Whoa whoa whoa, look I'm not trying to "fix" these to support either side, I just want to point out that a)you are guessing the number of troops in iraq and b) what is a household? is congressman - household a proper comparison?
I'm not saying I know, in fact I don't know. And that's the point -- statistics with guessing and loose comparisons aren't statistics - they're guesses.
so condorcet is really just a lesser of all evils approach. crappy.
The people who voted B should have put a second choice -- they had the power to get a majority voted candidate in office. B was obviously not good enough, wheras A and C were. MOST people (15) didn't want B.
id rather have kerry than bush, and rather have bush than anyone -- because at least he could get something done. why would i want a candidate that cant do anything because he has no allies in congress?
maybe 3rd parties should focus on grass-roots and bottom up. It would be more effective.
Well here's an obvious one from my point of view: From electionmethods.org:
Consider, for example, the following vote count with three candidates {A,B,C}:
8: A,B
7: C,B
5: B
In this case, B is preferred to A by 12 votes to 8, and B is preferred to C by 13 to 7, hence B is preferred to both A and C. So according to common sense and the Condorcet criteria, B should win. But under IRV, B does not win. According to the rules of IRV, B is ranked first by the fewest voters and is eliminated. Again, an election method that allows such nonsensical anomalies should be rejected.
B doesn't win because B shouldn't WIN! More people didn't want B than did! So why should be win? The above logic doesn't make any sense to me.
I looked at your IRV. there's nothing wrong with your scenario, I'm not sure what you're worked up about. Voters, as a whole, considered green a better choice than republicans. they would deserve the win in that case.
I agree with you, which is why I'm against affirmative action. Those individuals who attend poor schools do not have the opportunity to get the grades those in more privelidged schools get. In poor schools, there aren't honors classes and AP classes, which count heavily towards admissions.
The problem lies even further back, as the kids can be "lost" in middle school and even elementary. The fix is not college admissions, its at the beginning.
I'll just say this first: I'm against affirmative action. It's a bandaid fix to a problem that has its roots earlier. by the time college comes around, its too late.
now, that said, affirmative action is there becuase minorities (NOT poor people) are underrepresented in colleges. Poor people get help all the time in the form of grants and scholarships. Poor people are not underrepresented at public schools. Minorities are. And that is what affirmitive action is trying to cure.
Again, your argument fails. You keep cross-arguing points.
poor white children get help. They are just as eligible for welfare as any poor person.
poor white children are typically in poor areas, going to schools in poor areas. they are not going to school in beverly hills. Those poor areas are predominantly minorities, so those poor white children receive the same extra benefits as their poor counterparts.
So yes, they get extra help -- because they're poor, not because they're white. Same as the others -- get help because they're poor, not because they are of color. Thanks for playing, try again. Your example is no good.
If i do scratch my own itch, they gonna pay me for all the money i save them?
This is why open source fails -- it takes effort, time, and much of the time people just say "not my problem, someone else will do it" -- and that's why/. is still running on a crappy foundation years later.
Europe does better with the political issues surrounding this than we do. And last I checked, France isn't a nuclear wasteland (though it does have other issues.;) )
Perot did that. He was ridiculed. Also don't forget lobbyists only support the major players. Contributions from companies go to the major parties. The major parties support their candidates.
It's a cycle, the rich get richer and the indies get shoved out more and more.
...but its too bad that the only people willing to reform are locked out of the system by those who are terrified of losing their monopoly on the system. And those who oppose reform are the ones who would have to create reform.
IRV voting. Open Debates. Truly non-partisan moderators. Proper polling, or none at all. Safe, secure, open-to-the public electronic voting. Are all these things really too much to ask? Are all these things really IMPOSSIBLE to discuss?
I really hope that in 20 years when my generation is coming up through the ranks, when the geek inherit the earth (come on guys, get some people skills! Think of the people!), they remember the early 21st Century fiascos.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa whoa whoa, look I'm not trying to "fix" these to support either side, I just want to point out that a)you are guessing the number of troops in iraq and b) what is a household? is congressman - household a proper comparison?
I'm not saying I know, in fact I don't know. And that's the point -- statistics with guessing and loose comparisons aren't statistics - they're guesses.
I'm an avid gamer (at the age of 29) but it is not an addiction
Funny, that's just what an addict would say...
so condorcet is really just a lesser of all evils approach. crappy.
The people who voted B should have put a second choice -- they had the power to get a majority voted candidate in office. B was obviously not good enough, wheras A and C were. MOST people (15) didn't want B.
id rather have kerry than bush, and rather have bush than anyone -- because at least he could get something done. why would i want a candidate that cant do anything because he has no allies in congress?
maybe 3rd parties should focus on grass-roots and bottom up. It would be more effective.
Well here's an obvious one from my point of view:
From electionmethods.org:
Consider, for example, the following vote count with three candidates {A,B,C}:
8: A,B
7: C,B
5: B
In this case, B is preferred to A by 12 votes to 8, and B is preferred to C by 13 to 7, hence B is preferred to both A and C. So according to common sense and the Condorcet criteria, B should win. But under IRV, B does not win. According to the rules of IRV, B is ranked first by the fewest voters and is eliminated. Again, an election method that allows such nonsensical anomalies should be rejected.
B doesn't win because B shouldn't WIN! More people didn't want B than did! So why should be win? The above logic doesn't make any sense to me.
I looked at your IRV. there's nothing wrong with your scenario, I'm not sure what you're worked up about. Voters, as a whole, considered green a better choice than republicans. they would deserve the win in that case.
I agree with you, which is why I'm against affirmative action. Those individuals who attend poor schools do not have the opportunity to get the grades those in more privelidged schools get. In poor schools, there aren't honors classes and AP classes, which count heavily towards admissions.
The problem lies even further back, as the kids can be "lost" in middle school and even elementary. The fix is not college admissions, its at the beginning.
I'll just say this first: I'm against affirmative action. It's a bandaid fix to a problem that has its roots earlier. by the time college comes around, its too late.
now, that said, affirmative action is there becuase minorities (NOT poor people) are underrepresented in colleges. Poor people get help all the time in the form of grants and scholarships. Poor people are not underrepresented at public schools. Minorities are. And that is what affirmitive action is trying to cure.
Again, your argument fails. You keep cross-arguing points.
poor white children get help. They are just as eligible for welfare as any poor person.
poor white children are typically in poor areas, going to schools in poor areas. they are not going to school in beverly hills. Those poor areas are predominantly minorities, so those poor white children receive the same extra benefits as their poor counterparts.
So yes, they get extra help -- because they're poor, not because they're white. Same as the others -- get help because they're poor, not because they are of color. Thanks for playing, try again. Your example is no good.
Dilemmas like this are why IRV voting is a good idea.
If i do scratch my own itch, they gonna pay me for all the money i save them?
/. is still running on a crappy foundation years later.
This is why open source fails -- it takes effort, time, and much of the time people just say "not my problem, someone else will do it" -- and that's why
Europe does better with the political issues surrounding this than we do. And last I checked, France isn't a nuclear wasteland (though it does have other issues. ;) )
the libertarian view would work if there was a level playing field.
There isn't. And that is why they fail.
wow i had no idea a changeover would save /. so much on bandwidth costs. the fact that they patently refuse to update the sitecode is mindboggling.
right, because being near an explosion is standard procedure to not take chances.
you keep your lungs in your garage?
weird. I keep mine in my chest cavity. seems more efficient to me...
No way! You gotta be kidding me! Excuse me, I gotta go take a wicked Pi. /Family Guy
Keller likes to alarm windows and fasten them closed whenever possible.
Didn't anyone tell him that proprietary closed windows models are inherently insecure and that an open-window solution is the better route?
ROFL didn't even see that....jeeeeez...that isn't bad grammar though, its just a horribly obvious misspelling.
ooohhhhh......totally missed it. I mean, do people really pronounce "Beta" as "Betta"? I've always said it "Bay-tah"
Am I reading it wrong, or is the title of that Wired article (Google News: Beta Not Make Money) really bad grammar? Do they have editors over there?
Perot did that. He was ridiculed. Also don't forget lobbyists only support the major players. Contributions from companies go to the major parties. The major parties support their candidates.
It's a cycle, the rich get richer and the indies get shoved out more and more.
For comparison the American game Eve Online regularly has 10,000 concurrent users.
Wow, great comparison guys. What about Sims Online? Everquest perhaps? Hello?
...but its too bad that the only people willing to reform are locked out of the system by those who are terrified of losing their monopoly on the system. And those who oppose reform are the ones who would have to create reform.
IRV voting. Open Debates. Truly non-partisan moderators. Proper polling, or none at all. Safe, secure, open-to-the public electronic voting. Are all these things really too much to ask? Are all these things really IMPOSSIBLE to discuss?
I really hope that in 20 years when my generation is coming up through the ranks, when the geek inherit the earth (come on guys, get some people skills! Think of the people!), they remember the early 21st Century fiascos.
yeah, refer to my reply to the other reply.