|
Count Roland posted:I think its pretty funny a formula was actually suggested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallagher_Index
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 07:22 |
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Haha do the Liberals think voters are scared of math? that entire formula can be represented in one short sentence in plain english - they're betting (and they may be right) that people will get freaked out by a summation sign inside a square root. That's practically the same characters that ISIS uses donchaknow!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Why on earth do the standards for online voting need to be 10x stricter than in person voting? The current system has no way of ensuring that bought votes are excluded, yet that doesn't appear to be an impediment to holding elections. That's arguably far more likely to be a widespread problem than an abused spouse being forced to flip a single vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
I'm not entirely sure the Liberals know what they're doing here either. Anyone under forty has grown up hearing about climate change and seeing nothing done, so I don't think the pipelines are going to gradually become ok and forgotten by the average Canadian. I really don't
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
yippee cahier posted:Why on earth do the standards for online voting need to be 10x stricter than in person voting? If anyone tries to buy my vote, I can just tell them I'm voting the way they want while actually voting the way I want. They can't actually watch me vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:Where do I sign up for $400m more worth of this? He's branched out to W https://www.facebook.com/MajumderManor/ Trapick posted:Just want to highlight this, as it's the absolute drop-dead problem with online voting. Even if (giant if) you could fix all the technical problems, do proper authentication, eliminate the threat of malware, guarantee against network interference, etc. etc. etc., you still couldn't do a drat thing about having an abusive husband watching over his wife's shoulders as she votes online. Going to an elementary school, walking behind a curtain, and making a mark on some paper is a really good way to run elections. The same issue currently applies to voting by mail, which is currently an available option OSI bean dip posted:You haven't answer my questions. What makes you so sure besides your qualifications that they're irrelevant? I try to post in 3, maybe 4 sentences between doing important things to stay productive. Sometimes I may even find good articles from my RSS reader that are relevant. Right now I've pressed F5 so I have just enough time to press post. By the end of this sentence, I will sadly be back to work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
yippee cahier posted:Why on earth do the standards for online voting need to be 10x stricter than in person voting? Sure it does. Bought votes are excluded because you can tell the person who bought your vote "I'll totally vote for your guy" then go to your polling station and secretly vote for the other guy, then leave and say "Yeah I totally voted for your guy". s. 164(2)(b) of the Elections Act even disallows displaying (or taking a picture of) your ballot so it's illegal for someone to ask you to prove it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:I try to post in 3, maybe 4 sentences between doing important things to stay productive. Sometimes I may even find good articles from my RSS reader that are relevant. Right now I've pressed F5 so I have just enough time to press post. By the end of this sentence, I will sadly be back to work. https://twitter.com/dril/status/134787490526658561
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:s. 164(2)(b) of the Elections Act even disallows displaying (or taking a picture of) your ballot so it's illegal for someone to ask you to prove it. Okay buddy listen you can buy my vote, that's all good but s. 164(2)(b) is where I draw the line, I'm definitely not taking a picture to prove it, that's ILLEGAL. Cavote emptor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:If anyone tries to buy my vote, I can just tell them I'm voting the way they want while actually voting the way I want. They can't actually watch me vote. vyelkin posted:Sure it does. Bought votes are excluded because you can tell the person who bought your vote "I'll totally vote for your guy" then go to your polling station and secretly vote for the other guy, then leave and say "Yeah I totally voted for your guy". s. 164(2)(b) of the Elections Act even disallows displaying (or taking a picture of) your ballot so it's illegal for someone to ask you to prove it. They can turn around and buy an unprincipled person's vote instead of your insincere promise of a vote in that case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:Okay buddy listen you can buy my vote, that's all good but s. 164(2)(b) is where I draw the line, I'm definitely not taking a picture to prove it, that's ILLEGAL. Cavote emptor. yippee cahier posted:They can turn around and buy an unprincipled person's vote instead of your insincere promise of a vote in that case. The point is that someone unprincipled enough to agree to vote-buying is probably unprincipled enough to lie to the vote-buyer and vote however they want anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
yippee cahier posted:They can turn around and buy an unprincipled person's vote instead of your insincere promise of a vote in that case. what guarantees that that unprincipled person will vote the way the vote-buyer wants?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/sorry-vancouver-the-rest-of-canada-needs-pipelines/article33123104/ posted:
The arrogance and condescension in this is infuriating. Love the little threat at the end too... "If you dare to punish the Liberals for this, the Conservatives are coming back to wreck your poo poo even worse!" You know, when the fight comes to Burnaby Mountain, I think I might actually be willing to get arrested for the first time. gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:I try to post in 3, maybe 4 sentences between doing important things to stay productive. Sometimes I may even find good articles from my RSS reader that are relevant. Right now I've pressed F5 so I have just enough time to press post. By the end of this sentence, I will sadly be back to work. I won't argue with jm20 on this further because he has admitted to being a low-content poster. vyelkin posted:Sure it does. Bought votes are excluded because you can tell the person who bought your vote "I'll totally vote for your guy" then go to your polling station and secretly vote for the other guy, then leave and say "Yeah I totally voted for your guy". s. 164(2)(b) of the Elections Act even disallows displaying (or taking a picture of) your ballot so it's illegal for someone to ask you to prove it. This makes sense to me and is something I never considered when I took a photo of my vote--of which I posted in this thread. That said, what would be appropriate punishment for this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:I won't argue with jm20 on this further because he has admitted to being a low-content poster. Apparently you can get a $1,000 fine and up to three months in jail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
I hope no one protests the pipeline in a way that inconveniences or annoys anyone else, that would be un-canadian. Protests that can't be 100% ignored are against our love of rule-of-law, they're also economic terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
yippee cahier posted:Why on earth do the standards for online voting need to be 10x stricter than in person voting? because we are highly qualified and respected sysadmins
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I hope no one protests the pipeline in a way that inconveniences or annoys anyone else, that would be un-canadian. Protests that can't be 100% ignored are against our love of rule-of-law, they're also economic terrorism. Protesters can just block the whole Barnett Highway and see how long that lasts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I hope no one protests the pipeline in a way that inconveniences or annoys anyone else, that would be un-canadian. Protests that can't be 100% ignored are against our love of rule-of-law, they're also economic terrorism. I hope the opposite, can't wait to see a crown of lululemon nimbys get watercannoned and the ensuing shock that the police would do that when it's below 10 degrees, don't they know it's winter, jeez.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:The arrogance and condescension in this is infuriating. Love the little threat at the end too... "If you dare to punish the Liberals for this, the Conservatives are coming back to wreck your poo poo even worse!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:The same issue currently applies to voting by mail, which is currently an available option  I'd like to see more early (in-person) voting, setting up polling places in hospital/care homes, etc. to reduce the need for vote-by-mail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Oh and BTW, the RCMP want a bunch of new investigative powers that even the Conservatives thought were too extreme. Trudeau's Liberals will be also bringing forward new anti-terrorism legislation nobody asked for in the new year. I'm sure those powers won't be abused in any way  I hope everyone enjoys having their civil liberties thrown out for their "economic well-being" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I hope no one protests the pipeline in a way that inconveniences or annoys anyone else, that would be un-canadian. Protests that can't be 100% ignored are against our love of rule-of-law, they're also economic terrorism. Thats what Free Speech zones are for!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
If you do plan to sabotage the pipeline please don't tell the whole internet, keep it quiet and leave your smartphone at home
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The Liberals really, really, really want Alternative Vote/Instant Runoff Voting because it heavily favours centrist parties like the Liberals, but it is not a proportional system and would probably get a very high Gallagher score, possibly even higher than First Past the Post. All of this goes back to the fact that different measures of voting goodness are mathematically incompatible (see e.g. Arrow's famous impossibility theorem). That theorem really only applies at the single riding level, so the local -> global problem adds another layer of nuance. There is actually nothing intrinsically 'correct' about the Gallagher score -- it strongly reflects a value judgement that the overall distribution of seats mirroring the overall distribution of votes is the most important feature that a voting system should have. It's actually a little bit tricky to fit AV/IRV into the Gallagher framework, but if you only look at the highest-level vote it is virtually guaranteed to have a higher Gallagher score than FPTP (plurality vote winner-take-all gets a lower score than someone who doesn't even have a plurality getting 100% of the seats). This isn't a bad or even more disproportional thing -- ranked ballots contain a lot more information and require more thought to analyze. And if we go back to 2011 there probably would have been 100% approval within this thread for adopting AV/IRV. I personally like the AV/IRV system because it generally avoids the outcome of least-preferable candidates being elected while retaining the connection of individual candidates to their ridings. And beyond that I think it is safe to say that the parties here are supporting the voting systems that they are in part because they anticipate what the consequences are of adopting such a system. But the way the Liberals have gone about this whole thing is incredibly cowardly and intellectual dishonest. vyelkin posted:gently caress the Liberals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
THC posted:Oh and BTW, the RCMP want a bunch of new investigative powers that even the Conservatives thought were too extreme. Trudeau's Liberals will be also bringing forward new anti-terrorism legislation nobody asked for in the new year. I'm sure those powers won't be abused in any way well how are the rcmp going to catch terrorists without these new powers you don't want them to go and send up another pair of retarded crackheads do u
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:The arrogance and condescension in this is infuriating. Love the little threat at the end too... "If you dare to punish the Liberals for this, the Conservatives are coming back to wreck your poo poo even worse!" There is also the alternative which is diversifying the economy away from 70% housing and fossil fuels. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-stagnant-national-wealth-reliant-oil-1.3877754 But lol this is Canada we're talking about here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/5g3z5y/whats_your_secret_to_living_here/ i loving love this thread. tldr, some poo poo heel makes 35k/year working in the ~movies~ and is wondering how people can live in vancouver. everyone is telling him to get out loooooool
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-spca-dogs-seized-squamish-1.3877154quote:According to the SPCA, the dogs were badly matted and were suffering from several conditions, including: dumb gently caress canadians, stop creating a market for pets jfc
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:There is actually nothing intrinsically 'correct' about the Gallagher score -- it strongly reflects a value judgement that the overall distribution of seats mirroring the overall distribution of votes is the most important feature that a voting system should have. There isn't, but a clear majority of Canadians, in every consultation done throughout the process, has expressed a desire for a system that produces a proportional result. That's the reason why the committee report included the Gallagher Index and recommended 'do something that scores well on this'. quote:I personally like the AV/IRV system because it generally avoids the outcome of least-preferable candidates being elected while retaining the connection of individual candidates to their ridings. And beyond that I think it is safe to say that the parties here are supporting the voting systems that they are in part because they anticipate what the consequences are of adopting such a system. There are half a dozen different ways to achieve this without having to resort to AV/IRV, and forever enshrining two party rule.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:19
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
namaste faggots posted:https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/5g3z5y/whats_your_secret_to_living_here/ quote:It will take me 15 - 20 years to save enough for a down payment on a house costing $300,000.... But at least he has his Canadian Priorities straight -- gotta have that overpriced house! (where the gently caress is he going to find a house costing $300,000 in Vancouver?)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Jan posted:But at least he has his Canadian Priorities straight -- gotta have that overpriced house!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:There are half a dozen different ways to achieve this without having to resort to AV/IRV, and forever enshrining two party rule. No. The problem is that achieving maximal fairness at the level of individual ridings (what AV does well) is incompatible with achieving proportional representation at the federal level. That's the crux of the tradeoff -- that to achieve the latter you will have to elect people who a majority of their constituents don't want (or create super-ridings where elected officials are only nominally connected to their local constituents). I'm also not convinced that this will forever enshrine two party rule, either (look at e.g. the provincial NDP in Alberta). Parties, and their policies, will adapt, and I don't think that naked centrism is a guaranteed winning strategy or anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Province by province, large riding, MMP is simple and easy. You get PR and all you have to do is just redraw the districts to be much larger. You can't gerrymander when the GVRD is one riding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:No. The problem is that achieving maximal fairness at the level of individual ridings (what AV does well) is incompatible with achieving proportional representation at the federal level. That's the crux of the tradeoff -- that to achieve the latter you will have to elect people who a majority of their constituents don't want (or create super-ridings where elected officials are only nominally connected to their local constituents). Those things aren't really incompatible though. In an MMP system, there's really no reason you couldn't run the regional MP election according to an AV/IRV ranked ballot. Combine that with a proportional balancing at the end which adds extra MPs to achieve proportionality, and chose them according to best performing non-elected candidates. Some MPs will technically be unaffiliated with a particular riding, but every riding has a specific representative, and all MPs still have to run local campaigns, as they need to perform well in whatever riding they originally ran in. If you want to see what AV/IRV actually does, you seriously need to go read up on Australia. The upper house includes a number of smaller parties, elected thanks to STV. None of them has ever broken through in the lower house, because AV/IRV crushes all upstart parties.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
As of today, Vancouver SkyTrain is now the longest metro system in Canada. Suck it Montreailures 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
how about we just allow the queen to directly rule the country? seems easier at this point imo
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
THC posted:As of today, Vancouver SkyTrain is now the longest metro system in Canada. Suck it Montreailures Longest automated metro system in the world too 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Landsknecht posted:how about we just allow the queen to directly rule the country? seems easier at this point imo This, but only if we elect the queen and it's me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 07:22 |
|
|
THC posted:As of today, Vancouver SkyTrain is now the longest metro system in Canada. Suck it Montreailures Canada: do a thing and then rent seek for forty years after things start to get tough but you lobby the government to give you a defacto monopoly so you can rent seek for another forty years on antiquated tech and services.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:56
|
|