Slashdot Mirror
Mathematicians: Elections Flawed
Nader-licious writes "Science News Online reports: 'With recent reports of malfunctioning voter machines and uncounted votes during primaries in Florida, Maryland, and elsewhere, reformers are once again clamoring for extensive changes. But while attention is focused on these familiar irregularities, a much more serious problem is being neglected: the fundamental flaws of the voting procedure itself. Mathematics are shedding light on questions about how well different voting procedures capture the will of the voters.' The verdict: the U.S. system might be the worst of the lot."
While the US economy struggles, China continues to be one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. So, yes, they have done particularly well, no matter what your racist opinion may be.
--sdem
It's funny to read leftists like you and the article's author trying to bash Le Pen. The fact is that 18% of the French voters chose Le Pen, and no matter how much you whine and resort to name calling, it isn't going to change that fact. Right-wing leaders are going to continue to gain ground in upcoming elections in all countries simply because people are fed up with the multiculturalist nightmare we have gotten ourselves into. You can point, call names, cry and stomp your feet all you want, but the facts are on the side of the right-wing candidates, as anyone who has studied history and science can tell you. The reason Europe's political elite have banned pro-white speech is because they can't win a debate against it. The last resort of tyrants is censorship.
Montana population: 904,000; electors: 3; Voters per elector: 300,000
California population: 34,000,000; electors: 54; Voters per elector: 629000
Since half of California's population is comprised of non-citizens, it works out. Seriously, your assumption/math is flawed. Population is not the same thing as eligible electors.
Amazingly, (please note my facetiousness) Saddam Hussein manage to get 100% of the vote, beating his previous record of over 99%. If the goal is to limit the number of choices, the one choice of Saddam (or be shot) must be ideal.
This is just more sour grapes over people not getting the leaders they want because the majority doesn't like it. I will admit the system isn't perfect, but get over it. We can work to improve the system, but to suggest that it is fundamentally flawed because there are too many choices is pure balogna. Just because not everyone can agree on who the best guy for the job is, doesn't mean the system is flawed. In fact, it means the system is working quite well.
Why are Americans so quick to hate America when our system of government is clearly superior to other forms? (Not perfect, better.) I just don't get it.