system depends only on voters’ order of preference of the candidates.
Ranked voting systems vary dramatically in how preferences are tabulated and counted. This gives them different properties with respect to satisfying various voting groups and adherence to mathematical rules.
…
Some ranked vote systems do not use ranking to transfer votes but instead use ranks as weights. These systems are called positional voting. In the Borda method, the least-favored candidates on each ballot receive fewer points; the most-favored receive more points. The points on each ballot for each candidate are added together, and the candidate with the most points is elected.
Glad you were able to find the answers on your own for the potential options.
Seeing as Lemmy is not in charge of implementing it I didn’t see the point of having Randos argue over which specific version of ranked choice voting to use, as I’m sure we can all agree that any version is better than what is currently being used.
Glad you were able to find the answers on your own for the potential options.
I didn’t find “the answers” just some info about it.
as I’m sure we can all agree that any version is better than what is currently being used.
I’m not so sure of that. Please be more specific in the type ranked choice voting system you’d favor.
I suppose I rather half a parliament (or similar) be decided by proportional representation, and in the others, perhaps it’s a run-off if the winner of a plurality doesn’t get a majority.
But why did Bamboot get 4 of Gort’s votes while Aggy-Waggy got only 1, even though the latter got over half the number of the former?
Shouldn’t it be 3+2+1 instead of 4+1+1?
and why in the 3rd count did Floundra get 16 of Aggy-Waggy votes, while Bamboot got only 5 or less than 1/3rd?
Presumably in a run-off, it would be Bamboot versus Floundra;
while in proportional representation, the Complete Scumbag Party, Discreet Scumbag Party, the [Gort Butterson Party], and the Nice Party, in a parliament of 100 might get 39, 35, 6, and 20 seats respectively, with probably the Nice Party being in a coalition.
Even if it was 1/2 PR and 1/2 FPP, each system electing 100 candidates (hence a parliament of 200), and in the FPP vote, the Complete Scumbag Party won 51 of the FFP seats, the Discreet Scumbad Party won 38 seats (i.e. less than 75% of the former’s number of seats, or conversely the former got over less than 35% the latter’s number of seats), the Nice Party won only 8 (2/5ths of what they won in the PR count) seats, and Gort won 3 seats it would still be:
name
PR
FPP
%
Complete Scumbag Party
39
51
45
Discreet Scumbag Party
35
38
36.5
[Gort Butterson Party]
6
3
4.5
Nice Party
20
8
14
We could have 3 possible coalitions:
Complete Scumbag Party & Discreet Scumbag Party
most powerful but least probable
Complete Scumbag Party & Nice Party
most probable
Discreet Scumbag Party & Gort Butterson Party & Nice Party
But why did Bamboot get 4 of Gort’s votes while Aggy-Waggy got only 1, even though the latter got over half the number of the former?
Because Bamboot isn’t getting Gort’s votes. Now that Gort is eliminated, all of the voters that voted Gort #1 now have their #2 vote counted as if it’s their #1 vote.
4 people that voted Gort #1 voted Bamboot #2.
1 person that voted Gort #1 voted Floundra #2.
1 person that voted Gort #1 voted Aggy-Waggy #2.
This keeps happening down the choices until someone has a majority.
People that voted Floundra #1 don’t end up having their #2 vote counted because their candidate wasn’t eliminated in the end.
This is why it’s not possible to throw your vote away have your vote taken away - if your favourite candidate is eliminated, your vote goes to your second favourite, then your third favourite, etc until someone has the majority.
Not sure what it looks like in the US, but Australian ballot slips have all the candidates and you number them 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.
I’d like to believe but do you really see a future where old (white) dudes in power will vote in favor of a reform where old dudes arent allowed to be in power because they are “supposedly” unfit for it?
Yeah that wont be happening any time soon in my opinion.
They could vote for the legislation, maybe push for an amendment, that doesn’t kick in for about 10 years.
e.g. starting 1 January 2036, no person can be a member of Congress who has been in office for 10 or more years, consecutively or non-consecutively. This does not apply to any person who was a Congressperson at the time that this amendment was ratified; and years served before 1 January 2030 will not count.
and/or,
e.g. notwithstanding the aforementioned, starting 1 January 2060, no person can be a member of Congress who has been a member of Congress for 10 or more years, consecutively or non-consecutively.
nonetheless, my example indicates that positive change is still possible, not soon but neither too long, even by such incumbents.
If they did this 20 years ago, and my suggested dates were 20 years earlier, wp:Chip Roy couldn’t run in 2030, wp:Matt Gaetz couldn’t run in 2028, and wp:Mike Johnson could not run this November.
Not that I think he had much in the way of empathy prior to this, but he lacks a filter of any kind which is a symptom I had to repeatedly apologize for when my grandfather’s dementia got worse.
The dude has full on dementia, no one is doing anything and he will continue to degrade both himself and the reputation of anything associated with him as this keeps going.
Funnily enough, dipshit donny might be the best publically perceivable evidence of the need for reform we will ever get.
Reforms that are needed:
I’m sure there are more, but this is just off the top of my head.
I’d go with term limits as well. Too many people in what are essentially life terms
Plenty of countries have laws that fine or otherwise punish people that do not vote, afaik this doesn’t tend to lead to better functioning democracies. I think this is a thing where the carrot works better than the stick.
The standard method of ranked choice voting: E gets eliminated as they have the least, everyone who voted for them goes to their next ranked choice. Repeat until one person has over 50%.
Please forgive any ignorance on my part, but would it be required that we’d know what the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and so on) preferences of those who voted for E in the first choice?
If so, and if such could be done, what if of those who voted for E on their first choice, in their second preference, half of them (i.e. half of 10% being 5%) voted for C, a third of them voted for B, and a sixth of them voted for A;
meanwhile two-thirds of those who voted in their first preference for A, half of those who voted in their first preference for B, and a third of those who voted in their first preference for C, voted for D in their 2nd preference? —i.e. (⅔ x 26%) + (½ x 25%) + (⅓ x 24%) = 16⅔% + 12½% + 8% = 36⅚%.
Yes. Please look up “How ranked choice voting works” instead of asking randos on social media to explain it to you. The information is readily available.
wp:Ranked voting
(my bold)
…
Glad you were able to find the answers on your own for the potential options.
Seeing as Lemmy is not in charge of implementing it I didn’t see the point of having Randos argue over which specific version of ranked choice voting to use, as I’m sure we can all agree that any version is better than what is currently being used.
I didn’t find “the answers” just some info about it.
I’m not so sure of that. Please be more specific in the type ranked choice voting system you’d favor.
I suppose I rather half a parliament (or similar) be decided by proportional representation, and in the others, perhaps it’s a run-off if the winner of a plurality doesn’t get a majority.
The one you suggested I suppose is okay too. 😁 🙂
Here’s a brief explanation of how preferential voting works in Australia: https://www.chickennation.com/voting/
Thank you. 🙂
1st count
Bamboot got 39.
Floundra got 35.
Aggy-Waggy got 20.
Gort got 6.
But why did Bamboot get 4 of Gort’s votes while Aggy-Waggy got only 1, even though the latter got over half the number of the former?
Shouldn’t it be 3+2+1 instead of 4+1+1?
and why in the 3rd count did Floundra get 16 of Aggy-Waggy votes, while Bamboot got only 5 or less than 1/3rd?
Presumably in a run-off, it would be Bamboot versus Floundra;
while in proportional representation, the Complete Scumbag Party, Discreet Scumbag Party, the [Gort Butterson Party], and the Nice Party, in a parliament of 100 might get 39, 35, 6, and 20 seats respectively, with probably the Nice Party being in a coalition.
Even if it was 1/2 PR and 1/2 FPP, each system electing 100 candidates (hence a parliament of 200), and in the FPP vote, the Complete Scumbag Party won 51 of the FFP seats, the Discreet Scumbad Party won 38 seats (i.e. less than 75% of the former’s number of seats, or conversely the former got over less than 35% the latter’s number of seats), the Nice Party won only 8 (2/5ths of what they won in the PR count) seats, and Gort won 3 seats it would still be:
We could have 3 possible coalitions:
Because Bamboot isn’t getting Gort’s votes. Now that Gort is eliminated, all of the voters that voted Gort #1 now have their #2 vote counted as if it’s their #1 vote.
This keeps happening down the choices until someone has a majority. People that voted Floundra #1 don’t end up having their #2 vote counted because their candidate wasn’t eliminated in the end. This is why it’s not possible to
throw your vote awayhave your vote taken away - if your favourite candidate is eliminated, your vote goes to your second favourite, then your third favourite, etc until someone has the majority.Not sure what it looks like in the US, but Australian ballot slips have all the candidates and you number them 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.
I’d like to believe but do you really see a future where old (white) dudes in power will vote in favor of a reform where old dudes arent allowed to be in power because they are “supposedly” unfit for it?
Yeah that wont be happening any time soon in my opinion.
They could vote for the legislation, maybe push for an amendment, that doesn’t kick in for about 10 years.
e.g. starting 1 January 2036, no person can be a member of Congress who has been in office for 10 or more years, consecutively or non-consecutively. This does not apply to any person who was a Congressperson at the time that this amendment was ratified; and years served before 1 January 2030 will not count.
and/or,
e.g. notwithstanding the aforementioned, starting 1 January 2060, no person can be a member of Congress who has been a member of Congress for 10 or more years, consecutively or non-consecutively.
“they’ll only vote for policies that benefit the country if it doesn’t affect them” tells you everything about the people currently in power.
Agreed, it does;
nonetheless, my example indicates that positive change is still possible, not soon but neither too long, even by such incumbents.
If they did this 20 years ago, and my suggested dates were 20 years earlier, wp:Chip Roy couldn’t run in 2030, wp:Matt Gaetz couldn’t run in 2028, and wp:Mike Johnson could not run this November.