Voting systems are hard. Let's go shopping!
Should I take comfort in the fact that it's not only the National Post, to say nothing of 61% of British Columbia voters, who think that all them newfangled voting systems are hard?
To wit:
Hollywood has become embroiled in a row ahead of the Oscars over a new 'transferable vote' system which critics claim could mean the award for best picture could go to a film with just 11 per cent of the vote.
...which makes this complicated new system SO VERY MUCH DIFFERENT from FPTP - which the Academy used in previous years - in which a candidate in a field of ten can't win unless they acquire...11% of the vote. (Well, 10%+1. But that might be a fraction instead of a whole number, and fractions are hard, as we've learned from BC's attempt to implement a voting system that used fractions in the counting process.)
[Steven Zeitchik at the LA Times] said "attempting to understand the system can sometimes feel a little like trying to divine the secrets of cold fusion".
This shit again? So help me god, do not make me relink the three minute cartoon video explaining STV. Oh, too late!
The rest of the article is full of hand-wringing and pearl-clutching about how this crazy new system will not reward "the most popular film", as though the definition of "most popular" were self-evident, when the fact that there are multiple, reasonable - yet mutually exclusive - definitions of "most popular" forms the basis of the entire rich, formal field of voting theory.
Oh, and this:
Detractors say that the system has led to "ugly" campaigning and it has unleashed twice the amount of behind-the-scenes lobbying in the run-up to Sunday's awards ceremony.
Because if there's one thing that can be said for FPTP, it's that that system has engendered principled, civilized campaigns! And of course, "twice as much" lobbying can't possibly have to do with the fact that there are TWICE AS MANY FILMS in contention as there have been in previous years!
I give up.
To wit:
Hollywood has become embroiled in a row ahead of the Oscars over a new 'transferable vote' system which critics claim could mean the award for best picture could go to a film with just 11 per cent of the vote.
...which makes this complicated new system SO VERY MUCH DIFFERENT from FPTP - which the Academy used in previous years - in which a candidate in a field of ten can't win unless they acquire...11% of the vote. (Well, 10%+1. But that might be a fraction instead of a whole number, and fractions are hard, as we've learned from BC's attempt to implement a voting system that used fractions in the counting process.)
[Steven Zeitchik at the LA Times] said "attempting to understand the system can sometimes feel a little like trying to divine the secrets of cold fusion".
This shit again? So help me god, do not make me relink the three minute cartoon video explaining STV. Oh, too late!
The rest of the article is full of hand-wringing and pearl-clutching about how this crazy new system will not reward "the most popular film", as though the definition of "most popular" were self-evident, when the fact that there are multiple, reasonable - yet mutually exclusive - definitions of "most popular" forms the basis of the entire rich, formal field of voting theory.
Oh, and this:
Detractors say that the system has led to "ugly" campaigning and it has unleashed twice the amount of behind-the-scenes lobbying in the run-up to Sunday's awards ceremony.
Because if there's one thing that can be said for FPTP, it's that that system has engendered principled, civilized campaigns! And of course, "twice as much" lobbying can't possibly have to do with the fact that there are TWICE AS MANY FILMS in contention as there have been in previous years!
I give up.