The election results this year are bad. Even if you voted for the national coalition, I think you should be angry about this year's results because they go against the point of MMP. I have two ideas of how to fix overhangs and make sure the government is always proportional, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

Idea 1, the simpler solution: Just add more list seats. Fill up all the electorate seats, then add list MPs until there are at least the base number of seats, and adding another seat would make it less proportional. Pros: It's simple, intuitive, and makes more sense than allowing overhangs. Cons: There could be a lot of MPs in the house.

Idea 2, STV + MMP: This idea uses STV or some other ranked system to elect the electorate MPs, which would be better than the FPTP we use for them now. But in this case, if an overhang happens, the overhang seat with the thinnest majority would be recalculated with the previous winner's votes transferred. Pros: it works in a better system for the electorates, and it makes for a consistent size of parliament. Cons: It's slightly more confusing for the voters, and calculating the seats could take much longer.

[–] 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah, multi choice is not good, but it's better than standard fptp. The advantages are that it's simple and there's no spoiler effect. Ranked choice or some proportional system (like the MMP that we have in nz) are much better.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago

    If the only tool available is criminalization, that's not enough. Financial violence preys on the lack of a guarantee of needs being met, so the best option would be to make some way to guarantee that. But some options are:

    Make a "business license" system. If at any point a business commits any financial crime, like monopolization, price gouging, financial violence, etc, all the upper leadership is immediately sacked, and they are barred from running any other business, with serious prison time as punishment for dodging this ban.

    Be brutal on monopolies and anticompetitive practice. If a company we've gets more than 70% of the revenue of their sector in a year, some of the company is sold off at auction. If it's shown that the company was using anticompetitive practices, the leadership is immediately sacked, loses any business license, and gets prison time.

    Any company that provides a needed good or service (eg. food, housing, energy, internet, transport) has a profit cap. All their accounting must be publicly available, and if the profit or any leader's income is too high (number to be decided), this counts as a financial crime.

  • source
  •  

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding, it's only impossible for an object with mass to accelerate to the speed of light. If something was magically accelerated to above c, it wouldn't break any rules to stay above c.

    So what would happen in a collision between a slow object and something moving faster than c?

     

    I do software development, and I'm one of two computer people in our business, with my boss being the other (the rest of the business is manufacturing). My boss recently discovered that retool has a "make stuff with ai" feature, and he just showed me his attempt at remaking one of my bigger projects with this. During the whole conversation, I couldn't get him to even start to understand any of my practical or moral objections to the whole "ai development" shit. He's acting like this is just another approach to development and doesn't seem to be considering the fact that you're offloading your thinking and understanding to a product owned by a private company with no transparency in what ends up getting made, or that this won't let future projects be better. It's just "we can make the thing faster".

    view more: next ›