He's backed progressives in the recent state elections. I don't know if he actually cares or not, but he seems to want to win, and that's how you win these days.
There's this interview;
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 933
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 933
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
STAR uses ratings, not Rankings. There is Ranked Robin, but that's not STAR.
Ranked Robin has more complexity in the count, but the good thing is that it always elects the Condorcet winner, because he sort of invented the system. Well, an early version. Ranked Robin is the formalized modern version, and you could argue that since equal ranks are allowed in Ranked Robin, it's closer to ratings.
I used the word formalized because STAR and Ranked Robin both have specific written procedures for the ballot appearance, the counting, and basically everything else you need to run an election using the system.
It makes adoption easier when you don't have to design anything, just follow directions for a fairly representative election.
You also have a rather large percentage of your head that isn't brain.
I'd say it's important to use the word "rating" when talking about STAR. This is actually by design. Introduce it to people by saying "Give the politician an honest rating 0-5 stars". And if they're all rated as ones and zeroes, I don't see a problem.
Well, we're in luck, the new chair of the DNC (Ken Martin) wants more candidates like Zohran Mamdani, and he has complete control over the DNC until August 2029.
He's also pouring money into local races, supporting the local democratic parties the previous few DNC chairs mostly ignored.
STAR and Ranked Robin are definitively not RCV.
RCV, or IRV as it's known elsewhere in the world, is an Ordinal voting system. That means spoiler effect and enforced two party dominance.
STAR and Ranked Robin are on the Cardinal side of things. No spoiler effect, because votes you can give equal support to multiple candidates.
If I really like two different candidates and don't particularly care which one wins, I can say that on a STAR or Ranked Robin ballot.
In RCV I have to make a strategic choice, and if I get that choice wrong, it's not just my guy who loses, but possibly my entire side.
So no, they are not the same. And it's worse because of RCV's lack of Monotonicity.
Non-negative responsiveness or monotonicity is a property of a social choice rule, which says that increasing a candidate's rank on some ballots should not cause them to lose (or vice versa, that decreasing a candidate's rank should not cause them to win).[1] This means rankings can be interpreted as ordering candidates from best to worst, with higher ranks corresponding to more support. Voting systems that violate non-negative responsiveness can be said to exhibit negative response,[2][3] perversity,[4] or an additional support paradox.[5]
And then explicitly;
Runoff-based voting systems such as ranked choice voting (RCV) are typically vulnerable to negative response. A notable example is the 2009 Burlington mayoral election, the United States' second instant-runoff election in the modern era, where Bob Kiss won the election as a result of 750 ballots ranking him in last place.[16] Another example is given by the 2022 Alaska at-large special election.
So no, RCV is actually somehow worse than First Past the Post.
Also, that rule about needing more than 50% of the vote? Yeah, that too is a lie. Ballot exhaustion means that it's 50% of the ballots that are left in the final round. If you didn't guess correctly who made it to the final round, your ballot is just thrown away. It's called ballot exhaustion.
Another popular lie is that your vote transfers in order on your ballot. It transfers in order to the candidates who are left. That's why Bob Kiss won from being ranked last on various ballots. The people before him were eliminated before the first name on the ballot, so the vote skipped a bunch of names and transferred from the first name to the last.
All this because when you hold an RCV election, what you're really doing is just holding a series of First Past the Post elections on the same ballot. You can't fix the problems of First Past the Post by repeating First Past the Post a bunch of times.
Ranked Choice has a Monotonicity problem. i.e. it's possible for a candidate to lose if a more people rank that candidate higher on their own ballot without changing any other ballots.
This has happened in recent RCV elections, and resulted in the candidate's ideological opposition winning.
There's a group called FairVote that's been pushing RCV since the early 90s despite the many flaws of the system. Flaws that have been known since the system was first designed in 1788.
Seriously, Instant Runoff Voting was invented by the Marquis de Condorcet in 1788 as an example of a broken election system that can eliminate candidates preferred by a majority of voters.
It was later reinvented in the late 1850s by an Englishman who presumably never learned French.
Anyway a modern voting system for consideration is STAR, it was developed in 2014 by people who have read Condorcet, the the works of Kenneth Arrow from the 1950s. (Arrow's Impossibility Theorium)
Find more info at www.equal.vote
There's a way to cook a steak called black and blue. It was invented by steel foundry workers.
Basically you take a thiner steak and slap it on a red hot slab of steel for a few seconds each side.
You get a nice outer char mixed with an almost raw center.
Anyway, red hot steel is not something that most people have access to, but I have a few different types of forge, both solid fuel and gas.
The Unification Church is a bit special. They were the ones who stepped in to fund the Contra death squads in-between the time Congress cut the funds and the CIA setting up their missile deal with Iran.
This was not the first or last Nazi death squad that the Moonies funded. (The leader of the Unification Church was a Korean man named "Reverend Moon".)
The Moonies were part of the post WW2 Rat line, and helped found and fund the World Anti-Communist League. Which was mostly just unleashing death squads.
You do know that uranium oxide is water soluble right? The ocean has more radioactive material in it than the land does, also water is very good at blocking radiation. That's why it's used for spent fuel cooling pools.
So the physics says that if you're going to have fallout, the ocean is the best place for it. Provided that the fallout doesn't float. Then it will most likely end up washing up on the shores of Japan.
The key here is that the bombs available in 1950 were orders of magnitude weaker than modern nukes.
Castle Brovo alone was stronger than every bomb from the MacArthur plan combined.
Using hundreds of Castle Brovo sized bombs would fuck up the world, using the bombs MacArthur had access to? Not as much.
The Kurds have never been part of ISIS or the Taliban.
No, the Kurds are the ethnicity that always sides with the US, and then the US abandons them.
Been happening since at least the 1920s.
That's the personalized prices. That's step two.
This one is the digital price tags that let the store manager or corporate office instantly raise prices throughout the store for everyone.
Hell, just look back a bit for the shit done in the open.
I submit King Leopold the 2nd of Belgium. In Belgium he's known as "the builder king" because he spent so much of his own money to build parks and civic buildings and such.
Money that was acquired through what was described at the time as Crimes Against Humanity.
The problem with Waco was the firebombing itself. The cops wanted a big standoff rather than just arresting the cult leader when he went out into town, which he did repeatedly.
Leaderless cults can be picked apart without gunfire.
That's the recent trend.
Well, the American government, and the Israeli government, the Russian government, the Chinese government, the UK government, the German government, and a bunch more, add in the dictatorships who can't fuck around outside their own boarders, and you basically have every government.
For MacArthur, that plan, while horrific, wasn't as bad as you're painting it, if only because the bombs would have been much lower yield than modern nukes.
It would kill millions, especially if he used ground burst instead of air burst, but the actual global effect would be negligible. Cancer rates would spike in Northern Japan, but the fallout would mostly be over water.
Air burst would have even less effect, because there would be no fallout. (fallout is stuff from the ground that gets mixed with the radioactive material and free neutrons in a ground burst nuclear explosion, it's heavy so it falls out)
Still an insane plan and MacArthur was justly fired for it and a bunch of other similar insanity, I just wish the Dulles brothers had been similarly fired for the shit they pulled.
Oh, you want 20th century again? You didn't like it in my original comment, but back to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, proven definitively in 1950.
Arrow's impossibility theorem is a key result in social choice theory showing that no ranked-choice procedure for group decision-making can satisfy the requirements of rational choice.[1] Specifically, American economist Kenneth Arrow showed no such rule can satisfy independence of irrelevant alternatives, the principle that a choice between two alternatives A and B should not depend on the quality of some third, unrelated option, C.[2][3][4]
The result is often cited in discussions of voting rules,[5] where it shows no ranked voting rule can eliminate the spoiler effect.[6][7][8] This result was first shown by the Marquis de Condorcet, whose voting paradox showed the impossibility of logically-consistent majority rule; Arrow's theorem generalizes Condorcet's findings to include non-majoritarian rules like collective leadership or consensus decision-making.[1]
Then a bit later, this important part;
Rated voting rules, where voters assign a separate grade to each candidate, are not affected by Arrow's theorem.[17][18][19] Arrow initially asserted the information provided by these systems was meaningless and therefore could not be used to prevent paradoxes, leading him to overlook them.[20] However, Arrow would later describe this as a mistake,[21][22] admitting rules based on cardinal utilities (such as score and approval voting) are not subject to his theorem.[23][24]
The Spoiler Effect is when a voting system fails independence of irrelevant alternatives. This is what drives two party dominance, after all, if you're punished for voting third party, third parties become actively harmful. This is why the major support for most third parties comes from their ideological opponents. Jill Stein being super cozy with Russia and Republican donors being the key recent example.
I'm falling for the mathematical truth.
We've known that Ordinal voting was bad since the 1780s, The Mathematician, philosopher and Girondian, Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, the Marquis de Condorcet, wrote the seminal work on it; Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Majority Decisions (Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix). Found here in the original French
We haven't fixed anything, because the voting method itself is broken. In any First Past the Post election, you have the Spoiler Effect, where just a few votes for a third party can guarantee that the person furthest from that candidate on the political spectrum wins. Look at Ross Perot securing Clinton's win in 1992 and Ralph Nader securing Bush's win in 2000.
None of that shit is fixed because we're still using the broken system, a system that wasn't actually ever really designed as such, it was just the default easiest way to do things and enables minority rule.
It's a consequence of Ordinal voting methods, particularly First Past the Post.
Arrow's Impossibility Theorium spells it out. https://electowiki.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
The tldr is that any ranked voting system will result in two parties.
This is really because all ranked voting systems are built around the word "Or".
You support A or B. Which means that A and B have incentive to demonize each other, because every vote for A is one less potential vote for B.
The solution is abandoning Ordinal voting for a Cardinal system.
The simplest method is Approval.
Approval voting is a single-winner electoral system where each voter may select ("approve") any number of candidates. The winner is the candidate approved by the largest number of voters. It is distinct from plurality voting, in which a voter may choose only one option among several (where the option with the most selections is declared the winner). It is related to score voting in which voters give each option a score on a scale, and the option with the highest total of scores is selected.
Another option is STAR.
It's been deliberately designed to make for better election results.
It looks like their setup, but I don't see any recent videos. Jan 15th was their last one. I think they have a patreon with bonus clips and advance stuff.
Might be from that.