/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

For those who want the detailed explanation:-

"Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a voting method used in single-seat elections with more than two candidates. Instead of voting only for a single candidate, voters in IRV elections can rank the candidates in order of preference. Ballots are initially counted for each elector's top choice, losing candidates are eliminated, and ballots for losing candidates are redistributed until one candidate is the top remaining choice of a majority of the voters. "

There's also Single Transferable Vote:

"The single transferable vote (STV) is a voting system designed to achieve proportional representation through ranked voting in multi-seat organizations or constituencies (voting districts). Under STV, an elector (voter) has a single vote that is initially allocated to their most preferred candidate and, as the count proceeds and candidates are either elected or eliminated, is transferred to other candidates according to the voter's stated preferences, in proportion to any surplus or discarded votes. The exact method of reapportioning votes can vary (see Counting methods).

The system provides approximately proportional representation, enables votes to be cast for individual candidates rather than for parties, and—compared to first-past-the-post voting—reduces "wasted" votes (votes on sure losers or sure winners) by transferring them to other candidates."

The electoral college as a whole was a mistake but it's so ingrained in our nation's politics it'd basically require a revolution mk II to get rid of

Pretty much that

Neither party would ever do it because the electoral college hugely benefits them both by ensuring that some theoretical third party would have to have such a slam dunk victory to push them out that it would virtually never happen..

laughing at malk losing his shit in this thread

I honestly think preferences voting is a bare minimum for an actual modern democracy, I also like mandatory voting tho.

Without actual alternative options to keep major parties on their toes about the remote possibility of being completely replaced they don't actually need to represent the people.

It's so easy to twist a fpp system into a win win for the more savvy influencers it might as a well be Spartan acclamation voting, in which who was the loudest was judged by the council of old fucks.

Any voting system that leads to tactical voting is a bad system

if your system forces people to try and game it by writing anything other than their actual preference on the ballot, it is flawed

oranges wrote:laughing at malk losing his shit in this thread

he's on my ignore list so i can't see his posts but it's truly a shame i can't see him getting angry over this thread existing

Screemonster wrote:Any voting system that leads to tactical voting is a bad system

if your system forces people to try and game it by writing anything other than their actual preference on the ballot, it is flawed

agreed

you should not have to be deciding between what you feel is best for the country as a whole and what you think is best for you locally, to use canada as an example

but like takeguru said it would require a significant change for anything to happen, in america or otherwise, so i have no idea what to think at this point

like, when the government says "yeah we're gonna try and fix this shit" and everybody has issues with every proposal made to fix it what are you supposed to do

Qbopper wrote:

Screemonster wrote:Any voting system that leads to tactical voting is a bad system

if your system forces people to try and game it by writing anything other than their actual preference on the ballot, it is flawed

agreed

you should not have to be deciding between what you feel is best for the country as a whole and what you think is best for you locally, to use canada as an example

I mean in the US at least that's what voting for state representatives and mayors and such is for. The president runs the country, the governor runs the state, the mayor runs the city. Dunno if shit's different in Canada though.

is it the UK that has the parliament where everyone is mentally ill

Yee haw

CosmicScientist wrote:Mentally ill? No, it's mostly just children, serious people, MPs who cry their tears out over personal issues and... I think that's it. The devolved parliaments seem to have an air of "I don't want to be here"

oh yeah i coudln't remember if it was the UK or australia or whatever who had the parliament where people literally got into screaming matches and called names and shit

Qbopper wrote:

CosmicScientist wrote:Mentally ill? No, it's mostly just children, serious people, MPs who cry their tears out over personal issues and... I think that's it. The devolved parliaments seem to have an air of "I don't want to be here"

oh yeah i coudln't remember if it was the UK or australia or whatever who had the parliament where people literally got into screaming matches and called names and shit

It's both. Believe it or not, the US is comparatively civil in regards to government proceedings.

Actual political representatives fight like cats US government proceedings are eerily civil it really is creepy how they don't fight, I guess being corporate puppets aping democracy is less stressful.

Dutch politicians also do not fight
Probably also because they don't really have anything they truly disagree on

Yea. We haven't had a good fight in congress since our corporate masters took over. We do get filibusters still sometimes.

ThanatosRa wrote:Yea. We haven't had a good fight in congress since our corporate masters took over. We do get filibusters still sometimes.

No, US government proceedings have always been very civil. The further back you go they get even more so, people were expected to be extremely polite to each other.

What's so civil about war anyway?

it destroys a lot of the infrastructure giving you a chance to rebuild modern and improved versions.