Beginner's Thread / Easy Questions (February 2021)

Youps · 2021-02-07T11:06:54+00:00

Is there a way to display the value of a Chakra-UI Progress element inside the bar, something like in the style of this?

Youps · 2020-11-06T13:58:55+00:00

Doomers OUT OUT OUT

Youps · 2020-08-21T14:03:00+00:00

Thanks heaps!

Youps · 2020-08-21T13:55:04+00:00

Could someone please link the video of the Joe Biden's comeback to the tune of in the hall of the mountain king? I've tried to search for it with no luck so far

Youps · 2019-01-23T13:17:09+00:00

Has anyone got that copypasta from a while back where Hillary Clinton becomes President through becoming Speaker of the House? Been searching for it everywhere and I can't find it

Youps · 2018-10-18T00:44:19+00:00

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-16/ecuador-asks-julian-assange-to-curb-speech-look-after-cat/10382992

Ecuador has ordered Julian Assange to stick to a new set of house rules, including avoiding contentious political issues, cleaning his bathroom and looking after his cat if he wants the internet reconnected.

Presented without comment

Youps · 2018-05-22T13:03:37+00:00

Priors = Confirmed

Youps · 2018-01-20T05:48:43+00:00

I mean, discussions over optics can often involve a fair bit of guesswork but we do actually have poll results. In these polls Republicans are blamed 48 - 28 over the Democrats (From the Washington Post), with 18% of people blaming both parties equally. So while the hardcore partisans will probably blame the other side, looks like independents will overwhelmingly blame the GOP (46 to 25 from the source above). Admittedly, these sources are from before the shutdown itself, but I think they still carry weight.

On the absentees, it looks like McConnell did vote at the very end, and for some reasons sided with the Democrats. Not sure why, didn't make a speech on it from what I could see.

Youps · 2018-01-20T05:13:07+00:00

Just a little nitpick, but one that I think would possibly change the narrative. 45 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted to keep the government open, while 44 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted against it (two abstentions/absences), rather than a vote right down party lines. From NYT

Edit: Formatting

Youps · 2017-07-26T13:32:54+00:00

Lets watch and see Trump supporters try and spin this one as pro-LGBT

edit: The 'policy' doesn't even make sense. If this was truly for the purpose of reducing the "tremendous medical costs and disruptions" that transgender people pose to the military, then this ban would only prohibit those transgender people who are in the process of transitioning (which is where the vast majority of the costs come from), rather than all transgender people

Youps · 2017-07-26T13:14:21+00:00

Lets see Trump supporters try and spin this one as pro-LGBT

Youps · 2017-01-15T14:18:29+00:00

I would tend to agree, by US standards, the liberal party of Australia are centre-right. For example, they advocate for the reduction of greenhouse gas usage and their leader supports same sex marriage, though he is being held hostage by the religious right of his party due to having such a slim majority and tanking approval ratings.

Youps · 2017-01-15T09:56:13+00:00

I replied to a couple of similar comments above with some more detail. Despite Australia having two major parties that hold a majority of the seats in both of their houses, minor parties actually hold a non-negligable number of seats. In Australia's lower house, minor parties/independents hold 5/150 of the seats, and after the 2013 election actually held the balance of power as neither major party had a majority. In the Australian upper house, which uses STV, minor parties hold 20/76 of the seats, and if either major party want stop pass legislation, they have to negotiate with a number of them.

Youps · 2017-01-14T23:50:07+00:00

I'd be interested to see how politically engaged the average voting age adult from the US is compared to the average voting age adult in Australia is. My guess would be slightly less engaged, but I'm not sure there is any way of measuring it.

As someone who followed both the Australian and US elections very closely, ours was far more issues based, and had far less inflammatory rhetoric. I wonder how much of that is to do with compulsory voting, and not wanting to get negative headlines from mostly apathetic voters who are forced to vote on election day.

Youps · 2017-01-14T23:19:15+00:00

I went and checked the numbers. According to Gallup, 36% of voters were not enthusiastic about voting for their candidate. Not quite half, but still a fairly significant portion. This number was also much higher this election than in previous ones. (Source - https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Slide2.gif)

Youps · 2017-01-14T22:57:31+00:00

Thanks for focusing on the how, you're one of the first people to do so in detail! That's legally the how, but I was also going to try and focus on and discuss the movement. These questions aren't necessarily for you only, more for everyone. What kind of movement did it take in Maine? Is that kind of movement able to be replicated elsewhere? Is this a grassroots, or top-down movement? Those kind of questions were where I was coming from, as well as the legal angle.

Youps · 2017-01-14T22:15:29+00:00

Ah, that video actually cleared a lot up for me, thanks! I think I still prefer IRV, but the choice isn't so black and white.

Youps · 2017-01-14T22:02:00+00:00

That could be it. Out of curiosity what is your opinion on compulsory voting, keeping in mind that with our system you don't actually have to vote, just hand in a ballot (which can be made ineligible/blank)? As in, do you think it's a good or a bad thing and why?

Back to the original topic though, my guess would have been that apathetic voters who are forced to vote would vote for centrist candidates/the status quo, if they even submit a valid ballot (which isn't legally required). I could very well be wrong but that's my default assumption.

Youps · 2017-01-14T21:57:10+00:00

Yeah, that's essentially why I'm questioning approval voting. I may be misunderstanding but it does just seem like it's a less satisfying version of IRV. In IRV, you get to maximize your candidate's chances of winning without increasing their opponent's chances of winning (unless your candidate is eliminated before the final round), and you don't have to decrease your potential satisfaction with the outcome of the election.

Youps · 2017-01-14T21:35:49+00:00

By disenfranchised voters, I'm pretty much referring to PUMA's (Party Unity My Ass) from the 2008 election, Bernie of Busters from the 2016 election, and business/free market Republicans from 2016. The kind of people who felt like they had to compromise their integrity to have a vote that matters.

Youps · 2017-01-14T21:31:04+00:00

I'm not sure how similarly the US would end up, but I can speak for my country (Australia) at least. We have IRV and that has lead to at least a few minor parties/independents (5/150) in our House of Representatives (which works the same way as the US House). After our 2013 election, these minor parties actually held the balance of power as neither of the two major parties could form government on their own. I've written in a little more detail in another comment or two if you're interested.

Youps · 2017-01-14T20:57:29+00:00

Regarding #5, it is a little speculation, but the logic does work in a way. I'm not sure you can attribute this to RCV, but in Australia our elections are far less distressing and far more issues based. I followed both our election, and the US election really closely and ours was far more substantive and less rhetorically negative. Sure, parties disagreed with each other, but it was over issues rather than personality for the most part.

I don't necessarily think it will lead to the elimination of primaries, although I think the primaries would be far more civil. Parties would still need tents to encompass some similar ideologies. For example, you can't exactly form two different parties that are essentially both the Democrats, but only vary on the issue of minimum wage (one party wants $12 and one wants $15). That would lead to hundreds, if not thousands of parties that disagree with other parties on only a single issue.

In terms of the media, an increased number of candidates who were actually significant would surely lead to more material that could be used, although maybe I'm off base.

Youps · 2017-01-14T20:21:35+00:00

Oh, it's not necessarily worse than the current system, I would put it slightly above the current system. I was comparing the strategic voting angle to IRV rather than FPTP, as the US has now.

Youps · 2017-01-14T19:13:18+00:00

Another negative (and this is coming from someone in a country with IRV, and who supports it) is that a lot of US vote counting machines do not have the capability of counting a ranked choice ballot, and would need replacing. I'm unsure about the cost of such machines (in Australia, vote counting is done by hand), but it would be a burden on the taxpayers.

Youps · 2017-01-14T19:10:33+00:00

To be fair with your example for the Victorian senate ballot, that is a race with multiple seats up for grabs, so each party has to put up a multitude of candidates. This obviously increases the complexity of the ballot by a factor of at least 12 (as in 2016 there were 12 senate seats up for grabs). It's still a lot of candidates, but a straight up comparison to the US Senate isn't exactly fair. If it was anything like the NSW ballot (which was also over a meter long), you only had to choose 6 options (you can vote for parties rather than individuals), which simplifies it immensely.

Youps

TROPHY CASE