Indecision 2022
Re: Indecision 2022
And did you then immediately try again?
Re: Indecision 2022
TIL there's a Republican rep from Texas called "Keith Self".
- Little waster
- After Pie
- Posts: 2385
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
- Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes
Re: Indecision 2022
It’s such a crying shame.
If only the “Stupid Evil” and the “Crazy Evil” could just recognise that what unites them outweighs the petty things that divide them, then they could come together as one and work together for the Greater Evil and make this imperfect world a true Hell-on-Earth.
They are so very very close to creating something truly horrifying and yet they can’t quite seal the deal yet.
But I’m an idealist and have faith that they will still find a way and that the great coalition of “True American Patriots” will get the appropriate instructions from their handlers in Moscow, and that the “Moral Majority” will talk it out properly with their mistresses and rentboys through the haze of crack cocaine and poppers; that the “Christian Conservatives” will pray long and hard to their Lord Satan to send them the sign of a yet-another “Freedom-loving Pro-Lifer” machine-gunning a classroom-full of kindergarten students, as the “Constitutionalist” Supreme Court smear another noisome skid-mark across a certain 18th Century piece of parchment and that finally they’ll all join hands together once-more in a noxious confederacy of utter c.nts.
Come on America you can do it!
If only the “Stupid Evil” and the “Crazy Evil” could just recognise that what unites them outweighs the petty things that divide them, then they could come together as one and work together for the Greater Evil and make this imperfect world a true Hell-on-Earth.
They are so very very close to creating something truly horrifying and yet they can’t quite seal the deal yet.
But I’m an idealist and have faith that they will still find a way and that the great coalition of “True American Patriots” will get the appropriate instructions from their handlers in Moscow, and that the “Moral Majority” will talk it out properly with their mistresses and rentboys through the haze of crack cocaine and poppers; that the “Christian Conservatives” will pray long and hard to their Lord Satan to send them the sign of a yet-another “Freedom-loving Pro-Lifer” machine-gunning a classroom-full of kindergarten students, as the “Constitutionalist” Supreme Court smear another noisome skid-mark across a certain 18th Century piece of parchment and that finally they’ll all join hands together once-more in a noxious confederacy of utter c.nts.
Come on America you can do it!
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
Re: Indecision 2022
That's an interesting voting system they're using - if there's no majority then none of the contestants get eliminated or anything, just try again. I'm surprised that it usually works OK.
Re: Indecision 2022
It is the same voting system used for Popes and I don't think that has ever resulted in perpetual stalemate. In papal elections it is in a sense even more difficult as there is no formality of offering or withdrawing your candidacy, though people may let it be known they are in poor health, etc.
The last 5 conclaves - which takes us back to 1963 - have required 4 rounds twice (Benedict XVI, John Paul I), 5 rounds (Francis), 6 rounds (Paul VI) and 8 rounds (John Paul II). I believe that no election where we know the number of rounds has required fewer than 4 rounds.
An indication of how such a papal election might work in practice is depicted in the (very readable page-turner of a) novel by Robert Harris called Conclave. It depicts the election of a pope in the modern world, which we can guess was most closely based on the election of Pope John Paul II, as it takes 3 days, like his election. I have read that it is thoroughly researched. Harris generally does his research pretty thoroughly these days - at least since he got a bit of heavy criticism for mistakes in his early historical novel, Enigma. I did wonder whether the level of intrigue and corruption was turned up for literary reasons, or a reasonable depiction of internal Vatican politics.
The interesting thing about the Vatican conclave is that, for all the guff about it being inspired by god, in reality it is a practical election with rival factions of differing views who want to prevail for their own political reasons. The electors recognise there can only be one winner. They will eventually ditch their support for their favoured candidate when they see they can't possibly win. Joining up with a rival faction to deny other factions, whose candidates you really don't like, is a reality as in tactical voting in British FPP elections. Papal elections are cheap in comparison to statewide elections, and they can afford to take a few rounds to come to those compromises.
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7057
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Indecision 2022
TimW, Ivan, in terms of eliminating people or not, it looks like there is a trade-off between the speed of the process and the need to find a compromise candidate. Eliminating last placed candidates will speed up the process and force voters to switch their support to another candidate. But that comes at the expense of the possibility that the person eliminated is actually the best compromise. That could happen if, say, there are four factions, three of which are roughly equal in size and the fourth is much weaker. It could be that the three are best able to live with a winner from the fourth rather than see it go to a stronger rival.
Re: Indecision 2022
The job they are electing someone to is speaker of the house, roughly the equivalent of the UK prime minister in terms of legislative (not executive) function. One of the key skills for that job, and that of majority party leader, is not putting important things up for a vote unless you are sure you already have a majority - usually whipped from your own majority party.
So usually there's no need for a second round, because the majority leader knows which candidate from their party can command a majority. If they don't, then they are not good at their job.
Re: Indecision 2022
Is there any chance that Democrats would vote for a slightly-more-acceptable Republican candidate, if one were nominated? It seems like a reasonable move to me, keeping the far-right out, but could just be out of the question for some reason.
Re: Indecision 2022
It's possible.
The problem is that 3/4 of the GOP voted to overturn the 2020 election results, including all of the GOP leadership. So there's a small pool of reasonable GOPers, and anyone that did stand or vote with the Democrats is basically taking themselves out of the party. But there are a few options, and 18 GOP members in districts that Biden won in 2020.
But you don't have to stand to be nominated - Jim Jordan nominated McCarthy in the second round, and then got enough votes to keep McCarthy out. And your don't have to be a member of the house either - some have suggested Liz Cheney, and some of the lunatics had suggested Trump.
Re: Indecision 2022
The standard process of eliminating a candidate only on, in effect, first preferences, can make a mistake like that. And of course, Arrow's theorem shows us that there is no perfect voting system when there are more than 2 options. But that Arrow's theorem does not extend to a situation where you can have repeated voting, and hence time for reputations to build up, for agreements, explicit and implicit, between electors to be made. It's a purely set-theoretical result, it has no behavioural aspects, that arise in repeated games. To what extent that repeated voting can reduce the problems of simple voting systems such as Arrow's Theorem describes, or might introduce new, worse problems, I don't know.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 10:25 amTimW, Ivan, in terms of eliminating people or not, it looks like there is a trade-off between the speed of the process and the need to find a compromise candidate. Eliminating last placed candidates will speed up the process and force voters to switch their support to another candidate. But that comes at the expense of the possibility that the person eliminated is actually the best compromise. That could happen if, say, there are four factions, three of which are roughly equal in size and the fourth is much weaker. It could be that the three are best able to live with a winner from the fourth rather than see it go to a stronger rival.
Over at Congress, I wonder if it's a bit like the DUP in Northern Ireland. Would the hold-out republicans rather not have a functional House than one led by someone they don't like? It seems some essential things in the US political system require the House's approval, and so they can potentially hold wider parts of government to ransom. It seems, as with the papal conclave, you can't withdraw your candidacy and the hold-outs are voting for someone who has attempted to withdraw in favour of the leading candidate.
Re: Indecision 2022
The fundamental problem is that the further right wing of the GOP has been running on the idea that the Federal government is bad and shouldn't function since the 80s.
They campaign on how disfunctional Congress is, and win on that basis. Then they make sure it's true, for the next election campaign.
They campaign on how disfunctional Congress is, and win on that basis. Then they make sure it's true, for the next election campaign.
Re: Indecision 2022
Why don't the Democrats vote for McCarthy? He'd win and it would destroy him.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
Re: Indecision 2022
He's currently getting destroyed, so you don't really have that incentive. And it's better for the Dems not to be able to anything in the house and show everyone how dysfunctional the Republicans are (and make their splits worse), rather than just not being able to do anything in the house while the GOP plays obstructionism.
Re: Indecision 2022
Time for Kev to lose again.
Re: Indecision 2022
Aaaaand he's already lost...again.
Re: Indecision 2022
Assuming that everyone made it back to vote today.
He can win with 10 Ds missing in action.
Which I doubt they are today. I guess this could carry on until an CoVID XBB.1.5 outbreak or a snowstorm changes the winning margin.
Re: Indecision 2022
C-SPAN reporting that he doesn't have the votes and a fifth vote is expected.
Re: Indecision 2022
None of them are officially Representatives yet, as they don't get sworn in until there's a speaker. And they have to be sworn in before they can adopt the House rules. So there are some interesting questions about practicalities if this goes on long enough (which I don't really expect, but who knows). One of the few solid answers I've seen is that House committees would have to stop paying their staff.
Re: Indecision 2022
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10137
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Indecision 2022
Surely this is now "Indecision 2023"? My "split thread" trigger finger is getting itchy.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: Indecision 2022
It's the implementation and final vote of the 2022 election, so I'd leave it here until Trump announces his 2024 run...Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 9:22 pmSurely this is now "Indecision 2023"? My "split thread" trigger finger is getting itchy.
Re: Indecision 2022
Next round, someone should nominate Bill Murray.
- Attachments
-
- 31ah-groundhogday-movies-superJumbo.jpg (98.83 KiB) Viewed 878 times