[–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

I have no idea to be honest.

I had a friend suggest treating the Māori roll separately. For this election that does make the numbers a little more sane (still quite a large parliament, but we potentially wouldn't need a new building lol) but that has all sorts of potential to screw over Māori voters, and I wouldn't trust any solution that tried to separate the two rolls for scaling.

I'm busy reading about STV, and that has problems too. It's better than FPTP but it does still have a tendency to favour larger parties, and isn't great in terms of proportional representation. I'm not sure how Op's idea of MMP+STV would work, but it would probably be better than what we have now? I think?

The more I think about it, the more I realise why Germany just said fuck it. Win enough of the party vote to get your electorate seats, or lose em. It's definitely simpler.

I'm honestly just glad this isn't going to fall to me to figure out.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

    Germany have NOT solved the problem. In 2024 they simply did away with overhang seats entirely, which I'm not keen on. I feel like if you win an electorate, you should get a seat.

    Pre 2024, they added extra seats... Applying that formula to the current election would add a whopping 650 seats, for a 770 seat parliament... (This is why Germany did away with that system, incidentally)

    This is what parliament would look like under that system:

    • Labour: 231 seats
    • National: 230
    • Green: 105
    • ACT: 86
    • NZF: 77
    • Opp: 47
    • TPM: 5

    Whatever the solution is, it ain't that!

    The article is essentially describing STV with extra steps, if I understand it correctly, which might be a solution. I'm not certain how I feel about STV. Changing the number of electorates or switching to wards is neither here nor there imo.

    ETClarify: In the context of switching to STV, I thinking switching up electorates is neither here nor there. It would obviously be quite impactful in the current system

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 68 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I find this incredibly bitter sweet. I'm so glad she finally figured it out, but it makes me sad to think of the 30+ years of suffering and guilt she must have gone through. It makes me sadder to think there are probably people who have died alone, thinking they were broken or wrong in some way. It's heart breaking.

    I wish them an abundance of happiness to make up for lost time

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    I think you're missing the point. I don’t use GOG much at all, primarily because I’m lazy and just want all my games in the same place, but this is still fantastic news! It's about legitimizing Linux gaming at large. It’s signaling to developers that the market share of users they cut off by explicitly excluding Linux (through kernel anti cheat or however else) is growing, and it's signaling the public that Linux is a legitimate option. It's one more nail in the coffin of Windows as the defacto gaming OS.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    Serious (if hilarious) question. Someone linked me to this, but they were unable to provide context, but it's an official justice.gov link!

    I've been following the news around latest release (who hasn't) but I've not done any digging into the actual files myself. I was wondering if someone who's more familiar with them could provide some context as to why this is in there? I don't really want to wade through that filth myself, honestly, but I did try searching "BASH" but didn't really see anything that looked relevant.

    Was Epstein pro FOSS? Was someone helping him troubleshoot something? WTF is this doing there!? I have to know!?

    Tux has some explaining to do!

    view more: next ›