Posts by Brent Jackson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I never thought that I would be missing Lockwood Smith. Carter is such a disappointing Speaker.
-
I assume the bridge is to give access westward along the NW cycle-way, not eastward into town.
-
I was really surprised at how pricey it was. When I first heard about it, I thought that'd be great to take the kids to. But when I found out it was triple the price I was expecting, I decided to flag it.
-
I think he is merely advocating for anyone other than Goff ("and don't bother voting for me").
-
Saw the play of "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time" last month. It was really well done, and, although I had already read the book, it gave me a much better idea of how sensory overload can easily lead to a meltdown. The play also showed really well the difficulties of parenting a child with Autism, and the strains that it puts on family life.
-
Looking at your chart, it appears obvious that USA should never have been a part of it. Removing the USA dots gives heaps of overlap for the remaining dots.
However, it is probably just indicative of how simplisticly arbitrary this sort of chart is. There are hundreds of clauses in the agreement that each of the different nations would put greater or lesser emphasis on, and reducing that sort of complexity down to a two-dimensional, scale-less chart, is highly unlikely to reveal anything meaningful.
-
Legal Beagle: Voting in an STV election, in reply to Michael Homer,
You planning to use your program for anything ?
If you have access to any old STV election data, it'd be interesting to pump it through your program, and compare the results to see if they ever differ. I'm guessing that it is unlikely to ever make a difference in a real world election.
-
Thanks for that Steve. The correct link is this.
-
I can’t fathom what’s going through their heads.
I could hazard a guess, that for some of them, it is a safety mechanism. It is the risky behaviour that is at fault, so as long as they don't do any of that risky stuff, they think that they will be safe.
But if I did, I'd probably be man-splaining ...
-
Legal Beagle: Voting in an STV election, in reply to Steve Todd,
In fact, I consider NZ STV is about as far as we can go in the refinement-manageability-public understanding trade-off in the single transferable vote
The one change I would like to see is a mechanism to reduce invalid ballots, which would also allow a person to rank the candidates they want at the top, and the ones they don’t want at the bottom, without requiring them to rank every candidate.
Something like, upon reaching 2 or more candidates with the same ranking, the remaining vote should be split evenly between them. So if someone mistakenly writes two 14s and no 16, then the votes split to those ranked 14. If one doesn't require it, it goes to the other, and if neither require it, it continues on to 15.
In addition, any unranked candidates are assumed to have the lowest ranking that has not been assigned to any candidate.
For example : With 40 candidates, and 1,2,3, 39, and 40 assigned on the voting paper, then the other 35 candidates are given a ranking of 38. If 1,2,3 no longer require all of the vote, then the remainder is spread over all the other candidates, except those that were ranked 39 and 40.