CGP Grey - 2014-10-22
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://cgpgrey.com/animalstickers Official discussion at: http://www.reddit.com/r/cgpgrey 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 Sigurur 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
Elections are just for show, Queen Lion holds all the power.
The monkeys controls the council
@adam r latham why does the antelope need the lion?
@benjamin jenkins i sadly had to actually read through all the comments to find out where my mind was 5 months ago. The lion will eventually pass. This means tge ground will be fertilized, giving the grass to grow, thus without lion dieing, the ground will be viod this means no fertal grass to eat.
My original comment was about how if you lets say release 1 animal to get rid of another, it has unexpected consequences. I think japan had that happen
As it should be...
-this post was made by the monarchist gang
LONG LIVE THE QUEEN
T H I S M O N K E Y D O E S N ' T C A R E A B O U T M E
BANANAS!
B A N A N A S
Banana in every hand
Tree in every yard
B A N A N A N A
BANANAS!
Bigger-army diplomacy is simpler
@maxzwell macksando They had the Russian winter too, don't leave that out.
does it matter if the system is a bit more complicated? The actions the voters have to take are still simple: rank candidates in order of preference.
@Joachim Rives laughs in soviet
And B.A.D.
I prefer fascism
The monkeys know full well this would be better for us. But it wouldn't be better for them, and right now they're in charge.
I seriously doubt it would be better. People lie to get elected, and that is the main issue. Democracy is a sham.
@pyropulse hmu when you think of something better, its the best weve done so far. the direct democracy people havent had a turn yet...eh, they can wait a bit longer
The conservatives in the UK right now. More people didn't vote for them than voted for them yet they have a landslide majority and can make all the laws.
maybe the monkeys are fascists, dictators or totalitarians and they need overthrowing.
He heh..it is a great model for our specie of humanity future single governing body..theres a way there a will..🙂😏
Question: Is Queen Lion playing with lives, constantly changing the rules in each binding election cycle over several years, or has she chosen a population to torment, forcing them to show up to vote every few weeks??
Well, lions (and mostly every other animal) live shorter than humans. So they have elections more often.
no listen to the video. TEST REGION. Which means she takes one small region and tests the system there. Meaning that it impacts a very small population. We do the same thing in the real world with socioeconomic models. It's done more in cananda than in america, though.
I think it's controlled testing
I think the Queen lion is acting responsibly and testing out systems so that the political system she leaves behind doesnt collapse
Cries in Israeli
(Record third general election is approaching after two failures to get a proper coalition. Previously there was never even a second election.)
They could've just fought to the death smh.
@Johnny Booi r/woooosh
@Guardian Gaming yeah no
@Johnny Booi r/wooooooooosh
@Guardian Gaming r/woooooooooooooooosh
@Johnny Booi r/woooooooooooooooooooooosh
The UK is in desperate need of a system like this.
Same goes fr india
@William Keen we do this in Ireland. It's a great system
Who chooses which subset of votes gets counted as "extra"? I could see "extras" being a biased sample, thereby compromising the vote transfers.
@Andrew Farrell Bro you left Xelights speechless after that one
Dafuq I’ll accept the compliment to my clarity-of-thought, but I don’t want to leave anyone speechless. I’m not here to defeat anyone. Public policy is a co-op game because we all live in this society together.
Quick question: In the White Tiger scenario, how do you decide which citizens' votes are the 'extra' ones? Realistically, not all of White Tiger voters would have the same second choice, so which votes you're counting matters.
The solution I can think of would be to add partial votes of everyone's second choice. 32/65 of White Tiger's votes are extra, so every White Tiger voter's second choice gets 32/65 (about half) of a vote.
What would actually happen though?
Each implementation of STV could handle this differently, but your last idea is essentially correct. The modern implementation takes a proportion of every second vote. So if one candidate got 60% and needed only 33%, the 27% spillover is not a random selection of specific ballots' second choices. You instead look at all second choices from all ballots in the 60%, and weight them to represent 27%. So if half of the 60% had one second choice, and half had a different second choice, each of those second choices would receive an extra 13.5% (half of the 27% spillover). With a large electorate, this basically necessitates digital voting, or automatic tallying of analog votes, because the votes need to end up in a digital space where these relatively complex maths can be performed.
There are a certain number of votes for a candidate. All of these votes are the '1st choice' votes for a group of people. For this group of people, there is a '2nd choice' vote distribution. There are a certain number of 'excess votes' for the candidate. This number is split between other candidates in a way that matches the '2nd choice' vote distribution.
Heya! I live in Ireland, where we use this system, and the fractions thing is indeed what happens 😊
Every white tiger citizen decided that they are represented by the white tiger, so when the white tiger won, he can use the votes he got to redistribute into his (and indirectly, into his voters) interest. So, there is no "extra" citizen votes that were gave away, but a redistribution of the same voting power over multiple bodies. This is why the tiger gave the vote for a pretty similarly opinionated animal, because both person will have to represent the same base, that why they both getting into the position (as the white tiger literally just chose a marginal candidate).
Now, in practicality, you can set up a complex mathematical system to redistribute fraction votes, but in general, the redistribution of extra votes are pretty representative as if anything, probably the 1% minority will be the one whose candidate will not represent their votes and pivot into the white tiger party entirely.
@What The I'd rather have em count my vote than disembowel me with their feet.
The great take away from this is that politics is all a big zoo.
There's a bill that was introduced in Congress that would change House elections to STV. it's called the Fair Representation Act. Smaller states that have less than 3 representatives would use Alternative Vote. We need to get this passed. Contact your congresspeople, contact your House candidates, vote for the people who'll vote for the Fair Representation Act and vote against those who won't. If you can't find out, vote against your incumbent no matter what party s/he is. Feel free to vote the new guy out when you actually can because you have a voting system that works. Post about it on social media. Awareness is the most important thing. We actually have an opportunity to make America a true republic. We need to take it.
yep most people do not realize a pure democracy would never give justice or peace to a minority for the simple fact that you are the minority and will always get out voted that's why I'm Damn grateful to live in a republic
How do you decide whose votes are “extra”? Is it just luck of the draw?
Over the minimum needed to win, and it is split, not everyone who voted for gorilla would have voted for tiger otherwise, but if half would, half the votes go to tiger
I wondered the same thing and I googled how it's done in other countries. In Ireland, it's done randomly. So if there's a surplus of, let's say 200 votes, you just take 200 votes randomly and send them to their next choice. I do have a serious problem with this, because even if a lot of people will have the same next choice in their ballot (given that they voted for the same guy in their first preference), once you go to their next options, it's pretty much impossible that two ballots will look exactly the same (this is specially true when there are a lot of candidates involved). Having said that, I think that in other places where they use STV, what they do is to count all the votes, but you give them "relative power" to the surplus, i.e, if there are 200 votes of surplus like before, and 1000 people voted for that guy, that represent 20%, that means that you would count everybody's next choice, but you multiply each result times 0.2. I guess it could get really weird sometimes because you after many rounds, you could get candidates with a bunch of decimals of votes, but I guess it's much better than just taking it randomly.
It's the people's second vote.
Those votes go to the voters second choice. This video is a simplification, it's not like the governments just take chunks of the voters and put them next to who they look more alike.
By their second ranked vote
A BANANA IN EVERY HAND!
Sandwiches ForAll A TALL TREE IN EVERY YARD!
EVERY MAN A KING
DOWN WITH THE TRAITORS, UP WITH THE STARS
Queen Lion is awesome. A leader who wants to do the right thing, is willing to listen, and change her opinion based on new information.
Lion: Right on Voting, Right for America.
Vote Lion 2018.
@Glitchy-S
Which is by far the most superior goverment.
@Jez Chantler It is a misconception about ants. They are as selfish as everyone else. But their selfishness is not directed at themselves but at the group. Ants are worthless to cooperate. It goes slower when 2 ants carry a conifer than when 1 ants does. The day when ants learn to cooperate is the day when people need to fear for their position as ruler of the world.
She's also the only lion in the kingdom, and not a monkey. Makes it harder for her to pick a side.
I vote for wolf. Take care of the pack and help each other out
You shouldn't have to vote for her.
-this post was made by the bonapartist gang
I see that Turtle’s extremism has been eliminated from the jungle.
It just looks so clean, intuitive and perfect tbh. Is there a hidden flaw or something? Im confused
@Chris Chance Probably no, because partyes can change (remeber, Trump was the representative of the same party Abraham Lincoln once was), and that would easily make the popularity as normal
@Itachi0567 What you've pointed out is actually one of the positives of STV, and I say that as a voter all my life in an STV system. It actually rewards moderates not extremists.... because extremists aren't transfer friendly. You're thinking of the effects of STV on a party in isolation depending on that party's own supporters...when in the real world those who can appeal to the ideologically moderate in other parties who may give them a 3rd, 4th or even 15th preference are actually more successful. It also allows voters to signal to a party that they favour particular a particular wing of the party over another. Here in Ireland that often results in individual candidates linked to an unpopular policy suffering electorally while their party colleagues who disagreed stay largely unaffected.
I can see two. The first one is that it benefits established political parties. How is a new party supposed to break into the system when votes are determined by who belongs to what party? What if voters change parties, or are unaffiliated?
The second problem is, how do you decide which votes are the extra votes? Which of the White Tiger voters wanted Gorilla or Silverback as their second choice instead of Tiger?
Honestly this system just looks like a more much more confusing version of Instant Runoff with very little benefit over Instant Runoff. Remember how many voters in Florida were confused by the butterfly ballot? Yes, there were other problems with that system, like easily-misaligned overlays (the paper ballots) and faulty machines, but there were a lot of people legitimately confused by it. Do we really want to get a voting system this confusing anywhere near America's Wang, the Old People and Methhead State?
@Angolin You've got it wrong. Parties per se do not factor into the STV process. Every voter is treated identically, regardless of whether or not they involve themselves with a political party. In this video, Grey is using parties as a shorthand for candidates who are close to each other on the political spectrum and thus are likely to receive transfers from each other's voters. There are many variations on how transfers are chosen - too many to list here. Wikipedia has a good description of them in their 'Counting single transferable votes' article.
Counting the votes of an STV election is indeed trickier than some systems, but that's only really a problem for counting staff. The process of completing a ballot is exactly as simple as with an instant-runoff election: rank the candidates in order of your preference. I don't believe any proportional system has a simpler ballot.
@Angolin I think it would benefit candidates more than parties, since candidates aren't necessarily chosen based on which party they're in.
The extra votes would be proportional based on the whole group, like Ireland does it. In other words, you look at the second choice of the entire group and give percentage amounts to other candidates.
One problem is that it makes counting take significantly longer, but it's honestly probably worth it.
This is how the Senate in Australia is elected. The House of Reps is elected with Preferential/Alternative vote.
That is precisely the Australian system, except subsequent numbers like 2, 3, 4 don't hold the same unit value as 1. It's complex but the kangaroo's count the votes anyway.
I would vote for anyone named White Tiger.
@Balanced Stereo virgin
rAcIsT
WHITE | TIGER | KINGDOM
pfft racist! Vote for Black Panther!! Because Black Panthers can't be racist, am I right?! cough cough
Yep
Problem: The jungle council controls the queen.
Solution: Activate Order 66
The jungle council later accused Queen Lion of being an absolute monarch and started a communist revolution and beheaded her.
😢
Perfect now we eat the royal family and seize the means of production
I read "STD" instead of STV at first lmao
Dutch system:
- Divide the number of votes through the number of seats in the counsil/parliament available.
- Result is the number of votes a party needs to get one seat council/parliament, not percentages, because percentages are incredibly messy.
- number of seats for each party (or species of animal in this case) is determined by how many times that threshold is passed.
This way most of the animals are represented in a correct way, unless you voted on a party that got under like, 0,7% of the votes. This also means leftover votes don't need to be redistributed after passing the threshold as seen at 4:48.
If you have more than 4 or 5 parties, this also means that it's very unlikely for one party to dominate the voting in the council/parliament, which means all parliament members will have to keep in mind the interests of the other parties when making decisions, causing consensus-based policies to be taken.
@Krzysztof Szyszka True, but then again our country is smaller than a single American state. So whilst this is a drawback, the local differences aren't as pronounced in the Netherlands as in say the United States. Plus, the Netherlands is a decentralized unitary state, which mean a fair number of things are dealt with on a more local level, either provincial or muncipal (though not as much as in the American federal system).
But wouldn't it be better if we could somehow use ranked voting in combination with our current system and redistribute those leftover votes? Because if you vote for a party that doesn't get any seats, your vote is still, in a sense, thrown away. It would be nice if those votes could go to a second choice in that case. Our system does still have strategic voting and this could cut down on that I think.
Maybe even more important, I think the single biggest party should not get priority in coalition building. This because, especially in current times, the biggest party in the Netherlands actually still has a relatively small percentage of the seats. It seems if a ranked system gets implemented, we could make second choices public(but still anonymous), to show what the other choices are of the people who voted for each party. Then that could be used to show which possible coalitions have the broadest support and those could be given priority. If we want we can maybe even have a second 'negative list' where you can rank the parties you especially don't want to support, to get even more info on the best coalitions to form, and those NOT to form! But I suppose that would make it very complicated with relatively limited benefits.
I suppose also, that might be difficult to combine ranked voting with the current system, especially with the system where you can vote for individual candidates within each party. I mean, our ballot is already absurdly huge! So maybe we'd have to give that up, or we should, after all, switch to a digital system. Still, at some point, more options is not better but could actually be paralyzing, and some trade off should be accepted.
As far as local representation, I do feel some more explicit link between local elections and national ones might be good, but maybe only through switching up the bicameral system, have one more locally representative one, and a more national one, or maybe even a third chamber, although that might be getting too complicated and unwieldy again. ;)
The Dutch system is far superior to STV. STV is essentially a system designed for 'third parties', but not parties that get less than 20-30% of the vote, meaning it still doesn't produce a properly 'proportional' result; that's the reason it's favoured by parties like the Liberal Democrats in the UK - just proportional enough to give the Lib Dems more seats but not so proportional as to give seats to even smaller parties.
Of course, the problem with all proportional systems is that coalitions becomes the norm, producing weak and gridlocked government. The strength of first-past-the-post/winner-takes-all systems is that they make it far easier to remove unpopular representatives/governments and replace them with a definite alternative that can then be held to their manifestoes and kicked out in turn, rather than continually returning the same old faces.
I think both the Dutch system and STV have advantages and disadvantages over each other. I.m.o. a better system than either would be to use STV with constituencies of around 6-8 seats, and also have a simple party vote, where everyone votes for their preferred party. Then, when the constituency seats have been filled from the STV, add more MPs, who would not represent any particular constituency, in order for the seats for each party to proportionally represent the votes in the party vote.
@Krzysztof Szyszka The Belgian system is similar to the Dutch one except that Belgium is divided into 11 constituencies, ranging from 4 to 24 seats each, so it does allow for some local representation, although the result is less proportional and especially in the smaller constituencies there will be more people who will not be represented by their preferred party. I think, with that system, a happy medium would be ideal. Both countries' parliaments have a total of 150 seats, so perhaps divide them into 4 constituencies, with around 35 to 40 seats each.
interesting! could you cover liquid democracy in the animal kingdom?
the next day animals overthrow queen lion for changing their representatives too often.
0:04 lol jackolope.
Queen lion:*snaps* ranges:I don't feel so good poofs
Gather round children, this is a historical event! CGP Grey has uploaded a new video!
@iamihop I just thought of this, what about honor? I've never seen/heard anyone say "a honor"
Historic.
Gather around children, let's talk about POLITICS!
Im american but you only use an if the word its referring to has a vowel as the first letter. that's what i was taught at least
100% divided by 3 is NOT 33%. It is 33,(3)%, wchich means candidates who get 33% of votes DO NOT surpass the level of 33,(3)%. This makes the entire video wrong and I cannot understand how can you omit such a giant mistake :|
Bro, what happens if the citizens DOESN'T want representatives or even a Jungle Council and/or queen?
In Malta we use S.T.V.
2:39 hello, darkness my old friend
Technically what would happen for the last two candidates( especially with optional preferring) is the candidate with the biggest vote.
Also in some places the quota is 100%/(seats+1)
They have this in ireland, very smart.
@Legit Beast Spain has it too!
This is how the Senate in Australia is elected. The House of Reps is elected with Preferential/Alternative vote. This way there is no spoiler effect in the lower house, but also minority governments are rare.
@TheCloudedMountain 09 That was my question too: the idea seems perfect for representation but in terms of actual governance might be different: especially if the local seats have multiple representatives, how efficient is local governance in Ireland? Genuine question
It's no problem having 3-5 members of parliament representing you in Ireland. It makes it more likely that one of them shares your view, and it's more likely that one is at risk of losing their seat. In the UK some constituencies are very safe Tory seats - so if you're not Tory-leaning what incentive do they have to pay attention to you?
The main problem with STV is that you can get a lot of independents elected on local issues. I'm all for smaller parties, but independents bring little to the table, IMO. The point of the parliament is getting representatives of a wide variety of opinions to compromise to form a government. If independents can't even compromise enough to join a party how will they help form a goverment?
@Malcolm Dowse "It's no problem having 3-5 members of parliament representing you in Ireland. It makes it more likely that one of them shares your view, and it's more likely that one is at risk of losing their seat."
And you can also play them off each other if you need to get something done....
This is truly one of my favorite videos of all time. This should be taught in schools. Period. I share this video with everyone i possibly can. Thank you @cgpgrey for making this and for making it so understandable.
This is how the Australian Preference system works, our politicians are very similar to monkeys
5:27
How do you decide which votes to transfer and which ones to just keep to white lion? perhaps the 33% of White Tiger voters BEFORE the minimum line wanted White Gorilla.
@Wario64I you only count again the votes for white tiger which didn't help white tiger win. This makes sense, because, if those voters had known their votes weren't needed to help their fav candidate win they would have been better off strategically voting for their second favourite candidate.
@Geoff Davids That's unfair because you influence outcome of the election based on which votes you count first.
@Wario64I True, I can see your point. How do you decide which of the white tiger voters are the necessary and which are the surplus? I don't actually know, I hadn't thought about that until now
@Wario64I So I just found this video which explains it pretty well. It goes through a more detailed example of how STV works. What do you think? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac9070OIMUg
The excess votes are distributed by dividing the vote into the proportions of the total 2nd vote candidates, rather than any specific group's second candidate. So say threshold is 1000, and White Tiger gets 2000. 1500 of those put Purple Tiger 2nd, and 500 put White Gorilla 2nd. So the 1000 extra votes are distributed in the ration 3:1 to Purple Tiger and White Gorilla, with PT receiving 750 extra votes and WG receiving 250.
Same logic applies if your 2nd favorite candidate is eliminated, except it gets increasingly complicated, and is best worked out by computer.
Thank you very much for this, it really made me aware of how flawed FPTP is.
If the United States adopted this, we'd have nothing but independents winning elections, which I would be VERY happy with.
Lol, we couldn't handle more than two, we don't think enough.
I've been thinking the US system to be quite broken for a while. But the video example only works because the true ruler is the queen, and she can change the system.
But as rule for rulers #3 states. Minimise key supporters, FPtP does that, STV makes minorities more powerful. So unless the people really push for it, it won't happen.
Shawn Ravenfire unfortunately thisnis why this will nevwr be implimented. Youd ask the two most powerful political parties in america to give up their power. They'd never accept that
Yessssss
@Zachary Hey Zachary!! Sorry I'm not Connor Sarsfield, but I'm Irish as well so I'll put my own two cent in if you don't mind 😂 It's kind of bizarre actually. I don't know the precise details, but apparently, the British actually made us use it when we were negotiating to have a devolved parliament (like Wales and Scotland have now) within the UK in the late 1910s, because they wanted to make sure that Unionists (people who favoured staying in the UK, mostly Protestants) were represented as well as only Nationalists (people who wanted Ireland to be either more or entirely independent, mostly Catholics). History then happened: almost all the members (basically, the Nationalists ones) who were elected essentially said "screw you, we're an independent country and we're going to sit in our own parliament, not your rubbish devolved one" ; then there was a war, then the Republic of Ireland (which was called the Free State at the time because it wasn't technically a Republic, because the British government made us keep the king) became independent, there was a civil war, and then there wasn't any more. So, in the end, the original plan for a 'devolved parliament' never actually happened, but our national parliament that came out of the deputies refusing to go to that devolved parliament was thus using that voting system, and in the end we decided to keep it after all (and I'm very happy we have 😊). The main governing party in the mid-20th century (Fianna Fáil) did actually try to change it to First-past-the-post twice (because it would have given them more seats of course 🙄), but that meant changing the constitution which in Ireland can only be done by a referendum, and both times their proposal was defeated.
Interestingly, the British government also set up a devolved parliament for Northern Ireland at the same time as trying to set up one in what would become the Republic, but in 1929, the Northern Irish parliament voted to change to First-past-the-post (so that Unionists would win almost all the seats and Nationalists would win almost none). This was a major help to discrimination against Nationalists/Catholics in Northern Ireland, and in 1979 (I think) the British government actually abolished the parliament because even they could see it was making things worse. When in 1998 the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement was signed, it provided for a new Northern Irish Assembly to be elected by (shock horror!) Single Transferable Vote, so everyone would feel represented. That assembly hasn't actually met since 2016, but that's another story ...
"The monkeys always seem to have more votes than anybody else so they win all the elections"
Indeed
Anyone here after the Irish election?
Me!
This video didn't mention how three party politics is crappy
@Colin Ashe Yeah, the Irish system isn't ideal as the seat count in each constituency falls strictly between the 3 & 5 range & without going into the math of it, when you have a system where 5 is the ceiling (rather than the floor) it tends to skew the results somewhat.
For a properly proportional outcome it really should be a minimum of 5 or 6 with no upper limit for the more densely populated areas. But due to the Irish constitution, there's some sort of ratio that has to be adhered to i believe, which limits the scope of improvement somewhat.
4:14 and this is how canada got steven harper.
2:37 heheh nice touch with the turtle
BC (Canada) is having a referendum on a new voting system. I've used this a few times to help people make sense of STV. Thanks Grey!
Freaking turn this into like a series life in the animal kingdom
Absolutely amazing. Such a great Video, and I don’t know why.
I watched this whole video. Without knowing anything about your channel, I’m gonna sub just in case you do more
Of course, in the real world the ones making the rules would be the monkeys, and they care about their fellow monkeys, not the populace as a whole. So they keep the old system.
@VestedUTuber Well there could be a rearrangement of ranges on species lines which lowers the monkeys influence
@The HRE / Bob Bemis
But then you'd have to hope that the people doing the redistricting aren't secretly monkeys themselves.
@VestedUTuber in this case it could be that the queen didn't have the power to directly change the system but instead to call in a plebiscite for the change.
See: Conservative and Labour parties, United Kingdom 😂
@Adam Lawson
Also see: North Carolina.
1:00 Those Lions Are Spies!
3:58 he messed up
YEEEEEEES, THANK YOU!
Soogbad - 2019-07-19
All the video is true, except for the last part where the government decides to switch to STV
Fredrik Dunge - 2020-02-09
@Wildfire Why would it be? The UK is one of the oldest democracies in the world and they had a referendum a few years back (that's when Grey started out this series) about implementing it, and while they voted against it, had they voted for it that would have been it, they would have had this system, of course the people in power in the large parties didn't want it so they scared their voters into not supporting it. But since referendums is the only way to implement a thing like this in the UK (because it lacks a written constitution) it will eventually always come down to a popular vote.
And also, I can't see a link between age of democracy and existance or lack of wellfare, the oldest democracies are the Netherlands and Switzerland where the Netherlands have welfare and Switzerland does not. If we look at some defunct older democracies like the Italian republics and even the roman republic they all had welfare systems, in fact in the case of the last the grain subsidies is usually held up as the reason that the roman empire lasted almost two millennia.
The Lone Wanderer - 2020-02-23
The old way benefited the monkeys so why would they willingly give up the power? We need people who will change it so we need to fight within the crappy system we already have
Ten Letters - 2020-02-28
@Lemmy boy having Japanese in your username doesn't nessicarily mean you're Japanese. Also I'd doubt it because ライト is actually an English word (either right, light, or lite)
Lemmy boy - 2020-02-28
@Ten Letters katakana is mainly used for foreign words so yeah....
The thing why i asked is bcs his statemant about his goverment so i was intrested in which country he lives.
Ofc "Where do you live" would have done the same job, idk why i didnt ask that.
D'KODA - 2020-02-29
@Arnis Kapenieks so it is an oligarchy