Not that I think he had much in the way of empathy prior to this, but he lacks a filter of any kind which is a symptom I had to repeatedly apologize for when my grandfather’s dementia got worse.
The dude has full on dementia, no one is doing anything and he will continue to degrade both himself and the reputation of anything associated with him as this keeps going.
Funnily enough, dipshit donny might be the best publically perceivable evidence of the need for reform we will ever get.
Plenty of countries have laws that fine or otherwise punish people that do not vote, afaik this doesn’t tend to lead to better functioning democracies. I think this is a thing where the carrot works better than the stick.
What if A gets 26% of the vote, B gets 25%, C gets 24%, D gets 15%, and E gets 10%?
The standard method of ranked choice voting: E gets eliminated as they have the least, everyone who voted for them goes to their next ranked choice. Repeat until one person has over 50%.
Please forgive any ignorance on my part, but would it be required that we’d know what the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and so on) preferences of those who voted for E in the first choice?
If so, and if such could be done, what if of those who voted for E on their first choice, in their second preference, half of them (i.e. half of 10% being 5%) voted for C, a third of them voted for B, and a sixth of them voted for A;
meanwhile two-thirds of those who voted in their first preference for A, half of those who voted in their first preference for B, and a third of those who voted in their first preference for C, voted for D in their 2nd preference?
—i.e. (⅔ x 26%) + (½ x 25%) + (⅓ x 24%) = 16⅔% + 12½% + 8% = 36⅚%.
Please forgive any ignorance on my part, but would it be required that we’d know what the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and so on) preferences of those who voted for E in the first choice?
Yes. Please look up “How ranked choice voting works” instead of asking randos on social media to explain it to you. The information is readily available.
Ranked voting is any voting system that uses voters’ rankings of candidates to choose a single winner or multiple winners. More formally, a ranked vote system depends only on voters’ order of preference of the candidates.
Ranked voting systems vary dramatically in how preferences are tabulated and counted. This gives them different properties with respect to satisfying various voting groups and adherence to mathematical rules.
…
Some ranked vote systems do not use ranking to transfer votes but instead use ranks as weights. These systems are called positional voting. In the Borda method, the least-favored candidates on each ballot receive fewer points; the most-favored receive more points. The points on each ballot for each candidate are added together, and the candidate with the most points is elected.
Glad you were able to find the answers on your own for the potential options.
Seeing as Lemmy is not in charge of implementing it I didn’t see the point of having Randos argue over which specific version of ranked choice voting to use, as I’m sure we can all agree that any version is better than what is currently being used.
Glad you were able to find the answers on your own for the potential options.
I didn’t find “the answers” just some info about it.
as I’m sure we can all agree that any version is better than what is currently being used.
I’m not so sure of that. Please be more specific in the type ranked choice voting system you’d favor.
I suppose I rather half a parliament (or similar) be decided by proportional representation, and in the others, perhaps it’s a run-off if the winner of a plurality doesn’t get a majority.
I’d like to believe but do you really see a future where old (white) dudes in power will vote in favor of a reform where old dudes arent allowed to be in power because they are “supposedly” unfit for it?
Yeah that wont be happening any time soon in my opinion.
They could vote for the legislation, maybe push for an amendment, that doesn’t kick in for about 10 years.
e.g. starting 1 January 2036, no person can be a member of Congress who has been in office for 10 or more years, consecutively or non-consecutively. This does not apply to any person who was a Congressperson at the time that this amendment was ratified; and years served before 1 January 2030 will not count.
and/or,
e.g. notwithstanding the aforementioned, starting 1 January 2060, no person can be a member of Congress who has been a member of Congress for 10 or more years, consecutively or non-consecutively.
nonetheless, my example indicates that positive change is still possible, not soon but neither too long, even by such incumbents.
If they did this 20 years ago, and my suggested dates were 20 years earlier, wp:Chip Roy couldn’t run in 2030, wp:Matt Gaetz couldn’t run in 2028, and wp:Mike Johnson could not run this November.
Not that I think he had much in the way of empathy prior to this, but he lacks a filter of any kind which is a symptom I had to repeatedly apologize for when my grandfather’s dementia got worse.
The dude has full on dementia, no one is doing anything and he will continue to degrade both himself and the reputation of anything associated with him as this keeps going.
Funnily enough, dipshit donny might be the best publically perceivable evidence of the need for reform we will ever get.
Reforms that are needed:
I’m sure there are more, but this is just off the top of my head.
I’d go with term limits as well. Too many people in what are essentially life terms
Plenty of countries have laws that fine or otherwise punish people that do not vote, afaik this doesn’t tend to lead to better functioning democracies. I think this is a thing where the carrot works better than the stick.
The standard method of ranked choice voting: E gets eliminated as they have the least, everyone who voted for them goes to their next ranked choice. Repeat until one person has over 50%.
Please forgive any ignorance on my part, but would it be required that we’d know what the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and so on) preferences of those who voted for E in the first choice?
If so, and if such could be done, what if of those who voted for E on their first choice, in their second preference, half of them (i.e. half of 10% being 5%) voted for C, a third of them voted for B, and a sixth of them voted for A;
meanwhile two-thirds of those who voted in their first preference for A, half of those who voted in their first preference for B, and a third of those who voted in their first preference for C, voted for D in their 2nd preference? —i.e. (⅔ x 26%) + (½ x 25%) + (⅓ x 24%) = 16⅔% + 12½% + 8% = 36⅚%.
Yes. Please look up “How ranked choice voting works” instead of asking randos on social media to explain it to you. The information is readily available.
wp:Ranked voting
(my bold)
…
Glad you were able to find the answers on your own for the potential options.
Seeing as Lemmy is not in charge of implementing it I didn’t see the point of having Randos argue over which specific version of ranked choice voting to use, as I’m sure we can all agree that any version is better than what is currently being used.
I didn’t find “the answers” just some info about it.
I’m not so sure of that. Please be more specific in the type ranked choice voting system you’d favor.
I suppose I rather half a parliament (or similar) be decided by proportional representation, and in the others, perhaps it’s a run-off if the winner of a plurality doesn’t get a majority.
The one you suggested I suppose is okay too. 😁 🙂
Here’s a brief explanation of how preferential voting works in Australia: https://www.chickennation.com/voting/
I’d like to believe but do you really see a future where old (white) dudes in power will vote in favor of a reform where old dudes arent allowed to be in power because they are “supposedly” unfit for it?
Yeah that wont be happening any time soon in my opinion.
They could vote for the legislation, maybe push for an amendment, that doesn’t kick in for about 10 years.
e.g. starting 1 January 2036, no person can be a member of Congress who has been in office for 10 or more years, consecutively or non-consecutively. This does not apply to any person who was a Congressperson at the time that this amendment was ratified; and years served before 1 January 2030 will not count.
and/or,
e.g. notwithstanding the aforementioned, starting 1 January 2060, no person can be a member of Congress who has been a member of Congress for 10 or more years, consecutively or non-consecutively.
“they’ll only vote for policies that benefit the country if it doesn’t affect them” tells you everything about the people currently in power.
Agreed, it does;
nonetheless, my example indicates that positive change is still possible, not soon but neither too long, even by such incumbents.
If they did this 20 years ago, and my suggested dates were 20 years earlier, wp:Chip Roy couldn’t run in 2030, wp:Matt Gaetz couldn’t run in 2028, and wp:Mike Johnson could not run this November.