Politics in the Animal Kingdom: Single Transferable Vote

7m 11sLänge

The 2014 Midterm Elections are coming up in the United States so it's time for another installment of 'Politics of the Animal Kingdom'. Make sure to start at part one if you haven't seen them all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638 Also, Stickers! http://dftba.com/products/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom-sticker-set Official discussion at: http://www.reddit.com/r/cgpgrey http://www.reddit.com/r/CGPGrey/comments/2jzilo/politics_in_the_animal_kingdom_single/ EXTRA: STV Election Example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac9070OIMUg Footnote * from STV: Proportional Systems vs STV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DNtsjB7L_I Footnote † from STV: Switch To STV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PukSDm0RD2E Footnote ‡ from STV: Hare Vs Droop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRc630BSTIg Special thanks to: Motanum Nail Garejev J.D. Purcell Kirsten M. Gray Neil Flynn Bell Chris B Alexander Budd Zero Pyros Harkonnen Matt Parfrey Filip Serfezi Andrés Isaza @TreyTugwell3 Patrick Warren Mazen Marko Milanovic Bobby Block Gem Newman @Twisol Kat Mingram Jan Strojil @kortaggio Zelest Alexander Gonzalez (emeryradio) Joey Heimburger Brian Dudek Ben Mitternacht John M Harman Rena Seville YumSubs Conjecture (MM) Phoenix Maa Kieran Cox Jason Furente Filip "Spotty" Serfezi Claire Loptson Myndert Papenhuyzen Jared Backhouse (KingJaredoftheLand) Jason Parker (MSU) Adrian Häußler Alex Champagne-Gélinas Alyssa Nitta Kira Lanier Tyler Gambrill David Harrison Victor Johansson Max Ramsay Alex Nainer YumSubs Sir Daniel G. Leonard The Great Vijayalakshmi Chris Kitching PervertedThomas Brian Peterson Ron Bowes TÛmas ¡rni JÛnasson Michael Morden Mikko Derek Bonner Derek Jackson Iain Jim Alex Lira Sokhom Chhim Shawn Bazin Finn Kelly Dan Bryant Cruz Andrew Reif Christine Dˆnszelmann Max Parrella Mackenzie Hauck J¯rgen Danielsen Eren Polat Mark Elders Lars-Gˆran mbc James Fox Veronica Peshterianu CheatMasterLew Daniel Heeb Juan Villagrana Ernesto Jimenez Paul Tomblin Travis Wichert Andrew Bailey Israel Armando Keegan Riley Teddy Ricardo Yousef Hasan Ruud Hermans Keng Alex Morales Ryan E Manning Linh Erik Parasiuk Rhys Parry Arian Flores Jennifer Richardson Maarten van der Blij Bjˆrn MorÈn Jim Eric Stangeland Rustam Anvarov Sam Kokin Kevin Anderson Gustavo Jimenez Thomas Petersen Kyle Osric Lord-Williams Myke Hurley David Ryan Nielsen Esteban Santana Santana Terry Steiner Dag Viggo Lok¯en Tristan Watts-Willis Ian N Riopel John Rogers Edward Adams Ryan Kevin Nicolae Berbece Alex Prescott Leon Alexander Kosenkov Hugh Laird Daniel Slater Sunny Yin Sigurur SnÊr EirÌksson Maxime Zielony Anders ken mcfarlane Kintuse AUFFRAY Clement Aaron Miller Patrick Bill Wolf Himesh Sheth Thomas Weir Caswal Parker Brandon Callender Joseph Stephen Litt Belch Sean Church Pierre Perrott Eliud Vasquez Ilan Mr.Z Heemi Kutia Timothy Moran Peter Lomax Quin Thames darkmage0707077 ÿrjan Sollie Emil Kelsey Wainwright Richard Harrison Robby Gottesman Ali Moeeny Lachlan Holmes Jonas Maal¯e John Bevan Martin Thomassen Dan Hiel Callas Elizabeth Keathley John Lee Tijmen van Dien ShiroiYamii@gmail.com thomas van til Drew Stephens Owen Degen Tobias Gies Alex Schuldberg Ryan Constantin Jerry Lin Rasmus Svensson Bear Lars Jacob Ostling Cody Fitzgerald Guillaume PERRIN John Waltmans Solon Carter Joel Wunderle Rescla GhostDivision Andrew Proue David Lombardo Ash243x Tor Henrik Lehne David Palomares Connor Rosine Cas EliÎns paul everitt Karl Johan Stensland Dy Freddi H¯rlyck

Kommentare

5:41 how is it decided who are the "above the threshold" votes? if the 32% who are redistributed are selected randomly, then a repeat with the exact same vote results could get different candidates. If they are taken in the order they are counted in you get them in the result is similarly arbitrary.
and then the queen ate her subjects
I vote owl
3:40 what if lynx and tiger were each half of the remaining votes, and every voter would have also voted for the other candidate?

Also, which is better, this, or the method in the previous video? Or is this just like an alternative that doesn't require political parties? I guess that makes sense
I just noticed the jackalope
But if you saw the image at the end, even if the jungle council is not JUST monkeys, they still hold a majority and you know that any number of seats or representatives over 50% means total control.
I know No one will respond but I tried this out in my own constituency and for the third seat the candidate only got 32.9% not (33.3%) what would happen?
I'd vote for white tiger. White tiger is a G.
5:40 how are the extra votes chosen from white tiger's vote pile? I mean are they the last 32% to have voted for white tiger chronologically, or are they randomly chosen or what?
This seems great, but It looks like it is still very vulnerable to gerrymandering, especially when you start talking about how to determine the number of representatives in a particular district.
This is unbelievably complicated compared to Mixed Member Proportional where say 2/3 plurality-majority for direct representation plus 1/3 percent party representation from the best runners up. one ballot, one vote. Fair representation, and simple to understand.
For electoral geeks: MMP=2/3PM+1/3BRU= Fair&Simple
My biggest concern with STV is that it is a very complicated process. That complication makes it potentially difficult for voters to understand without a lot of explanation, which I fear may reduce transparency of the electoral system.
Vote for Tiger!
no it's 33.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 percent.
what if the first choice with excess votes have diverse second choice votes? how do you determine which excess votes go on to their secondary candidate?
dunno man, Lynx seemed like a pretty cool cat
This is just another way to get immigrants and Muslims a majority in North America. I guess the new world order isn't coming fast enough for the elites.
I have a question regarding 5:06 -- namely, how is it decided which votes for the 65% winner are the "extra" votes that get redistributed to other candidates? In this example, that question is skipped because it's assumed all of these voters' 2nd choice is the same candidate. But a real-world scenario would likely include a wide variety of 2nd choices, which would mean the outcome of the election sways dramatically depending on which people's votes are seen as the "extras". Many thanks, CGP Grey!
whose votes are the ones that get considered for the second round once they're past the needed amount though? like what if 50 percent of white leopard wanted a gorilla
I did some tests on this but it seems like if you're looking for 1 winner it still isn't fair. So let me explain. Since we need one winner the winning limit is 100%. So let's do the same example in the video with 6 tigers and 4 gorillas. We take the test and here are the results:

Tiger 1: 40%
Gorilla 1: 30%
Tiger 2: 20%
Gorilla 2: 10%

Since no one is above the requirement last place is eliminated (Gorilla 2). Those unused votes go to their next choice, Gorilla 1. Gorilla 1 is now at 40%. But still no one is above the requirement so the animal in last place is eliminated (Tiger 2). Their unused votes go to the next choice Tiger 1 taking tiger one to 60% and Tiger 1 wins. We would've gotten the same result if we didn't use the method and did it the old fashioned way. So there you go this doesn't work on votes with one winner. If anyone has a way of getting around this I would be glad to hear it.

Politics in the Animal Kingdom: Single Transferable Vote

wie Sie tun, machen, Film, Beispiel

Kommentare