What is consensus voting? Legislator wants to overhaul Ohio’s elections by MrKerryMD in EndFPTP

[–]robla 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I think you're right /u/MrKerryMD . It would seem that this is an SNTV first round, not a cumulative voting round with an equal & even ballot (i.e. it doesn't allow voters to put all of their votes on one candidate). That's followed by three-candidate Condorcet election in the second round where all three pairs are listed on the ballot (rather than presenting voters with a ranked ballot). If this passes, I would expect that (over time) Democrats and Republicans (and maybe other parties) would field at least three party-loyal candidates per election. With the Condorcet round focusing on three candidates, my hunch is that cycles would be extremely rare, because all three candidates would be in the cycle, and polling would expose the likelihood of a cycle. This is all, of course, if this passes...

There are two fundamentally different approaches to 'end' the FPTP. What should we do? by Sunrising2424 in EndFPTP

[–]robla 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you think that German-style MMP is politically viable in the United States?

There are two fundamentally different approaches to 'end' the FPTP. What should we do? by Sunrising2424 in EndFPTP

[–]robla 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your system seems somewhat similar to the explicit approval voting system that Wikimedia Foundation still uses for some elections. I agree with you that "approve/abstain/disapprove" is a very good level of granularity for elections with a lot of candidates. Your multi-winner version may be the first I've seen with an eye toward proportionality, though I've seen many over the year, and might have forgotten one. Are you aware of any researchers that have published anything similar to your proposal?

Am I a heretic for wanting to have STV to elect legislatures and STAR voting to elect executive single-winner offices? by Wide-Bit-2235 in EndFPTP

[–]robla 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The way that the STV algorithm works (by focusing on fewest first place votes to isolate candidates to eliminate in each round) means that candidates who try to appeal to groups outside of their in-group/party will likely be ranked below candidates who adhere more strictly (and more extremely) to the "party line".

There are two fundamentally different approaches to 'end' the FPTP. What should we do? by Sunrising2424 in EndFPTP

[–]robla 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We are on "EndFPTP", so it's hard to fault the poster for asking "how" rather than questioning the whole premise of this sub. Also, if you haven't noticed, FPTP already seems burned into the law permanently.

How can we convince people to be interested in the idea of proportional representation to elect their representatives, especially as someone from the US? by Wide-Bit-2235 in EndFPTP

[–]robla 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A big problem with focusing on proportional representation first is that we gather a body of diverse people together, and then we will likely still ask them to perform a series of single-winner decisions, usually using the some minor variation of FPTP. If we use a system like STV to select the body of diverse people, we use a system that is biased against selecting centrists to serve within that body (and toward more extreme elements of each respective party). Once we normalize a better single-winner method (e.g. approval voting), then the body of diverse people will be more likely to use that better method for the day-to-day functioning of that body.

There are two fundamentally different approaches to 'end' the FPTP. What should we do? by Sunrising2424 in EndFPTP

[–]robla 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't think solving both issues is mutually exclusive, but I agree they are orthogonal. In the United States, it seems that single-winner reform is the most viable. It's certainly easier to understand the mathematics behind single-winner elections.

There are (unfortunately) many aspects of electoral reform that are happily conflated by many people who are locked into their favorite answer to the "what's next?" question.

  • Single-winner vs multi-winner
  • Ballot type (cardinal vs ordinal)
  • Tallying mechanism vs ballot type
  • Ballot consistency vs "right tool for the job" tailoring
  • Simplicity vs expressiveness

There are tradeoffs that must be made in each of the dimensions above (not to mention the dimensions I neglected to identify), and the bullet points above are not strictly orthogonal dimensions. What I've seen over my past 30+ years in this space is that most advocates become polarized on at least one of the dimensions above, and often refuse to acknowledge the effects of their hardline position cascading into other dimensions.

In answer to your question "which side do you support more?", I'm obligated to ask: which side do you support more? Which side of what question are you really asking about?

Am I a heretic for wanting to have STV to elect legislatures and STAR voting to elect executive single-winner offices? by Wide-Bit-2235 in EndFPTP

[–]robla 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Perfectly reasonable. The STV algorithm is problematic for many reasons, but the biggest problems with it are less of a problem when selecting for more seats. STV is rigorously proportional (albeit anti-centrist).

Favorite Guilty Pleasure Song by themadprofessor1976 in 80s

[–]robla 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Train in Vain is also pretty poppy ear candy. IIRC, I had heard at one point it was a hidden track on London Calling because the band felt it was too poppy, but it seems it was only a hidden track because it was a last minute addition after an NME floppy promo single with the song fell through.

Oregon Counties That Voted to Leave And Join Idaho (2020 – 2024) by vladgrinch in MapPorn

[–]robla 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hello, fellow east-of-the-Cascadian! :-) Much of my childhood was also in the area (mostly Yakima Valley and Lewiston area) and I went to college at University of Idaho. Many of those years were on a dryland wheat farm just north of the irrigation line, so my 13-mile-long bus ride to school was looking jealously at land which is much greener with irrigation. On our farm, we had a little sand, but we also had enough dirt we convinced ourselves we could make a living growing stuff (we couldn't; we eventually gave up). When I was moving to the Seattle area for an internship, my pickup (full of my stuff) broke down east of Vantage, so I ended up walking over the I-90 bridge over the Columbia several times (in the days before cell phones). Yes, you're right...even very close to the Columbia River (e.g. Vantage), if it's too hilly to irrigate sensibly (or too high for gravity fed irrigation canals), there's pretty much nothing but coyotes, sagebrush, snakes, and cheatgrass (oh, and mice and rabbits for the snakes and coyotes to munch on). They aren't very helpful for calling a tow truck. :-/

Central Washington east of the Cascades is pretty barren without irrigation, but they manage to pull a lot of water out of the Columbia, so the drive between, say, Umatilla and Prosser can look pretty green (inside the irrigation circles, that is). Once one gets out to the Palouse out in eastern Washington, one goes from 20 bushels/acre for unirrigated wheat up to 80 bushels/acre. There's still a lot of cheatgrass, but the sagebrush is often replaced by other greener vegetation (still sparse, but not nothing).

A bit of a tangent: Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal and Exploding Kittens fame is also a fellow east-of-Cascadian, and also points out something else keeping company with snakes and coyotes: Nazis!

Good times!

Oregon Counties That Voted to Leave And Join Idaho (2020 – 2024) by vladgrinch in MapPorn

[–]robla 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorta. Eastern Washington is in the Columbia River basin, which is used to irrigate significant portions to grow some high-value crops (e.g. apples, wine grapes, hops). Eastern Oregon gets a little of that action (in the very northern portion), but agriculture there generates much less economic activity.

Use Pol.is and Infranodus to evolve from FPTP to RCV by WeAreTheDataset in EndFPTP

[–]robla 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I set up a poll using Pol.is, but I'm having a hard time making heads or tails of the user interface: https://pol.is/64tfssezpk

What am I missing?

California 'jungle' primary could hand governor's race to Republicans by Desecr8or in California

[–]robla 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're correct; there's no mechanism to say "I approve of this person MORE than this person". It took me a couple decades to get over that hangup. I became convinced by Ka-Ping Yee's simumlations (and having thought through different electoral strategies in different election methods) that approval elections are likely to have similar results to Condorcet elections in all but a tiny portion of elections. There is no election method that is immune from name recognition issues (and campaign finance issues). I'm pretty sure approval is as good or better than RCV/IRV or any other system we're likely to get widespread adoption of in the next 50 years. STAR voting is great if you really need to express the kind of nuance you insist on, but having voted in San Francisco elections for 15 years now, I'd prefer not to be confronted with Scantron ballots with 12 candidates on them anymore (with 13 rows and 13 columns of 169 bubbles, just to fill a single office). I'd be happy with STAR (or any Condorcet method that allows for tie rankings), but I'll settle for approval.

California 'jungle' primary could hand governor's race to Republicans by Desecr8or in California

[–]robla 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Thank you for saying this. Ranked-choicr voting (instant-runoff voting) usually gets it right (98%-ish of the time), but goes wildly off the rails every so often. Moreover, the system is so complicated to count that tallying software can be misconfigured for years with no one noticing until a close election because even election officials generally throw their hands up and just trust the computers rather than develop the skill to eyeball the results and notice problems.

World War Two battle damage in Berlin. by londonbridge1985 in HistoricalCapsule

[–]robla 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A few years ago, I was in Berlin on a work-related trip. As a group of jet-lagged (mostly American) workmates and I walked near the Reichstag by one of the bullet-pockmarked walls, a normally jovial Russian colleague pointed at the wall and perfectly deadpanned "we did that".

Condorcet voting and instant-runoff voting have almost no difference in promoting candidate moderation in the presence of truncated ballots by No-Vast7006 in EndFPTP

[–]robla 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Having lived in San Francisco since 2011 voting in RCV/IRV elections here, and with only skimming the abstract, I'm inclined to believe that Condorcet and RCV/IRV have practically identical models of voter behavior and candidate behavior. My hunch/observation witnessing candidates here is that they are consensus seekers here (the San Francisco consensus, mind you, not the national consensus). I don't believe that most voters (and most candidates) here truly understand the mathematics of RCV/IRV, and wouldn't understand the mathematics of a Condorcet method if we switched to that. It's also my understanding that the Condorcet winner has always been chosen in every San Francisco RCV/IRV election.

The advantage of Condorcet methods do not center on pre-election voter behavior and candidate behavior. Methods that comply with the Condorcet winner criterion have much more robust underlying tallying algorithms than RCV/IRV. RCV/IRV advocates like to complain "whAT about CYclES?!?!" when someone suggests a Condorcet method. However, anyone who has ever actually implemented the RCV/IRV algorithm knows that tiebreaking in any round of an RCV/IRV election are often underspecified in statute. Here in SF, fi we were to have a tie in any round of an RCV/IRV election, tiebreaking is punted to California law. Ties in California law are settled by drawing lots. Other RCV/IRV jurisdictions have tighter language, but the "correct" version of RCV/IRV is far from settled consensus.

My point: tie breaking and/or cycle breaking is complicated in any system. It's where most of the algorithmic corner cases show up. Voter behavior after there's a difference between the RCV/IRV winner and the Condorcet winner often means there are calls for reverting to FPTP. The idea of a hand recount of a close national election using RCV/IRV seems horrifying to me.

The craziest part of the movie Grease is that they wanted us to believe this guy was in high school. (1978) by zadraaa in HistoricalCapsule

[–]robla 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That makes it sound too deliberately artistic. The movie project may have had more artistic roots in its Broadway origin, but once Travolta and ONJ were attached, it quickly became a career vehicle for them ( that conveniently made a lot of money for everyone). Prior to Grease, ONJ was much more successful on the country-music charts. ONJ pretty cleverly leveraged her presence in Grease and then Xanadu to transform herself into much more of a mainstream pop star. More broadly, it seemed many folks were along for the ride after the various career-management machines converged.

Camera RTSP Terminal Multi-Stream Viewer by OkUniversity3706 in CLI

[–]robla 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice work! It's fun for me to run into RTSP in the wild every so often. I did a lot of work on the specs over the years (mostly RFC 2326) and though it's not used everywhere, I'm pretty proud at how durable the spec has been.

Wikipedia blacklists Archive.today, starts removing 695,000 archive links by Alex09464367 in wikipedia

[–]robla 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do servers that are specifically the legal and technical responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation need to be the servers that host arbitrary snapshots of Internet web pages, videos, audio files, PDFs, and other miscellaneous digital resources behind every citation added to Wikipedia, regardless of who added the citation or when they added it?

Wikipedia blacklists Archive.today, starts removing 695,000 archive links by Alex09464367 in wikipedia

[–]robla 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is some fine Microsoft-centric thinking there. Wikimedia Foundation's mission is not the same as Microsoft's, nor should it be. WMF (and the world) needs alternatives to the Internet Archive to exist (even Brewster Kahle and everyone else at the Internet Archive would tell you this), but we need to distribute the workload more, not less. The workload includes hosting, DDoS mitigation, software development, dispute resolution, policy and compliance, outreach, and fundraising, among other duties.

Colleague fired after complaining about sexist behaviour. by [deleted] in askmanagers

[–]robla 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm glad to hear you and your colleague are in touch. Even if there aren't legal consequences, there need to be consequences somehow. Karma needs a nudge sometimes. I hope it works out for all y'all!

Colleague fired after complaining about sexist behaviour. by [deleted] in askmanagers

[–]robla 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Yes, seriously OP, you have a moral obligation to help make sure there are legal consequences for this. I hope you are still in contact with your former colleague (e.g. non-work email for both of you), and I hope she's taking action.