http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_Colleg e talks about Maine and Nebraska. The state popular vote winner takes two electoral votes. Then the popular vote of each Congressional District takes that electoral vote.
Re:IRV is BROKEN
Instant Runoff Voting works like this. If no one gets a majority (50% + 1) of the vote, the candidate in last place is eliminated and their votes are transferred.
Condorcet is the one that is flawed. You don't get to vote for the candidate you truly want. What happens when Democrats only choose their candidate, leaving all other pairings blank?
I forgot, but I think I found it on Wikipedia. It was like five different tests to do to a voting system. None of our systems pass all five. I think the term is "monotonicity" for part of the five or something, but I just gave up searching.
Another method that isn't heard too often is the Avy method, which is a branch off of IRV.
If I'm not mistaken, electors tend not to get re-elected if they don't vote for what the majority wants. Or I remember being told something like that while in high school.
One problem is people are too scared to vote for a third party, fearing it is throwing their vote away. Do I need to remind us of that The Simpsons 1996 Halloween episode?
Whether or not we decide to keep, alter, or scrap the electoral college, we should try getting Instant Runoff Voting in place. Even if it's to determine the state's (or Congressional District's) popular vote, people wouldn't mind voting for a third party.
The first method is "by analyzing a document to identify characteristics that are unique for each printer". The second method is "by designing printers to purposely embed individualized characteristics in documents".
Does the second method seem a bit immoral to design a printer to purposely be "flawed" in that sense? Simply, it's just purposely tagging a printer". I guess it could be compared to tagging downloads.
In my opinion, it seems wrong to do the second method. But for the first method, I see no problem with that.
And slashdot isn't considered mainstream yet? Gee, what happens when a website gets posted? Oh, I know, it tends to heavily lag the website for a few hours until it's off the top half of the front page.
Our conspiracy theorists have done a good job at putting out literature over the years showing why it's such a bad idea. Such a good job, that if something like this were to ever come full force, there'd be a sizable minority resisting it.
Microchipping kids to prevent kidnappings. I would have more faith in humanity. I am not that horribly pessimistic about fellow human beings. And even if a kid is kidnapped, we have ways of helping. The Amber Alert, those things you get in your mail with missing kids on it, and various other methods I'm sure.
By the way, since the chips are the size of a grain, I wouldn't be surprised if they started putting them in vaccines somehow.
Fear being infectious, oh ya, that's for sure. Our stock market is imaginary. Our stock market today reflects the mood of the people. No wonder why it fell after September 11th.
In regards to that database story, I have this to say... 1. Do not give up any civil liberties, such as any mentioned in historical documents. 2. Do not say, "oh, it's okay, as long it's for our own good". People really need to at least question what the government does, rather than simply accepting it.
If I knew what FDR was talking about, I wouldn't have had American public schooling. But my guess is that we need not fear over things we cannot control.
I don't want to get too far off topic of "Senate Wants Database Dragnet", so if you could keep the FDR quote relevant to it, that might help me.
As soon as it crosses the line from voluntary to involuntary, we have a HUGE problem. I believe it could reach involuntary if enough people voluntarily receive the microchips. It's like, "Oh, almost everyone is doing it, so there won't be much public outcry if we force the non-compliant to do it too."
For the paranoid, I guess one could always hide their money under their bed in a fireproof box. Also, never buying anything using a card, whether credit, debit, or other. Simply go to a grocery store. Another way to stay out of the system is not to register for anything. Like voter registration information seems to be shared, or at least in my state.
You have total freedom in one hand. You've got security in the other hand. Which do you choose? I'd choose freedom.
Let's decide if this is a good thing. Q:Whom is this database going to be accessible by? A: Government counter-terrorist investigators. Q: Who are these government counter-terrorist investigators exactly? Can there simply be someone who works for the government, or do they have to have some kind of clearance? Q: What kind of information will they have access to? Will they be able to pull up my voting history? (Washingtonians, check out RCW 29A.08.720) Will they be able to go as far as to see which classes I took in a public school?
When we choose security over freedom, we're giving up our right to privacy. There is nothing simpler than that, in my opinion.
And wasn't it JFK who said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?
I mean this. After the President leaves office, have a special "election" (election used for the lack of a better term) in February or March. Have registered voters give an approval rating to the former President. If he or she gets below a 50% national approval rating, strip his or her pension, and any other benefits you get post-Presidency. This idea would have to be made law, and no, I don't mean it as a simple poll.
You're right. Unlike t.v., radio, etc., you can't regulate something that covers the whole world. I guess the closest they could come to regulating it would be to create filters so U.S. citizens can't see certain sites.
I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't include the other two third party candidates, Badnarik and Cobb.
I wish I could have seen the debate on t.v. (Oct 6th I believe), but I missed most of it (it was being reran like on the 11th), and watched something else. I think it involved four parties, neither of them the top two.
By the way, my opinion on electoral reform, something like this. Do it the way they have it in Maine and Nebraska, the winner of each Congressional District gets the vote, and as for the other two votes, they go to the state popular vote winner. But I say don't allow someone to win by plurality in this case. Use Instant Runoff Voting by Congress District, and by the state.
Making a President responsible for his actions. Perhaps a post-Presidency approval system, and if the person fails to get 50% approval, no pension, no perks, etc.
How do they expect to regulate something that is beyond huge? Sarcastic comment to follow: Oh, I know, they can bring in Internet-2, getting rid of Internet-1.
Just going by a popular vote means candidates might as well ignore the low populated areas.
The Condorcet is flawed. It ignores voter choice. But then again, someone could simply only mark in the candidate they want to win, and leave some pairings blank.
Slashdot Mirror
Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"
g e talks about Maine and Nebraska. The state popular vote winner takes two electoral votes. Then the popular vote of each Congressional District takes that electoral vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_Colle
Re:IRV is BROKEN
Instant Runoff Voting works like this. If no one gets a majority (50% + 1) of the vote, the candidate in last place is eliminated and their votes are transferred.
Condorcet is the one that is flawed. You don't get to vote for the candidate you truly want. What happens when Democrats only choose their candidate, leaving all other pairings blank?
I forgot, but I think I found it on Wikipedia. It was like five different tests to do to a voting system. None of our systems pass all five. I think the term is "monotonicity" for part of the five or something, but I just gave up searching.
Another method that isn't heard too often is the Avy method, which is a branch off of IRV.
If I'm not mistaken, electors tend not to get re-elected if they don't vote for what the majority wants. Or I remember being told something like that while in high school.
One problem is people are too scared to vote for a third party, fearing it is throwing their vote away. Do I need to remind us of that The Simpsons 1996 Halloween episode?
Whether or not we decide to keep, alter, or scrap the electoral college, we should try getting Instant Runoff Voting in place. Even if it's to determine the state's (or Congressional District's) popular vote, people wouldn't mind voting for a third party.
The first method is "by analyzing a document to identify characteristics that are unique for each printer". The second method is "by designing printers to purposely embed individualized characteristics in documents".
Does the second method seem a bit immoral to design a printer to purposely be "flawed" in that sense? Simply, it's just purposely tagging a printer". I guess it could be compared to tagging downloads.
In my opinion, it seems wrong to do the second method. But for the first method, I see no problem with that.
It kind of brings this into question, if this is such a possibility. http://www.newswithviews.com/public_comm/public_co mmentary7.htm
And slashdot isn't considered mainstream yet? Gee, what happens when a website gets posted? Oh, I know, it tends to heavily lag the website for a few hours until it's off the top half of the front page.
Our conspiracy theorists have done a good job at putting out literature over the years showing why it's such a bad idea. Such a good job, that if something like this were to ever come full force, there'd be a sizable minority resisting it.
Microchipping kids to prevent kidnappings. I would have more faith in humanity. I am not that horribly pessimistic about fellow human beings. And even if a kid is kidnapped, we have ways of helping. The Amber Alert, those things you get in your mail with missing kids on it, and various other methods I'm sure.
By the way, since the chips are the size of a grain, I wouldn't be surprised if they started putting them in vaccines somehow.
Fear being infectious, oh ya, that's for sure. Our stock market is imaginary. Our stock market today reflects the mood of the people. No wonder why it fell after September 11th.
In regards to that database story, I have this to say...
1. Do not give up any civil liberties, such as any mentioned in historical documents.
2. Do not say, "oh, it's okay, as long it's for our own good". People really need to at least question what the government does, rather than simply accepting it.
If I knew what FDR was talking about, I wouldn't have had American public schooling. But my guess is that we need not fear over things we cannot control.
I don't want to get too far off topic of "Senate Wants Database Dragnet", so if you could keep the FDR quote relevant to it, that might help me.
Thanks for pointing out that it was FDR and not JFK.
Fear seems to only lead to giving up more control to "Big Brother", with the balance of power tipping to their favour, not ours.
As soon as it crosses the line from voluntary to involuntary, we have a HUGE problem. I believe it could reach involuntary if enough people voluntarily receive the microchips. It's like, "Oh, almost everyone is doing it, so there won't be much public outcry if we force the non-compliant to do it too."
For the paranoid, I guess one could always hide their money under their bed in a fireproof box. Also, never buying anything using a card, whether credit, debit, or other. Simply go to a grocery store. Another way to stay out of the system is not to register for anything. Like voter registration information seems to be shared, or at least in my state.
You have total freedom in one hand. You've got security in the other hand. Which do you choose? I'd choose freedom.
Let's decide if this is a good thing.
Q:Whom is this database going to be accessible by?
A: Government counter-terrorist investigators.
Q: Who are these government counter-terrorist investigators exactly? Can there simply be someone who works for the government, or do they have to have some kind of clearance?
Q: What kind of information will they have access to? Will they be able to pull up my voting history? (Washingtonians, check out RCW 29A.08.720) Will they be able to go as far as to see which classes I took in a public school?
When we choose security over freedom, we're giving up our right to privacy. There is nothing simpler than that, in my opinion.
And wasn't it JFK who said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?
I mean this. After the President leaves office, have a special "election" (election used for the lack of a better term) in February or March. Have registered voters give an approval rating to the former President. If he or she gets below a 50% national approval rating, strip his or her pension, and any other benefits you get post-Presidency. This idea would have to be made law, and no, I don't mean it as a simple poll.
You're right. Unlike t.v., radio, etc., you can't regulate something that covers the whole world. I guess the closest they could come to regulating it would be to create filters so U.S. citizens can't see certain sites.
I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't include the other two third party candidates, Badnarik and Cobb.
I wish I could have seen the debate on t.v. (Oct 6th I believe), but I missed most of it (it was being reran like on the 11th), and watched something else. I think it involved four parties, neither of them the top two.
By the way, my opinion on electoral reform, something like this. Do it the way they have it in Maine and Nebraska, the winner of each Congressional District gets the vote, and as for the other two votes, they go to the state popular vote winner. But I say don't allow someone to win by plurality in this case. Use Instant Runoff Voting by Congress District, and by the state.
Making a President responsible for his actions. Perhaps a post-Presidency approval system, and if the person fails to get 50% approval, no pension, no perks, etc.
I'm curious how many honestly read the whole thing? I didn't.
A lot of people look at Slashdot. Should we be worried? (The intent of this was to sound humourous.)
How do they expect to regulate something that is beyond huge? Sarcastic comment to follow: Oh, I know, they can bring in Internet-2, getting rid of Internet-1.
With the Condorcet method, it's possible voting for one's second favourite candidate can hurt one's favourite candidate's chances of winning.
Going by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_Colleg e, I think the Maine-Nebraska system would be the best. I just came across this.
We don't have enough wisdom or knowledge to be playing around with paper. This is a very bad idea.
Just going by a popular vote means candidates might as well ignore the low populated areas.
The Condorcet is flawed. It ignores voter choice. But then again, someone could simply only mark in the candidate they want to win, and leave some pairings blank.
Except cell phones cost more than $20 per month generally.