 |
|  |
 |
|
Pedrunn
|
 |
of Natal, Brazil
Jul 2001 time: 02:23
|
|
The current constitution draft has a section which says
quote: CTP2DG Constitution
(j) If no candidate for office receives more than 50% of the vote, there shall be a run-off election between the two candidates who received the most votes.
(k) The Court shall, immediately the first election poll expires, create a run-off poll between the two candidates who received the most votes. The winner of this poll will be declared the new holder of the office for which he was a candidate.
|
If you think that only one election which the most voted citizen will be declared the new holder of the government position is enough vote yes.
If you think that a run-off election between the two candidates who received the most votes in the first election is needed if the mosted voted candidate didnt received more than 50% of the votes say No.
The advantage of having a single election polls is that every citizen wont have to vote twice which some may thing boring and the time spent with the election process will be half of the needed with two polls (each election will last 3 to 5 days, TBD).
The advantage of having two election polls is to make sure that the majority of the community agrees with the most voted candidate.
So is only one election enough to decide a government position?
Last edited by Pedrunn on 06-11-2002 at 03:24
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999 time: 06:23
|
|
I vote for yes, on the condition that there *will* be a rerun between the canditates with the most votes if it's a tie...
quote: Originally posted by J Bytheway
10^557, If I count correctly... Any particular reason you chose that? I could understand 10^600, because I think that's one of the largest numbers for which there is a word in English (centillion, although in the American system a centillion is 10^303 - good evidence that the American system is silly, IMHO). Voting in that many polls, even with a very fast connection, is probably not possible without significant life extension. |
You sound suspiciously much like Data, from ST:TNG 
Centrifuge,
Sure, except that infinity is not actually a number 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Maquiladora
|
|
Isnt infinity actually an "amount"? Its the largest value that can actually be made, and not an actual number itself.
(Can you tell i have no idea what im talking about?)
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
J Bytheway
|
 |
England
Jul 2001 time: 05:23
|
|
Infinity, eh? I'm afraid I'll have to subject you to a mathematician spiel ("More than you ever wanted to know about infinity") at this point:
Infinity might just be a number if you took a very loose definition of number, but number is not a very well defined concept - I can say for certain that infinity is not a natural number, an integer, a real number, a complex number, a rational number, an irrational number, a transcendental number, nor an algebraic number. It is, however, a member of the Riemann Sphere (this case is just about the best one for justifying infinity as a number, but unfortunately there's no ordering on the Riemann Sphere, and hence no concept of bigness, so it isn't a big number), and there are infinity-like members of the hyper-reals too (but I know very little about them).
Since we're talking about size, here, you might consider the cardinal numbers (these are a generalisation of "size") of which there are some which can represent infinity, but there are infinitely many infinite ones, and there's certainly no largest one (I would advise against asking what the cardinality of the set of infinite cardinal numbers is - that's probably not a well posed question).
Infinity is a slippery concept because in Maths there are many different contexts in which infinity is defined in many different ways, and they mostly have different names, so the Mathematicians (with luck) don't get confused, but they all get lumped into a general, much misunderstood thing, and the properties of it in various contexts get confused (e.g. in the context of Mobius maps on the Riemann Sphere 1/0=infinity, but in the real numbers 1/0 is not defined. Despite this people persist in assuming that you can do things like dividing by 0).
Generally speaking it's safe to take the view that infinity is not a number and you should certainly never mention anything like "infinity + 1", "1/infinity" or any other arithmetic operation involving infinity unless you know what you're talking about.
Like Locutus said, the usual context in which you encounter infinity is in analysis (that is the study of limits), where infinity can be the limit of a sequence or function, or the bound of an integral, but it's certainly not a number, and I don't know what an 'approximation to a number' is.
Just to make this post not total spam, I had thought that we might say that we need a revote in case of a majority less than 40% or something, but on second thoughts that's probably not a very good idea.
This is mainly a tradeoff between accuracy of representation and length of time for each vote, and as such we should not have a small chance of requiring a second vote, it should be likely or impossible. In other words the two options here really are a good pair of options (and so I'm not really saying anything important at all - best just to ignore me).
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23. Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|