A list of puns related to "Officeholder"
After “registration form” in Part 1 (2) (3) insert:
Or if they:
>(a) Hold a meta office,
>
>(b) Are a parliamentarian,
>
>(c) Or holds a party constitutionally recognised office in a party registered with the AEC.
We should make it easier to be a member of the sim, its just too annoying and there is no point for us to have to renew every three months when we are clearly active members that are contributing to the sim actively, this amendment will make everyone who holds an office in meta, parliament, or in a position outlined by a party constitution registered with the AEC a member of the sim.
These Republicans won election or re-election on the same day, using the same ballots, using the same election systems. Is there an explanation for this discrepancy?
Additionally, I haven’t heard a satisfactory explanation for why Democrats would rig the presidential election but not, say, Senate elections as well
(I'll preface by saying this wasn't particularly high effort, but I found it interesting nonetheless.)
Basically, I took the current party which holds the governorship in each state and mapped that as if these results had occurred in the 2020 election. I understand this scenario is HIGHLY unlikely, but I think that the interest in this map is how it highlights the differences between gubernatorial and national races.
https://preview.redd.it/25oeqs98frf61.png?width=1804&format=png&auto=webp&s=85384203ae967c8ea250fd0e8af91232c67d55e8
What's further interesting is that Biden would gain a modest three states: Kansas, Kentucky, and North Carolina, but Trump would gain twice as many: Arizona, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont, resulting in a net negative of 3 states for Biden. Ultimately Biden still would have still won the presidency, but by a narrower margin (ignoring Nebraska and Maine's split delegations) of 288 EC votes, an 18 vote deficit from his actual total of 306 votes.
In my mind, politicians should be vaccinated with their age/occupation group. Good leaders should expose themselves to the same risks that their peers are subjected to.
#I hereby move the following constitutional amendments
Changing the threshold
In Section 7, subsections 6 and 7 (Appointment of Moderators):
> Replace "65%" with "65% + 1 vote"
Changing the electoral system
In Section 4:
Insert the following after Section 4, Subsection 6 and renumber accordingly:
> Voting Systems
> (7) Meta referendums shall utilise the following voting system—
> (a) for the election of officeholders where there are more candidates than positions available, Single Transferrable Vote (STV)/Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV); and
> (b) for all other meta referendums, Approval Voting.
So, we're doing a Head Mod election again... Feels like this is relevant! I think it'd make it easier for us to achieve a consensus if we utilise preferential voting systems, allowing voters to rank candidates that they support whilst also allowing them to give no preference to one or more candidates. I've also left the threshold at 65%, or rather 65% + 1 vote for clarity, which means that the final candidate still requires more than a simple majority to be elected. I'm open to lowering this to 50% + 1 but I know that some feel that this isn't high enough, and I believe those concerns are founded. Anyway, feel free to second if you agree or ask questions below ig?
Please note that this site uses cookies to personalise content and adverts, to provide social media features, and to analyse web traffic. Click here for more information.