Slashdot Mirror


At Issue In a Massachusetts Town, the Value of Two-Thirds

An anonymous reader writes "In Truro, Massachusetts (a town on Cape Cod), a zoning decision came up for vote, where the results were 136 for, 70 against. The vote required 2/3 approval to pass. The Town Clerk and Town Accountant believe that since .66 * 206 is less than 136, the vote passes. However, an 'anonymous caller' noted that a more accurate value of 2/3 would require 137 (or perhaps even 138 votes) for the measure to be considered passed. The MA Secretary of State and State Attorney General are hard at work to resolve this issue." Updated 20100422 23:55 by timothy: Oops! This story is a year old (rounding up), which I didn't spot quickly enough. Hope they've got it all worked out in the meantime.

13 of 449 comments (clear)

  1. not quite 2/3 by rla3rd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    can't these people do simple math?

    2 / 3 = 0.66666666...
    106 / 236 = 0.660194175

    Whats the problem here? It didn't pass.

  2. Re:Counting people? Round up! by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rounding is not relevent here. They need 2/3 * 206 votes to pass. 137 is less than that value. 138 is more than that value.

    137 votes fails to be more than 2/3 of 206. Why would rounding even be a topic for discussion?

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  3. Political Mathematics by WahCheng · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clearly 70 times 2 is greater than 136 Therefore there is NOT a 2/3 majority. The matematics of politics, however, is not like the math we all know and love....

  4. this whole story by jarrodlikesmath · · Score: 5, Funny

    is irrational

    1. Re:this whole story by smaddox · · Score: 5, Funny

      I disagree. This is a prime example of rationality.

  5. Re:Learn 2 math by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're complicating it.

    (206 * 2)/3 = 137.333

    Why use 0.66xxxx whatever when you don't have to?

  6. Re:Counting people? Round up! by Gudeldar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think somebody needs to teach them that .66 != 2/3

  7. Re:Learn 2 math by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Holy shit, it's not that complicated!

    The law requires a majority of 2/3 or more.

    (206*2)/3 = 137 1/3

    137 is less than 137 1/3, so 137 is not a 2/3 majority.
    138 is greater than 137 1/3, so 138 is a 2/3 majority.

    Done. You can keep the 138 figure on hand to remind yourself, but it isn't necessary, just do 206 * 2/3 to get the minimum number of votes needed. It isn't hard.

    This story and some of the posts have really been pretty sad, half the people on slashdot are perpetuating the same error the clerk made, they are simply doing it more accurately. The other half have come up with convoluted ways to check whether a number meets the criteria.

    Christ, just multiply by 2/3 and be done with it, it's not hard.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  8. Re:Is our calculator society showing? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is maybe third or fourth grade level math here people, and it's kinda sad that there is even any confusion about it. .66 is not 2/3, it's a little less than 2/3 and it does not count if the law says 2/3.

    You know good and well these assholes were the kids who used to ask "Why will I ever need to know this stuff in real life?" when they were kids.

    Well, you stupid asses, this is why.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  9. Don't Round--Truncate! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't believe in rounding. I truncate. It helps to always win 2/3 majority votes:

    2/3 is 0.66666... Truncated to integer = 0

    Total voters: 206
    To win the vote, we require at least: 206 * 0 = 0

    Therefore any number of affirmative votes constitutes a 2/3 majority.

    Numbers don't lie!

  10. Re:This is a year old... by Anthony+Rosequist · · Score: 5, Informative
    Yup

    Voters did approve one of four petitioned zoning articles, one that would require cottage colonies to be in operation for at least three years before they can be turned into condominium ownership. Zoning articles require a two-thirds majority and the first vote was close, counted as 139 in favor and 64 opposed. A recount was held that was tallied at 136-70 and declared to be passed by Town Clerk Cynthia Slade, utilizing a multiplier of 0.66 to determine two-thirds, the figure the town has always used. Unfortunately, this vote was so close that the inaccurate fraction made the difference, and several months later the attorney general’s office negated the approval as not meeting the two-thirds threshold.

  11. Spltting hairs, are we? by flajann · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They would need 138 votes. 137 is less than 2/3rds. 0.66 != 2/3. Plain and simple.

    But I think it's amusing to say the least -- splitting hairs on a vote.

    Really, the who notion of voting is severely flawed from a mathematical point of view. One extra vote makes all the difference between whether or not a bill is implemented. What is the intrinsic importance of making it 2/3rds? Why not 3/4ths? 1/2? 5/8ths? What is the significance of 2/3? Seems arbitrary.

    But then, that is the difference between law and mathematics, I suppose. 20 years and 364 days old, you're too young to drink, it's illegal, and there are sanctions. 20 years and 365 days -- 21 years old, and it's perfectly legal. But what is the significant difference in a person at 20 years 364 days vs. 20 years 365 days? Is there some sort of "maturity switch" that is magically flipped? Do the gods of time descend upon you and bestow you with something special?

    We humans make so much ado over meaningless arbitrary demarcations. Life situations are fuzzy and spread out, not the digital of "on/off". It all seems rather a bit silly! Splitting arbitrary hairs without real meaning.

  12. It's not that silly by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While drawing these arbitrary lines is silly, it is often far sillier to not draw them in the universe we live in.

    Making silly arbitrary decisions is a necessary part of life. Life situations aren't that fuzzy except at the quantum level. Even little things like which hand to use, whether to breath in or out. And even if the Many Worlds Interpretation is correct, it's not that fuzzy in each path of the universe.

    Say a car is about to hit you, you could jump either left or right to save yourself. The neurons in your brain are going to have to make a decision. Say you jump right, you think all the neurons participating in the decision wanted to go right? I doubt it, some would have wanted to go left. But you cannot satisfy all of them. You can't go both left and right, unless you wait for the car to split you in two.

    Back to your question, there is no magical maturity switch. Some people never even become mature. So what? With our current technology we are not able to practically put you 60% in jail and 40% out of jail at the same time, just because you are actually "60% mature".

    And it's costly to put in all the shades of gray for the different percentages of "maturity". Some countries do cater for a few categories: juvenile prisons, probation, etc.

    So there are very many arbitrary lines in laws: when it's legal to abort a fetus/baby, when does a child become an adult.

    There's definitely much silliness that should perhaps be fixed. For example, in many countries you might be legally considered old enough to sign up as a soldier, but not do other "adult things". This to me is silly. If you are going to be old enough to kill others and risk your own life, you should be considered old enough to do the other adult stuff. Otherwise, you shouldn't be considered old enough to be a soldier (unless the country is in such a bad/desperate state that you might as be allowed to be a soldier).

    --