Does it use/mention Perl 6? Is there a good book covering Perl 6 yet? I've had the camel head book for awhile and like it, but haven't delved deeply into Perl yet. If the new features in 6 are worth learning, which book would you recommend? Or maybe someone could summarize the changes here, and I can decide for myself whether I want to look for a book.
Yes, EC votes should be doled out by district, as in Nebraska. Appeal to your state congressmen for change, because the state is in charge of how EC votes are handled.
Districting is good, but the districts need to be a "good" size. Direct popular voting (district the size of yourself) is bad, because it makes your district the size of the whole country.
Why is districting good? Because it makes everyone's vote mean more. You have more chance of being the "deciding vote" - at least for your district. Even if your candidate loses, you show up as a blip on the map rather than swamped amongst the other 300 million (?) Americans.
We need the EC as a way to fairly represent the interests of all America (as opposed to people in the five largest cities), but we need to get rid of the "winner takes all" system in 48 more states. I'm going to be writing my congressmen this week.
Hey there, bigot, thanks for posting. Now go away. Don't bother showing your ignorance again, OK? We know it's there. Good boy.
Been insulted enough? Good. Now you know how it feels. Keep your discourses civil in the future. You don't have to agree with me, but we can disagree on nice terms without personal attacks. Or would you prefer "your mama so fat" jokes in the next round? (Yes, that was sarcasm.)
The EC was created because the U.S. is a union of states, not people. These states have their say at the federal level in the offices of senators and president, just like the people have their say in the house of representatives. The system protects all of us from the "Tyranny of the Majority"...which is a good thing, because I'd hate to be ruled by CA and NY.
Pure democracy is an evil thing. The U.S. is a republic, a government of laws, and those laws work to defend the minority. The EC is another example of this.
The plain and short of it is that Bush enjoys support from a wider cross-section of Americans than Gore. He appeals to people nationwide, not just in cities. And that's why he'll be president.
I voted in California in this election (for neither Bush nor Gore, FWIW) - California has one electoral vote for (roughly) every 540,000 people. Iowa (to take a battleground state in this election) has roughly one for every 280,000. I don't call that a fair system.
Iowan speaking here: Screw you, California freak-boy. We won't be ruled by you and the crazy ideas you share with the New Yorkers. The president is President of the United States, not of the united peoples. That's why we have the electoral college, to ensure that the president gets support from a wide range of Americans. Wide range != two cities on opposite coasts, understand? As your parent posters said, "The EC is a fair system, 4 major cities should not be able to determine the election."
No, Bush did not get the most popular votes. However, Bush did get support from a broader cross-section of America (Electoral Votes), and that's why he's going to be president.
Look at an election map. Bush carried states from Georgia to Alaska and every place in between. There's a lot of diversity that backs him. What did Gore get? A few big population centers. If EC votes went by district, rather than winner-takes-all, Bush's lead would have been even larger, since only the urban centers themselves would have gone to Gore and Bush would have picked up votes in the outstate areas.
The electoral college did exactly the job it is supposed to, preventing the "Tyranny of the Majority" from ruling the nation.
I used to love astronomy as a kid. In fact, I got a scholarship and went off to Drake thinking I would major in it. However, I loved it more than it loved me, I think.
Anyway, while I was a kid, too poor to buy a telescope, I used to read astronomy books voraciously, and take notes on any stellar data I came across. Originally on ruled paper, I eventually transferred all of it to an AppleWorks db (on the Apple ][) in high school, and then into Excel (3? 4?) when I got to college. I used this to plot some very nice color H-R diagrams. This is the kind of project I really could have gotten excited about.
Yeah, some enterprising young Polish hacker ought to set up perl.pl or maybe simply pl.pl as the world's Perl resource site. That would probably be worth something to somebody, even though I don't agree with using ccTLD's to mean other things.
(OK, so somebody's already thought of perl.pl, but the site sucks.)
Thanks for the link! I used to be a proponent of IRV, but I'd never thought through any possible shortcomings. I just knew it was simpler for the electorate to grasp than Borda, and more expressive than Approval. Condorcet seems to have the best of everything.
I know, and that's wrong. Everyone should have a fair chance, and exclusive laws do not create a level playing field.
I don't agree with your friend. I've heard that position before. With no party holding a majority in a body like Congress, it would mean coalitions would be necessary. I think that would be a good thing, and besides, vote trading and dealing already goes on there. In the legislative branch, with only one chief, a system like Instant Runoff Voting would build that sort of compromise/coalition right in to the election process.
You're voting for Phillips, and you think you might be in the minority someday? You guys came in 7th.
Exactly my point. I am already in the minority. Yet do I have any less right to have my voice heard? I think a system that can completely ignore 19% of the people (like it did to Perot voters in '92) needs to be fixed, badly. It's not fair. And FWIW, Phillips came in 6th (with 98,224 according to Yahoo!), after Browne and ahead of Hagelin.
You're talking about an electorate where several thousand people can accidentally
vote for Buchanan instead of Gore. You want them to be able to figure out a ballot where they have to cast FIVE votes for President, instead of just one?
I think the people deserve a bit more credit than that. I wouldn't expect them to be informed about every candidate, so I don't suggest a Borda count. But they can certainly take the candidates they do know and put them in order of preference, even if they only know the two.
That's the exception, and not the rule. Why does nearly every country but the US successfully have 3+ major parties?
My point is that it takes a BIG shake-up to make a change currently. The time was ripe for it in 1860 because of other troubles brewing. We don't have that now, so we won't get a 3rd party supplanting either member of the Duopoly. All I want to see is that the smaller voices get heard, because they aren't right now. The system squashes them. Most people don't even realize other choices exist.
I don't like Nader at all, but his views appeal to 10% of the people in some states. They deserve to be heard. Who knows, maybe I'll be in the minority next...I'd like to be heard then, too. It's only fair. What we need to do is get rid of the "winner takes all" system in more states, and introduce Instant Runoff Voting nationwide.
But a 3rd party will never get to 31% support because so many people are afraid that voting 3rd party is to "throw their vote away". Nobody takes the chance - they vote for the lesser of two evils.
No, we do not want the Borda count. The Borda system expects the electorate to be intelligent enough to understand the system, and informed enough to rank all the candidates. Most Americans would put GW first and Gore last (or vice versa) and sprinkle everyone else in between because they don't know better. We'd wake up to a random president-elect based on those 2nd-choice votes.
What we do need is Instant Runoff Voting. There's no need to be informed about (or rank) all the candidates, just the ones that interest you, because, things will likely be decided in the first couple runoffs. More people can be counted on to rank a handful of candidates in preferential order than to be knowledgable about them all. Informed voters could actually vote their conscience on a third party yet still not tip the election the other way. Uninformed voters who only know the Duopoly could rank those two in order...though I expect the Duopoly would fade if IRV got a foothold. There are enough people wanting change that 3rd parties would rise in prominence, which would just make them that much more "electable" to the uninformed next time.
You've described exactly why gTLD's are such a stupid idea. Everybody wants them. And since they are by their very nature international, who adjudicates disputes? Anyone? Anyone? What a mess.
The solution, as I alluded to, is to go to ccTLD's for everyone...yes, including the US. Let your own nation's courts handle name disputes in their own fashion with their own applicable laws. If you're truly international,.int is for you. But if you take a.int domain you have to agree to have disputes settled by an international agency in charge of such things instead of your own courts.
"But the internet is about transcending political borders!" B.S. We still live in meatspace, where politics is very real. These problems need to be referred to where they're supposed to go. Companies and individuals have to live by the laws of their own countries.
"But how will we be able to find anything?" New browsers could be written to look up requests to foo.com against all foo.com.<ccTLD> possibilities and return a list of matches. Browsers already take the 2LD as a keyword, slapping a www. and.com around it. This wouldn't be that hard. Existing browsers would, of course, need the full domain name...which isn't much different than needing to know the full name currently if it's not a.com.
"But every country is going to do something different in their own hierarchy!" Yeah, that could be a pain. So standardize these new 2LD's:.com for businesses that don't have a more specific one like.net (and more of these should be created, like.bank that was proposed once),.org,.web,.gov, etc. (Bet they look familiar, huh?)
"What about trademark disputes?" Forbid them if they're frivolous. If Coke gets cocacola.food.us and coke.food.us (both trademarks) then they've done their job of protecting their trademark. (Here.food is a hypothetical specialty domain the same way I see.net.) If a Cocaine Anonymous wants coke.org.us that's fine. If some steel manufacturer wants coke.manuf.us that's fine too. The name makes it obvious they're not in the same trademark space! This is what the domain name hierarchy ought to do: make it clear what you're resources you're getting. OTOH, if someone tried to register coca-cola.food.usthen Coke would have a legitimate complaint.
That's a good point. Where will we be able to find 3rd party results? You know the major networks won't be providing this info. Except maybe to say that Nader's 4.5% showing in such-and-such state gave it to Bush. (Which we all know isn't true, but the media treats all votes as if they already belong to The Duopoly.)
Then he seems to propose that, while the electoral college *does* dilute representation in larger states, it is a similar institution to the Senate, and hence legitimate. This, of course, assumes that the Senate is legitimate. This is ridiculous: the simple fact that it exists does not make it right. Presumably, to demonstrate the legitimacy of the Senate, George Will would compare it again to the electoral college.
I used to think that this was a little squirrelly too. Then I thought that the Senate (and their representation in the EC) helps large (area wise) states. There may not be as many people there to represent, but there are a lot of natural resources entrusted to that state. A teacher in Jersey speaks for his front lawn, a rancher in Montana speaks for 10000 acres. That's got to make a difference too. This doesn't always hold true (Maine may have the same pop. at Montana, but its much smaller) but that's the general idea.
Getting around this problem is easy, I don't know how you missed it. Don't use Microsoft products. They can't keep doing this if they go out of business, now, can they?
South Africa already has a domain, a TLD even, that it's fully in control of:.ZA. If somebody's running a business with a legitimate claim to the name "South Africa" no one should be able to touch him.
TLD's need to be meaningful and enforceable. I almost wish the gTLD's would go away in favor of ccTLD's for everybody, including the US. Let your own country deal with disputes in your own courts. These international hassles are a needless pain in the butt.
Heck, just buy really-sucks.com and sell 3LD's, such as guinness-beer. If you can do it before Nader pushes through his.sux proposal, you can probably make alot of money at it. (Nader wants to take that away, too.)
You really should visit Center for Voting and Democracy...there's probably a name for this already. I don't think it's quite a Borda count, but similar.
The problem is that I may mark my feeling of "sorta like him/tolerable" as a 4, but you mark it as 6. Who's to say which is right? What's the standard?
A much simpler method is Instant Runoff Voting. No need to assign a rating, as you suggest, simply ordering them by preference does the trick. If enough first-choice votes give a majority, fine, we have a president. If not, eliminate the lowest candidate and consider the second-choice votes of those voters. Repeat until one candidate does have a majority. This encourages everyone to vote their conscience (a good thing) yet doesn't give the election to someone you can't tolerate if your candidate loses (also a good thing).
Phillips (the "Constitution guy")
Bush
Buchanan
Dodge
Gore
This systems works equally well for voters that know one, two, or twenty candidates, unlike the Borda count or your method, which require the voters to be very well informed. How so? Let's say you like Bush but hate Gore, and don't know anybody else. Using your system you'd give Bush 10, Gore 0. Fine so far...but reasoning out of ignorance you might say, "Well anybody else has got to be better than Gore!" So you rank Nader, Buchanan, everybody else, etc, somewhere in the middle. If enough people do this, we might discover a totally random candidate will be living in the White House next year, because of ill-informed second choices.
You're wrong. The fault is not that a 3rd party is running (and making a strong showing), the problem is the voting system itself. We need Instant Runoff Voting to avoid the "spoiler" effect.
"Your vote is the currency of your virtue." You're supposed to vote on principle, not politics. If everyone voted this way there wouldn't be a problem, but as soon as one person starts voting politics, everyone else feels compelled to in order to keep out the less desirable outcome. "If you don't vote for what you believe, you won't get what you want."
It means that the Electoral Votes would be divided between the candidates in proportion to the popular vote.
Let's take Minnesota as an example, because the math is easy: 10 EVs. If the vote goes 57% Bush, 41% Gore, that's 6 votes to Bush and 4 to Gore. On the current system Bush would get all 10. If the vote goes 42% Gore, 41% Bush, 16% Nader, that's 4 Gore, 4 Bush, 2 Nader. Currently Gore would get all 10.
This alone will not solve the perceived problem we have in our elections...that 3rd parties have a "spoiler" effect. To fix that we need Instant Runoff Voting.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it use/mention Perl 6? Is there a good book covering Perl 6 yet? I've had the camel head book for awhile and like it, but haven't delved deeply into Perl yet. If the new features in 6 are worth learning, which book would you recommend? Or maybe someone could summarize the changes here, and I can decide for myself whether I want to look for a book.
Yes, EC votes should be doled out by district, as in Nebraska. Appeal to your state congressmen for change, because the state is in charge of how EC votes are handled.
Districting is good, but the districts need to be a "good" size. Direct popular voting (district the size of yourself) is bad, because it makes your district the size of the whole country.
Why is districting good? Because it makes everyone's vote mean more. You have more chance of being the "deciding vote" - at least for your district. Even if your candidate loses, you show up as a blip on the map rather than swamped amongst the other 300 million (?) Americans.
We need the EC as a way to fairly represent the interests of all America (as opposed to people in the five largest cities), but we need to get rid of the "winner takes all" system in 48 more states. I'm going to be writing my congressmen this week.
Hey there, bigot, thanks for posting. Now go away. Don't bother showing your ignorance again, OK? We know it's there. Good boy.
Been insulted enough? Good. Now you know how it feels. Keep your discourses civil in the future. You don't have to agree with me, but we can disagree on nice terms without personal attacks. Or would you prefer "your mama so fat" jokes in the next round? (Yes, that was sarcasm.)
The EC was created because the U.S. is a union of states, not people. These states have their say at the federal level in the offices of senators and president, just like the people have their say in the house of representatives. The system protects all of us from the "Tyranny of the Majority"...which is a good thing, because I'd hate to be ruled by CA and NY.
Pure democracy is an evil thing. The U.S. is a republic, a government of laws, and those laws work to defend the minority. The EC is another example of this.
The plain and short of it is that Bush enjoys support from a wider cross-section of Americans than Gore. He appeals to people nationwide, not just in cities. And that's why he'll be president.
Iowan speaking here: Screw you, California freak-boy. We won't be ruled by you and the crazy ideas you share with the New Yorkers. The president is President of the United States, not of the united peoples. That's why we have the electoral college, to ensure that the president gets support from a wide range of Americans. Wide range != two cities on opposite coasts, understand? As your parent posters said, "The EC is a fair system, 4 major cities should not be able to determine the election."
No, Bush did not get the most popular votes. However, Bush did get support from a broader cross-section of America (Electoral Votes), and that's why he's going to be president.
Look at an election map. Bush carried states from Georgia to Alaska and every place in between. There's a lot of diversity that backs him. What did Gore get? A few big population centers. If EC votes went by district, rather than winner-takes-all, Bush's lead would have been even larger, since only the urban centers themselves would have gone to Gore and Bush would have picked up votes in the outstate areas.
The electoral college did exactly the job it is supposed to, preventing the "Tyranny of the Majority" from ruling the nation.
I used to love astronomy as a kid. In fact, I got a scholarship and went off to Drake thinking I would major in it. However, I loved it more than it loved me, I think.
Anyway, while I was a kid, too poor to buy a telescope, I used to read astronomy books voraciously, and take notes on any stellar data I came across. Originally on ruled paper, I eventually transferred all of it to an AppleWorks db (on the Apple ][) in high school, and then into Excel (3? 4?) when I got to college. I used this to plot some very nice color H-R diagrams. This is the kind of project I really could have gotten excited about.
...root@omniverse.god?
...yhwh@creation.org?
...voice@burningbush.com
???
Yeah, some enterprising young Polish hacker ought to set up perl.pl or maybe simply pl.pl as the world's Perl resource site. That would probably be worth something to somebody, even though I don't agree with using ccTLD's to mean other things.
(OK, so somebody's already thought of perl.pl, but the site sucks.)
Thanks for the link! I used to be a proponent of IRV, but I'd never thought through any possible shortcomings. I just knew it was simpler for the electorate to grasp than Borda, and more expressive than Approval. Condorcet seems to have the best of everything.
I know, and that's wrong. Everyone should have a fair chance, and exclusive laws do not create a level playing field.
I don't agree with your friend. I've heard that position before. With no party holding a majority in a body like Congress, it would mean coalitions would be necessary. I think that would be a good thing, and besides, vote trading and dealing already goes on there. In the legislative branch, with only one chief, a system like Instant Runoff Voting would build that sort of compromise/coalition right in to the election process.
Exactly my point. I am already in the minority. Yet do I have any less right to have my voice heard? I think a system that can completely ignore 19% of the people (like it did to Perot voters in '92) needs to be fixed, badly. It's not fair. And FWIW, Phillips came in 6th (with 98,224 according to Yahoo!), after Browne and ahead of Hagelin.
I think the people deserve a bit more credit than that. I wouldn't expect them to be informed about every candidate, so I don't suggest a Borda count. But they can certainly take the candidates they do know and put them in order of preference, even if they only know the two.
That's the exception, and not the rule. Why does nearly every country but the US successfully have 3+ major parties?
My point is that it takes a BIG shake-up to make a change currently. The time was ripe for it in 1860 because of other troubles brewing. We don't have that now, so we won't get a 3rd party supplanting either member of the Duopoly. All I want to see is that the smaller voices get heard, because they aren't right now. The system squashes them. Most people don't even realize other choices exist.
I don't like Nader at all, but his views appeal to 10% of the people in some states. They deserve to be heard. Who knows, maybe I'll be in the minority next...I'd like to be heard then, too. It's only fair. What we need to do is get rid of the "winner takes all" system in more states, and introduce Instant Runoff Voting nationwide.
But a 3rd party will never get to 31% support because so many people are afraid that voting 3rd party is to "throw their vote away". Nobody takes the chance - they vote for the lesser of two evils.
If you're just interested in the numbers for PA he referred to:
Good link though. Info for all the other states as well.
That's already been suggested, and I think it's a bad idea.
No, we do not want the Borda count. The Borda system expects the electorate to be intelligent enough to understand the system, and informed enough to rank all the candidates. Most Americans would put GW first and Gore last (or vice versa) and sprinkle everyone else in between because they don't know better. We'd wake up to a random president-elect based on those 2nd-choice votes.
What we do need is Instant Runoff Voting. There's no need to be informed about (or rank) all the candidates, just the ones that interest you, because, things will likely be decided in the first couple runoffs. More people can be counted on to rank a handful of candidates in preferential order than to be knowledgable about them all. Informed voters could actually vote their conscience on a third party yet still not tip the election the other way. Uninformed voters who only know the Duopoly could rank those two in order...though I expect the Duopoly would fade if IRV got a foothold. There are enough people wanting change that 3rd parties would rise in prominence, which would just make them that much more "electable" to the uninformed next time.
Wouldn't Instant Runoff Voting work better? I think so.
You've described exactly why gTLD's are such a stupid idea. Everybody wants them. And since they are by their very nature international, who adjudicates disputes? Anyone? Anyone? What a mess.
The solution, as I alluded to, is to go to ccTLD's for everyone...yes, including the US. Let your own nation's courts handle name disputes in their own fashion with their own applicable laws. If you're truly international, .int is for you. But if you take a .int domain you have to agree to have disputes settled by an international agency in charge of such things instead of your own courts.
"But the internet is about transcending political borders!" B.S. We still live in meatspace, where politics is very real. These problems need to be referred to where they're supposed to go. Companies and individuals have to live by the laws of their own countries.
"But how will we be able to find anything?" New browsers could be written to look up requests to foo.com against all foo.com.<ccTLD> possibilities and return a list of matches. Browsers already take the 2LD as a keyword, slapping a www. and .com around it. This wouldn't be that hard. Existing browsers would, of course, need the full domain name...which isn't much different than needing to know the full name currently if it's not a .com.
"But every country is going to do something different in their own hierarchy!" Yeah, that could be a pain. So standardize these new 2LD's: .com for businesses that don't have a more specific one like .net (and more of these should be created, like .bank that was proposed once), .org, .web, .gov, etc. (Bet they look familiar, huh?)
"What about trademark disputes?" Forbid them if they're frivolous. If Coke gets cocacola.food.us and coke.food.us (both trademarks) then they've done their job of protecting their trademark. (Here .food is a hypothetical specialty domain the same way I see .net.) If a Cocaine Anonymous wants coke.org.us that's fine. If some steel manufacturer wants coke.manuf.us that's fine too. The name makes it obvious they're not in the same trademark space! This is what the domain name hierarchy ought to do: make it clear what you're resources you're getting. OTOH, if someone tried to register coca-cola.food.us then Coke would have a legitimate complaint.
That's a good point. Where will we be able to find 3rd party results? You know the major networks won't be providing this info. Except maybe to say that Nader's 4.5% showing in such-and-such state gave it to Bush. (Which we all know isn't true, but the media treats all votes as if they already belong to The Duopoly.)
I used to think that this was a little squirrelly too. Then I thought that the Senate (and their representation in the EC) helps large (area wise) states. There may not be as many people there to represent, but there are a lot of natural resources entrusted to that state. A teacher in Jersey speaks for his front lawn, a rancher in Montana speaks for 10000 acres. That's got to make a difference too. This doesn't always hold true (Maine may have the same pop. at Montana, but its much smaller) but that's the general idea.
Getting around this problem is easy, I don't know how you missed it. Don't use Microsoft products. They can't keep doing this if they go out of business, now, can they?
South Africa already has a domain, a TLD even, that it's fully in control of: .ZA. If somebody's running a business with a legitimate claim to the name "South Africa" no one should be able to touch him.
TLD's need to be meaningful and enforceable. I almost wish the gTLD's would go away in favor of ccTLD's for everybody, including the US. Let your own country deal with disputes in your own courts. These international hassles are a needless pain in the butt.
Heck, just buy really-sucks.com and sell 3LD's, such as guinness-beer. If you can do it before Nader pushes through his .sux proposal, you can probably make alot of money at it. (Nader wants to take that away, too.)
You really should visit Center for Voting and Democracy...there's probably a name for this already. I don't think it's quite a Borda count, but similar.
The problem is that I may mark my feeling of "sorta like him/tolerable" as a 4, but you mark it as 6. Who's to say which is right? What's the standard?
A much simpler method is Instant Runoff Voting. No need to assign a rating, as you suggest, simply ordering them by preference does the trick. If enough first-choice votes give a majority, fine, we have a president. If not, eliminate the lowest candidate and consider the second-choice votes of those voters. Repeat until one candidate does have a majority. This encourages everyone to vote their conscience (a good thing) yet doesn't give the election to someone you can't tolerate if your candidate loses (also a good thing).
This systems works equally well for voters that know one, two, or twenty candidates, unlike the Borda count or your method, which require the voters to be very well informed. How so? Let's say you like Bush but hate Gore, and don't know anybody else. Using your system you'd give Bush 10, Gore 0. Fine so far...but reasoning out of ignorance you might say, "Well anybody else has got to be better than Gore!" So you rank Nader, Buchanan, everybody else, etc, somewhere in the middle. If enough people do this, we might discover a totally random candidate will be living in the White House next year, because of ill-informed second choices.
You're wrong. The fault is not that a 3rd party is running (and making a strong showing), the problem is the voting system itself. We need Instant Runoff Voting to avoid the "spoiler" effect.
"Your vote is the currency of your virtue." You're supposed to vote on principle, not politics. If everyone voted this way there wouldn't be a problem, but as soon as one person starts voting politics, everyone else feels compelled to in order to keep out the less desirable outcome. "If you don't vote for what you believe, you won't get what you want."
Quotes above from Howard Phillips.
It means that the Electoral Votes would be divided between the candidates in proportion to the popular vote.
Let's take Minnesota as an example, because the math is easy: 10 EVs. If the vote goes 57% Bush, 41% Gore, that's 6 votes to Bush and 4 to Gore. On the current system Bush would get all 10. If the vote goes 42% Gore, 41% Bush, 16% Nader, that's 4 Gore, 4 Bush, 2 Nader. Currently Gore would get all 10.
This alone will not solve the perceived problem we have in our elections...that 3rd parties have a "spoiler" effect. To fix that we need Instant Runoff Voting.