March 6, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.12 has been released.
News: February 3, 2024: The February '24 Report is up.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
Honestly I suspect Andrew425 more but don't want to be seen as 'joining the bandwagon'.
Do you have any suspicions other than the obvious one? Trying to pretend you're interested in scumhunting without committing?
What's your read on Remalle? You've gone back and forth with him a lot, but I can't see an opinion of him in your words.
but I'm going after Andrew right now so it doesn't really matter to me.Worries me. I don't think the town should ever stop scumhunting even if you're sure you've found one.
Andrew425 - You unvoted drakon136 because he posted that he did defend himself, that he was afraid of being lynched, that he thinks everyone should be afraid of being lynched, and asking you what is scummy about defending your reputation over actually trying to find scum. What?
All you've done is make a token vote for drakon136 and then quickly withdrew it.
Because in 160 areas, people chose to pick the conservatives over the others.I'm sorry to bring this up again, but I actually ran the on this for another forum after the last Canadian election.
Data from here.
Of 308 seats, 145 were won with an outright majority (>50%) of the votes. That's roughly 47%, with 53% won with only a plurality.
The Conservatives actually did better than average, holding an outright majority in a full 107 seats of their 160 seat total. But that's still far from them having clear majority support in a majority of wards.
Lowering the threshold, 42 seats were won with less than 40% of the vote (11 Conservative) while two were held with less than a third (Vancouver Centre by the Liberals and Ahuntsic by BQ).
These numbers are pretty good comparatively. In the 2010 UK elections, out of 650 seats, 432 were won with less than 50% of the vote. That's a full two thirds of Parliament, almost exactly. 110 (17%) were won with less than 40% and 10 seats were won with less than a third of votes behind them.
That's why I'm not a fan of FPTP. You can (and commonly do) have well under 50% of the voting public supporting the winning candidate. Even if you agree that you need a single representative for a given population, a representative elected under FPTP was likely dependent on only a minority of that population's support.
Under AV (or IRV; lots of different names for the same thing) a candidate needs at least the consent of 50% + 1 of the voters. They don't have to be their first choice, just ranked above other candidates. AV isn't necessarily more proportional on the national level, but it means the elected individual is more representative and answerable to their constituency.
For Westminster style parliaments it simply makes more sense.
And yes I'm still sore about that referendum.
One vote per person, that's better.
That is exactly WHY we need proportional representation. Right now the vote of myself and every other voter in Maryland mattered almost not at all because there wasn't a single competitive national election for the House or Senate last election in the entire state of Maryland. Somebody who lived in the 10% of districts nationwide that we're actually competitive on the other hand had their votes count to determining the direction of the entire country. In practical terms, I got 0 votes while some people got 10.
That is not 1 man 1 vote. 1 man 1 vote would be that we all get a vote and all of our votes count equally towards determining the composition of congress.
If your aim is for everybody to be equal then FPTP is literally the worst possible system you could dream up short of actually illegal shit like rotten boroughs.This is what we have right now, with loose districts. PR would just amalgamate the ridings into one giant area which would make our government even more consolidated.
No. It. Would. Not. It is very simple to combine a proportional representative situation with all the stuff you love. You get to keep your local representative. It's just that some additional seats "at large" are created to accommodate voters who's candidates lost. This isn't complicated and we already explained it to you.
Andrew, you still haven't said a single way in which FTPT is better than, say, Approval Voting. In fact, IRV voting would have the same consolidation of power FPTP has - so what, exactly, is your opposition based on?
we want a loose government that can effectively govern wildly disparate areas.
Because in 160 areas, people chose to pick the conservatives over the others.No.
It consolidates power and it gets stuff done unlike Europe which is consistently deadlocked.
And Quebec got screwed, which makes me happy.
In 137ish areas, 40-60% of people chose to pick the Conservatives, and the rest voted against them. 40-60% of people were fucked over entirely. If you call that fair, cool, our definitions are so far apart that we might as well not even further discuss this.
Consolidation of power in Canada is so laughable as to be hilarious. We don't WANT consolidation of power, we want a loose government that can effectively govern wildly disparate areas. Consolidation of power in Canada is possibly the worst thing we could have. It ensures that all of us get screwed over by other places in the country.
However, it does afford me the opportunity to laugh at whichever part of Canada you're in when Quebec resurges (inevitable), and you see that the hammer swings both ways.
I guess I should clarify that I live in Canada.What? Proportional Representation is the best system for Canada. FPTP has done very little good for us recently.
And I like the way it is there, I think they need to do change the electoral college in the states, but I don't think they should change fptp
And besides, unless you are doing a write in candidate, the odds are you are voting on the basis of party nomination anyway in a first past the post system. So even though you have a 'choice', it's just a choice between two guys.
No that is a lie. You would rather have someone say that because you imagine yourself a, lets say, "Conservative" that you are obligated for AMERICA to vote for this guy.
