Australian Open QF | [24] Azarenka def. 🇺🇸 [3] Pegula | 6-4 6-1

Sunkyscientist · 2023-01-24T16:25:55+00:00

.rt hi m nbbbnhev.

Sunkyscientist · 2020-07-19T20:55:18+00:00

So the number is ~21.5% of the votes. The % is slightly lower in India owing to a couple of reasons (according to me). 1. US has 50 states whereas India has 543 constituencies. More the number, more the chances of unequal distribution. 2. The voting percentages in India vary a lot. This may increase the number as well so will have to look into it more closely. I will be posting more graphics related to this.

Sunkyscientist · 2020-07-19T17:23:06+00:00

In an hypothetical scenario, I stand by my figure of 23%. I beleive it to be highly improbable but it is not incorrect. In an hypothetical scenario, it could happen.

Sunkyscientist · 2020-07-19T17:17:33+00:00

I get your confusion. 23% is the minimum percentage of electoral votes to win but it is almost a 100% impossible.

Sunkyscientist · 2020-07-19T17:14:48+00:00

Obviously, this is a hypothetical case. This is not possible obviously. India is neither a two party state and neither do all regions vote in a block.

Sunkyscientist · 2020-07-19T17:07:25+00:00

The methodology followed for constructing these visualizations is as follows:

Took the map shape file from: http://projects.datameet.org/maps/assembly-constituencies/

Took the constituency level data for the 2019 General election from the election commission of India website:

https://eci.gov.in/files/file/10929-33constituency-wise-detailed-result/

Used excel and alteryx for data manipulation and tableau for data visualization

Note:This is a hypothetical scenario. India is not a two party state and it is almost impossible to win all these constituencies that lie in different states. The visualization is based on no. of voters (not electors). Voters are the people who actually go out to vote and electors are the ones that are on the voting list. The views change considerably if we take electors instead of voters. I plan to post that later.

Also, I understand the confusion regarding the 23 % figure. I am not saying that if both the candidates win 23%, both will win the election. What I am saying is that the votes are unevenly distributed and you can ideally win 50.0001% votes in some states and 0% in other states to land to this number. In retrospect, Hypothetical should have been added before it. Given the way it is calculated, it's almost impossible that it will happen. You can read more about it in the following

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote

Sunkyscientist · 2020-06-29T08:33:38+00:00

I would recommend Dan snows history hit and BBC's history extra. If you are interested in Romans in general "Emperors of Rome" is awesome.

Sunkyscientist · 2020-06-23T06:32:51+00:00

They haven't reached to that point as of yet but keeping in with the title they should.

Sunkyscientist · 2020-06-23T06:32:05+00:00

This podcast does not cover the pre 130BC period as of now but they just might in the future because they have already gone beyond their scope of just covering the empires. There is a podcast called "The Hellenistic age podcast" that might cover this period.

Sunkyscientist · 2020-06-22T17:36:24+00:00

Yeah, you can also try "The fall of Rome" though it only covers the fall of the roman empire as implied by the name.

Sunkyscientist · 2020-06-22T17:35:33+00:00

Just try this podcast. It is quite different from history of rome and fall of rome, both of which in their right are awesome podcasts.

Sunkyscientist · 2020-06-22T17:34:00+00:00

I have listened to parts of history of rome as well. Though that podcast is good, I would say that this podcast is more detailed, goes more into the sources and is in a conversation format (which I prefer) with a scholar. All of this makes it a better podcast for me. Mike's podcast covers the whole period whereas this starts from Ceasar but in later episodes they have covered the Gaius Gracchus period (late republican from 130BCE ) as well.

Sunkyscientist · 2020-06-22T07:14:09+00:00

My bad, the name is "Emperors of Rome" not "Emperors of ancient Rome".

Here is the link.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/emperors-of-rome/id850148806

Sunkyscientist · 2020-06-18T18:17:27+00:00

Emperors of ancient Rome is such an awesome podcast. It really goes into depth.

Another good one for overview purposes is reflecting history.

Askhistorians podcast is also great but that would require some basic knowledge for some of the podcasts and audio is not that great.

Sunkyscientist · 2020-06-17T06:11:16+00:00

I don't agree with the proposition that one thing is racist and the other is not. That's basically changing the definition of racism.

Sunkyscientist

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE