> I wish I could read it via RSS
I do this using https://kill-the-newsletter.com/ -- it's a great service
889 karma · joined December 11, 2016
I do this using https://kill-the-newsletter.com/ -- it's a great service
Let's take the 90 minute game, where it's suggested to use 88 seconds for opening moves, 165 seconds for non-critical moves, and 330 seconds for critical moves.
330 seconds (5 1/2 minutes) is too short for the critical position in a 90-minute game. I would be comfortable using about 15-20 minutes for the most critical move.
I think my disagreement stems from the author's estimate of "7 or 8 critical moves per game." That's too many in my experience. In a 40 move game (the average), that's 18.75%.
I'd say there are typically 3 or fewer critical moves per game. And there's no need to spend anywhere close to 88 seconds in the opening. When you're in theory, you can bust those out in a few seconds.
a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date. b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all notices”. c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
——
I don’t see how one could argue that training on GPL code is not “based on” GPL code.
Proportional approval voting is extremely confusing (and expensive) to compute the winner, people won’t accept a system that they don’t understand how it works.
> Yet that doesn't try and stop people from duping voters into eg only ranking Palin, even though RCV is basically the only system where there is practically 0 reason to not rank additional candidates.
It’s the first election where people used it so they will learn about that. Also some people might just want to vote for Palin and are indifferent after that. While I would fill out the entire ballot, most people won’t bother, and that’s fine.
> if someone were to eg bullet vote in STAR to help their first choice win, is that really tactical voting, or just an honest vote/admission that they care so much about their first choice that all other opponents are equally bad?
No it does not necessarily mean that, it could plausibly mean that they do have a second preference, but are afraid of giving them points so that they don’t overtake their first preference. Think of a Bernie, Hillary, Trump election where some Bernie voters don’t want to give high points to Hilary, even though they much prefer her to Trump, for fear of her beating Bernie. RCV allows them to confidently vote Bernie > Hillary > Trump and not worry about this problem.
> I think the best use of approval is in primaries where the top two candidates proceed to the general.
I think it would be best to ditch primaries completely and have everyone run in a multi-winner general election with RCV. So few people vote in primaries, so the highly engaged extremists influence the outcome for everyone in the general. Also why do I need to vote twice for the same position, it’s annoying. It would be nice to only need to vote in one election, the general.
> With RCV the two dominant parties no longer have to worry about the spoiler effect, so there is even less incentive to reach across the aisle and receive influence from a third party than before. Whereas before you might want to take some token talking points from a third party and siphon some votes from them, with RCV you might be able to assume you'll get those voter's 2nd choices for free.
It seems like you are talking about two things at once:
1. a major party moderating their position to get votes from the other major party
2. a major party taking a (more extreme?) position to get votes from a third party
When you say “reach across the aisle”, to me that means #1 above, i.e. Democrats and Republicans moderating their positions to appeal to the median voter. I agree that would be good and RCV does encourage that!
RCV doesn’t encourage #2, and I think that’s also a good thing.
I would love a robust multi-party system, but for that we really need proportional representation. Trying to get it with single-winner elections, no matter the system, isn’t a good approach.
Hello, I prefer RCV. Reasons:
- it is a stepping stone to proportional representation (achieved by adopting both RCV and multi-member districts), which is much more important than which single-winner voting system is chosen
- you need to be a fellow voting systems nerd to understand when you may want to vote tactically in RCV, so approximately zero people will vote insincerely
- it is really obvious that voting tactically is an option in approval voting, and so lots of people will vote insincerely and this will undermine the confidence in the voting system
- while single-winner RCV may not result in many more third-party winners (we need multi-winner RCV, i.e. proportional representation for that), it will change the kinds of winners for the two dominant parties, which is just as important. This point is always under appreciated.
- RCV has much more momentum behind it
STAR and Approval both have their own tactical voting problems. If you really like A, are meh about B, and dislike C, it’s clear you should rate A high / give A your approval and rate C low / do not give C your approval. But what about B? It has nothing to do with what you actually think about them, it has to do with what you think their odds of beating C and A are. You want B to do well enough to beat C, but not well enough to beat A. This adds too much distortion to people wanting to express their sincere preferences, which they can easily do in RCV: A > B > C
And, more importantly, RCV is a stepping stone to multi-member district STV proportional voting (plug for https://www.fixourhouse.org/), which is the golden goose; way more important to implement proportional representation than squabble about STAR vs RCV, and RCV gets us closer to proportional representation.