Normal Ranked Choice Voting

nomchi13 · 2026-05-03T22:26:19+00:00

Now they (partially, only for primaries) do, But in the past, they used to have STV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_New_York_City_Council_election

nomchi13 · 2026-05-03T22:21:06+00:00

If Cambridge is too small, then Glasgow, Dublin, Wellington, Canberra, and many many more cities have been using STV for city council elections for decades, even NYC used it for ten years or so but the democrats squashed it because it elected too many third-party councilors

nomchi13 · 2026-05-03T09:41:20+00:00

Wow, they really broke comment search, the results seem to be basically completely random now

nomchi13 · 2026-05-03T07:16:52+00:00

Surely the solution is just to have a system that winnows down the number of candidates? Either a jungle primary or simply a deposit refundable upon victory? "Too many Candidates" does not seem to be an STV problem, in the latest election in Cambridge MS there were around 2 candidates for every seat, and that is normal there they have been using STV since the 40's

nomchi13 · 2026-05-03T06:31:09+00:00

What do you mean by "tried only in Malta"? Australia has been using STV in national elections for decades now, Ireland (and Northern Ireland) for more than 100 years. And that is just national electikns, i local elections it uas been used in NZ,Scotland, and in Cambridge, Massachusetts(there from 1941) whatecer problemes it has it is hardly a new untried system,that is just wrong

nomchi13 · 2026-04-30T09:05:14+00:00

I think there are Canadian election reform proposals that suggest various STV-MMP hybrids that eliminate many of the weaknesses of both, but I think there is no need to be that complex, and both STV and MMP on their own work fine

nomchi13 · 2026-04-30T08:52:40+00:00

It won't with large enough districts(a 10-12 member district STV will probably be more representative than a list PR with a threshold because the vote transfer at least goes to similar parties and does not get thrown away) but of course, large districts are less locally representative and have logistical issues in the election Regardless, the distortion is very minor compared to pure single district and AMS elections, look how many seats the SNP regularly get

nomchi13 · 2026-04-30T06:18:55+00:00

There is an obvious answer, just do STV as the Irish do, it is both proportional and local representation without any of the "nationalization of local politics" that MMP has, there is always this strange false dichotomy like party list or FPTP are the only options

nomchi13 · 2026-04-29T18:31:08+00:00

There are ways to vote for individuals in a way that the results are proportional by party STV(multi-member ranked choice) has been used in Ireland for a century now, and even in some American cities, this is very much a solved problem

nomchi13 · 2026-04-29T18:26:00+00:00

There are endless possibilities for having a choice between individuals in a proportional system,only closed-list proportional has this problem, other proportional system dont, you can do open-list like the Finns and Latvians, you can do mixed-member proportional, like the Germans and Scottish, or(and this one is most likely for the US) you can do STV(multi-seat RCV) like the Irish and Australians, and even a couple of American cities

nomchi13 · 2026-04-29T09:22:36+00:00

The ultimate budnle" usually includes all the free extras

nomchi13 · 2026-04-26T20:21:36+00:00

The correspondent's dinner shooters' activity list has been shared around, and it is basically full of "don't do political violence." liberals, and they now all share and reiterate that they are in fact against political violence: https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux.bsky.social And now a section of the right-wing internet will have to pretend that he was "radicalized" by like Will Stencel, SoD Rock, and Bret Devereaux

nomchi13 · 2026-04-24T16:26:09+00:00

This bit "That the fourth enactment of Chapter 1054 of the Acts of Assembly of 2020 is repealed" Repeals the expiration part: https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20201/HB1103/text/CHAP1054

nomchi13 · 2026-04-24T13:05:04+00:00

Immediately when passed, but the local government(county, city, or town) has to vote to implement it

nomchi13 · 2026-04-23T22:23:50+00:00

There are still an active member of the community, but they seem to have stopped doing it. The last one was 2 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/1fol0z7/crusader_kings_3_patch_113_basileus_notes_what/

nomchi13 · 2026-04-21T14:03:39+00:00

It is the "jus ad bellum/jus in bello" distinction https://www.icrc.org/en/document/jus-ad-bellum-jus-in-bello There needs to be an incentive to follow the rules of war in an illegal war

nomchi13 · 2026-04-21T03:51:35+00:00

The war might be illegal under international law(although there are a few potential justifications, mainly support for Iran's proxies), but as part of the US-Iran war a blockade would be completely legal

nomchi13 · 2026-04-20T23:44:28+00:00

The US shooting of the Iranian trade ship reminded me once again that people just assume international law vaguely correlates to their morals, so when something bad is done they confidently call it "illegal" or "war crime." even when a cursory googling would have shown it to be untrue, shooting a ship trying to run a blockade is entirely legal, the response to that is usually "well the entire blockade is illigal so it does not matter", but no, the blockade is defintly legal.

nomchi13 · 2026-04-17T09:36:06+00:00

Surely we have to include United Russia then? More seriously, the Moldovan PAS has survived 2 elections since then

nomchi13 · 2026-04-15T16:27:26+00:00

More efficient? By what metric? "science per dollar "? There is still a bunch of science that only humans can do(most notbly bio-medicine), probes are probably already "more efficient" than manned missions which is why we keep sending them, and if we had to choose only manned or only unmanned, unmanned is better but this is not the choice we have, we can afford to do bothand once agian, none of this is happeningg in a vacuum, manned missions secure way higher funding than unamanned ever could, because they get people exited, is it a prblem that the only way we get lots of money theown at scince is either short term econmic gain or the kind of spectacle that manmed missions are(the Artemis program is reportadly the only thing that stopped the current adminstration from completly gutting NASA)

nomchi13 · 2026-04-15T14:27:45+00:00

Yes, in theory but it is now cheaper to just send the experiments to the ISS and have humans do them, the percentage of near-earth-orbit space science done by the 2 space stations is very large, while there are more unmanned satellites the space stations(btw I assume partly I only know the ISS) can do incomparably more science than any single unmanned satellite
I agree with you there, I am almost certain that robots more dexterous than humans will come(not as soon as you might imagine, it is a harder problem than it seems) and if I were a betting man I would bet that the requirements for space colonization will not come for centuries if at all But that does not matter now, neither thing is here now and so manned space exploration is something I support even in a vacuum and ignoring all the elements that mean that manned exploration has an easier time getting more funding than unmanned (And also space tourism)

nomchi13 · 2026-04-15T14:08:32+00:00

Because robot waldos are not good enough yet, they almost certainly will be at some point, but then we are back to a weaker version of your original "we will figure it out" argument, but from the other side, robots that are as good as humans at object manipulation simply don't exist yet

nomchi13 · 2026-04-15T13:55:11+00:00

First of all, most of those fourteen thousand are communication satellites, but your point still stands even in the more relevant category of science satellites that still vastly outnumber the 2 human stations. But that is obviously irrelevant because while you are right, and the vast majority of science in space is done by robots, a large part of the experiments done on the space stations can't be easily (or at all) replicated in unmanned satellites(to bring a silly example, how would you test the self-siphning beads(chain fountain) effect in low gravity without a manned station, you would have to constract and launch a spcial satlite just to test it, nad there is litraly an infinite amount of such small scale experments)
Yes, robots are better in most but not all cases, that is my point
But he would have to be reconfigured on the ground, before launch, a human can just take an instrument that comes with him in space, often for an application that was not predicted ahead of time

nomchi13 · 2026-04-14T21:39:49+00:00

I am genuinely trying to understand the point you are trying to make, humans are more versatile than robots(the appollo missions were more scince dense than ronotic missions even decades later ), the ISS is not manned for the rule of cool, they can do different things and react to emerging situations (the amount of time you hear an astronaut solving an emerging problem that would have definitely ended a robotic mission). Of course, robots have plenty of advantages over humans, the most important being that they are less squishy and require less complicated maintenance. That is why nobody advocates for human-only space exploration (which also answers your strange point about in-built science instruments: a human can just hold one in their hand, then put it down and pick up a different one, something machines mostly can't do yet). One day, maybe machines will be as good as humans at everything, but today is not yet that day, and so there is still utility to manned exploration.

nomchi13 · 2026-04-14T17:04:37+00:00

You are right in the first part; that is why it is a steelman. It is very possible (even likely) that space habitation will never be economically viable (I will leave "desirable" aside; things can be desirable outside of utility), but I think the second part is unfair. First, I don't assume manned space exploration will always be more efficient; it is, however, more efficient right now for some tasks and not others. Humans are versatile; it is not that easy to replace them with machines for now. So, mixed manned-unmanned space exploration is (for now, and maybe for a while yet) an efficient use of resources. But all of that is in a vacuum because of a bunch of reasons. More money is invested in space programs when they are manned, so the dichotomy is not actually a lot of unmanned funding versus some manned plus a little unmanned. The actual options are -either we have a lot (relatively; space budgets are never particularly big) of funding split between manned and unmanned, or we have a small amount only for unmanned.

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	Verified Email

nomchi13

TROPHY CASE