Ranxerox

9 hours ago, assault said:

OK, I can only answer this in terms of the Australian federal system. States and Territories each have their own quirks. Also, I will use the Australian terminology of preferential voting - essentially ranked choice or instant run-off voting. This will be long.

First of all, Australia has a different party system to the US. Parties pick their candidates through their own internal processes. There are no primaries.

<snip> 

Senate elections use a mix of proportional and preferential voting. Typically, that results in the election of three candidates each from the "left" and the "right". It's rare these days for any party to have a majority in the Senate - getting legislation through involves negotiation and accepting amendments.
<snip>
With (say) 132 candidates, most of whom you've never heard of, listing them from 1 to 132 is a chore, and fairly meaningless when you have no basis for ordering them.

At that point, there is the option of voting "above the line" or "below the line".

"Below the line" voting is fairly rare in practice. Basically, you chose a minimum of 12 candidates in the order in which you prefer them, and your vote is valid. Yes, you can vote for all 132 candidates this way. Or you can vote for a party candidate that's at the bottom of the list, and so on.

"Above the line" works on the fact that the candidates are listed in columns. Even the independents. (There's an "ungrouped" column or two for people who aren't running alongside anyone else.)
 

When you vote above the line you are allocating preferences between different columns. I think you have to choose at least six such groups. In that case, the order of candidates in each column matters - your vote goes initially to the first candidate. If they get elected, surplus votes go to the second candidate and so on.

The maths here gets weird, and I'm not going to go into the details of quotas and such. It takes a lot longer to count Senate votes than House of Reps ones, but you can usually guesstimate the results on election night with reasonable accuracy.

Well that's all as clear as mud, but yes, there are ways to deal with huge numbers of candidates without brain bleed or resorting to two rounds of voting.

And "third/fourth/fifth parties" have a reasonable chance of getting elected where they have genuine support.

 

 

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain Australia's system to me. 

It sounds like, that for your House of Representatives  you do a have primary of sorts.  It is just a backroom primary in which most people don't get to vote.  Once upon a time, I would have decried that system as being undemocratic.  However, I know that the Republican leadership really didn't want want Trump as their candidate and would like to get rid of a number of Trump clones from their legislative ranks.   So, I am not sure where I stand on party officials deciding who gets to run and who doesn't.

As for your Senate selection process, it is way too complicated for us 'Mericans. 

So, I think we are probably stuck with our primaries, even though they do draw out the election process interminably.  😟

10 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

I believe it's top 3, from what I saw.

Are you talking about the US or Australia?  Because, I was asking assault about Australia where they use rank choice voting all the time.  Also, with large slates of candidates, using a top 3 system you could wind up with a winner who was endorsed by far less than 50%  of the voters.  I would think that it would be hard to claim any sort of mandate when all your ranked choice votes still gave you less than 30%.  Though this is theoretical.  Maybe in practice even with 20+ candidates only 3 or 4 really matter, and a top 3 system will give you a majority winner most of the time.  I don't know.  That is why I am asking questions.

21 hours ago, assault said:

 

The odd thing about the Alaskan system is that it involves two rounds.

 

That's an artifact of the US primary system and the parties not being parties in the usual sense.

 

A pure ranked choice system only needs one round.

That is interesting.  So, in races with 20+ candidates, how deep do most people go in their rankings?  Do they just stick to their top 3 or do they take out to their top six or what?

14 hours ago, assault said:

I didn't realize it was preferential "ranked choice"/"ïnstant runoff" voting.

Watching the Palin supporters cry "fraud!" is worth the entry price by itself. Poor darlings.

EDIT: although after reading how the new Alaskan voting system works, it's... very American. Take something that works, and break it so it doesn't.

Please, explain how this method is broken.  This is how I thought ranked choice was suppose to work.

3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

It was Republicans who instituted ranked choice voting in Alaska in the first place. Because it favors the dominant party, which used to be them.

What I read said that it was passed by a ballot initiative put forward by Lisa Murkowski supporters.  Ms Murkowski had lost the Republican primary but then won as a write-in candidate.  That was an extremely impressive feat that she didn't want to have to do in future elections.  Ranked choice voting was seen as a way to make her less vulnerable to the extreme elements of the Republican base. 

6 minutes ago, Iuz the Evil said:

This has got to be more than the Presidential Records Act/National Archives. As a rationale that will go over like a lead balloon. I’m hoping for something crushing, evidence of selling State secrets or something like that. Something prosecutable.

 

Please tell me the FBI/DOJ is smarter than that. The preliminary news information is making me very nervous.

The preliminary news information is just a bunch of uninformed conjecture which is what one would expect.  Merrick Garland's DOJ doesn't let anyone know squat about what they have found or are about to do, until they do it.  

9 hours ago, wcw43921 said:

This is What "Pro-Life" Looks Like

Apparently, Chris Pritt was not advocating an end to child support.  He was speaking against a proposed amendment to the abortion ban bill that would in his words “allow men to file pre-birth paternity actions".  So, he was actually objecting to something that men would use to try to weasel out of paying child support.  Mr Pritt seems to think that the threat of being forced to take one of these test might drive some women to get abortions, not because they didn't know the father but just because they did not want to go through the test and deal with a guy who would make them take it in the first place.

Feldercarb!

32 minutes ago, Bazza said:

Related, and has a similar premise, but The Incredibles is not the Fantastic Four. 

True, but still more of a Fantastic Four film than the last too Fantastic Four films.

James T. Kirk

Benjamin Sisko

Christopher Pike

Jean-Luc Picard

Saru

Michael Burnham

Hologram Kathryn Janeway (Prodigy)

Carol Freeman

Kathryn Janeway (Voyager)

Dal R'El

Gabriel Lorca

I didn't make it through the first episode of Enterprise so I can't rate Jonathan Archer.

Nice!   👍

1 hour ago, wcw43921 said:

 

None of these judges have heard of the Ninth Amendment?

I think that in Alito's mind, the only rights protected by the Ninth Amendment are those that were widely accepted by the founding fathers.  Hence, all his discussion ancient legal cases and English common law dating back to colonial times. 

9 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

How many people have their livelihoods tied to the planet? Politicians need to stop mollycoddling their constituents and give them a harsh dose of reality; they also need to stop forestalling the various efforts to transition over to electricity.

Exactly which politicians are you talking about?  Ones that never got elected?  Because I assure you in Big Coal country/Big Oil Country/Big Natural Gas country giving even a hint that you do not stand behind the local industry is a quick road to to an inglorious defeat.  I say this as someone who was born and raised in Big Oil country.  So unless the politician ran as a sleeper agent pretending love fossil fuels but secretly wishing to save the planet and there were enough of these sleeper agents to make a difference, then nothing is going to happen.  And even in my conspiracy theory for good, the change doesn't last.  All of the sleeper agent candidates get voted out to office the very next election, and as soon as president who is willing to sign them into law is in  office, a raft of legislation designed to to viciously gut environmental protections would be made into law.

So, no, it is not the job of politicians to stop mollycoddling their constituents.  It is the job of constituents to stop mollycoddling their elected officials.  Unfortunately, first the constituents must decide for themselves that the wellbeing of the planet is worth the risk of financial hardship.  See Cygnia's article on white parents rallying against a black educator in their own county and continuing to hound her even after she moved away, if you want to see what sort of people constituents are. 

On 6/17/2022 at 11:56 PM, Ragitsu said:

It's difficult to summon the will when you're getting distracted from under the table.

I understand the cynicism, and it is probably more than a little bit warranted.  However, the US is a major producer of fossil fuels and they provide many jobs and are the bulwark of many regional economies.  So, many congress peoples have large constituencies whose livelihoods are tied to fossil fuels.

8 hours ago, dmjalund said:

how many times does it take for the Democrats to realize that the GOP is a pathological Lucy Van Pelt

They know.  However, if the the Republicans offer to work with them and the Dems say no to engaging in the process, it is the Dems that look like the jerks.

5 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

More than a few of them are straight-up grifters.

 

 

I wish this were true.

13 hours ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

 

And the fact that this is the type of person and that is the kind of rhetoric that gets people to fork over their money is both pathetic and profoundly disturbing. I could care less about her actual intelligence. Her moral and social values are repugnant.

Yes, she is a horrible person who is undermining democracy and fomenting rebellion in her own country just to get ahead in the world.  However, it is good to understand your opponents and the games that they play lest you find yourself playing along.

On 5/30/2022 at 7:08 AM, Starlord said:

Marjorie Taylor-Greene is likely stupid and/or ignorant, but I honestly think she is mentally ill as well

Apparently, people who actually know Ms Taylor-Greene, say that she is intelligent and a savvy media manipulator.  I'm strongly inclined to believe this.

She is known to be one of the GOP's top fund raisers.  Her base feels enormous resentment towards the democrats and the "costal elites" who they believe look down on them and mock them. So when people dogpile and ridicule MTG over a mispronunciation or an incorrect word choice, they identify with and love her more.  That Gestapo/gazpacho mix-up and the resulting field day that that liberal twitter and media had with it probably brought millions in donations to Ms Taylor-Greene's coffers... and if there was a way to know the truth of it I would be willing to wager real money and offer 2 to 1 odds that the mix-up was entirely deliberate. 

6 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Radio report at 10pm my time said all three victim (Dr. and two nurses) were in critical condition.

 

Well, hopefully they will survive and fully recover.  

I remember from my time working graveyard shift in the transfusion department that people can get a surprising number of stab wounds and live.   I remember on guy who came in with over 40 stab wounds and pulled through.  Crazy right?  

1 hour ago, Sociotard said:

In other news, there was a mass knifing incident in an LA hospital. This is just a few days after that spree shooting in Tulsa.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/stabbing-critical-conditional-la-hospital-b2093758.html

 

Was there ever a breakdown of mass-killing events by method and country? Comparing spree shooting, knifing, bombing, and vehicular slaughter?

That was more of a stub than an actual article, but it didn't mention anyone being killed. 

2 hours ago, Bazza said:

 

Wow!  She really did beef up for the role!

Can't say I that I like that costume on him, though it would probably good on a comic book page.

6 hours ago, Bazza said:

 

Well, I feel suitably teased.

Any other day of the year, it would be the Emerald Archer, but on St. Patty's Day it can only be Sean Cassidy.

1 hour ago, wcw43921 said:

Better an asteroid half the size of a giraffe than an asteroid the size of Texas.

Are you sure?  This is an election year.

15 hours ago, archer said:

 

And the US military document from which he gets of lot of his analysis.  https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2017/spring/2Fiore17.pdf

 

edit: OMG is that a fantastic link. Written after the 2014 Russia-Ukraine war (and after the Russian involvement in Syria) and draws it's analysis from there.

It is funny how much like standard video game bosses BTG are.  They pack a hell of a punch, but are most vulnerable during and immediately after these big attacks.  They are surrounded by minions (the allied paramilitary units) which don't pose a creditable threat on their own and are their primarily shield and support the big bad.  They are best handled by keeping on the move, harassing and making sure that your counter-attacks do serious damage.  The main difference that I see that most video game bosses keep you on the clock by regenerating.  If you don't keep inflicting damage on them they will quickly get back to full health.  BTGs are very slow to regain health.  Instead they keep you on the clock by attacking civilians.  If you take too long to take them out, your final victory over them is too soaked in blood to be worth celebrating.  Okay, admittedly, that last part isn't so funny.

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

Although Putin is generally coldly rational, I anticipate his emotional commitment to this campaign will be one of the biggest stumbling blocks to peace. Vlad has long waxed nostalgic for the Soviet empire he grew up in. He's publicly stated that Ukraine and Belarus are part of Russia, not separate countries. It looks like restoring that empire is the legacy he dearly wants to leave. Having to backtrack from that will be very difficult for his ego to swallow, and may undermine his reputation with his fellow Russians even further than has already happened. It will probably be only temporary in any case.

 

Nonetheless, peace talks are currently under way in Belarus between Russian and Ukrainian negotiators. If Ukraine and its supporters can find a face-saving way for Putin to withdraw, the war may be resolved sooner rather than later. If not, it will drag on for months, if not years.

It should be pretty easy for Putin to save face, all he needs to do is pull a Trump.  He has created the problem of the supposed shelling of the Russian separatist regions of the Ukraine by the Ukrainian government.  Since this was never a real thing, it is easy for him to make it stop and then claim credit for stopping.  Trump used to do this all the time, "solving" problems that he himself created and maintained and then claiming credit. 

As long as neither the Ukrainians or the West insist on collecting a pound of flesh from the Russians over the pain and chaos that they have caused, then it will appear that he has cowed them into submission and saved the separatist from genocide.  What a hero!  Of course, both the Ukrainians and the West will want to punish him and Russia, but will they want it so much that they are willing to subject Ukraine to years of war, death and struggle?  No.  They will do what the Democrats always did with Trump, the sane and reasonable thing.  Just as the Democrats always provided the necessary votes to keep government running or solve whatever Constitutional crisis Trump had precipitated, the West will drop most of the sanctions against Russia and pick up the tab for putting the Ukraine back together.  It sucks, but it beats the hell out of a protracted war in Ukraine. 

4 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

Lots and lots of online speculation along these lines.  Is Putin crazy enough to attempt limited use of small yield nuclear weapons?  Probably.  Can we afford to let him benefit from nuclear blackmail?  Probably not.

I'm not buying it.  Is Putin a sociopath?  Sure.  That is pretty much in the job description for being head of the KGB.  However, he is a very, coldly rational person, which is also part of the job description.  It is basic game theory that in order to get any political mileage out of having nuclear weapons, you have to act like that you are crazy enough to maybe use them.  That is what we are seeing, an act.  

He is not going to start lobbing nukes just because things go badly in the Ukraine.  Not unless, a major power swoops in and attacks Russian soldiers, and none of them have any plans on doing this.  So, there are currently a thousand things to worry about, but imminent nuclear war is not one of them.