Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:how is that supposed to work? (Score 1) 576

by nedlohs (#47367817) Attached to: Unintended Consequences For Traffic Safety Feature

When you are turning and hence going to drive across the pedestrian crossing that is counting down at that moment, which should be pretty obvious.

But you are completely changing the claim being made in the first place. There's no claim that there's an increase in accidents with pedestrians. The claim is simply that collisions between cars, in particular rear-end accidents, increase. They propose that this is due to drivers seeing the counters and trying to make it through before the lights change and running into the car in front of them that instead of doing the same thing just stopped at the lights as they changed.

Comment: Re:Back to square one please (Score 4, Informative) 576

by nedlohs (#47367747) Attached to: Unintended Consequences For Traffic Safety Feature

It has helped. Can you not read or something?

The timers lowered the number of accidents involving pedestrians.

So the opposite of "not helped", it worked just fine.

However, in addition to reducing the number of pedestrian accidents it also increased the number of rear-end collisions.

Comment: Re:Democrats voted (Score 1) 932

by nedlohs (#47246901) Attached to: House Majority Leader Defeated In Primary

I have no real problem with primaries in general - seems a strange way of choosing the candidate that will run under a party's banner. In a democratic system having a democratic method makes sense - letting people outside the party pick seems really silly though. Primaries do have the advantage of putting some of the back room dealings out in the open, for example, preselection in say Australia can be a wondrous affair of back room deals and branch stacking.

There's still a need to a party to choose who will get to use the party name when running. No reason it can't be multiple people in an IRV system of course (though in practice there would be risks in doing so) but I don't think you want just anyone to be able to run under a party name without the party having some input into the matter.

Comment: Re:Democrats voted (Score 1) 932

by nedlohs (#47221885) Attached to: House Majority Leader Defeated In Primary

Sure, but those seem less likely and more easily remedied than the issues people have with the act of the voting itself (because voting on a day when most people aren't working would be willy apparently) more than once.

And simple "how to vote" guides from the parties solves most of the informed voter problem. Either people care enough to find out about the policies and histories of all the candidates or they rank them the way a group they trust recommends they should.

Write ins are harmed of course, but if they haven't managed to get the word on out on election day in the current system they are already screwed anyway.

There is no perfect voting system. Simple IRV while having numerous flaws seems significantly better than the current US system and than actual run off systems though. It's not the my personal favorite, but it's simple and easy to understand and run which counts for something.

Comment: Re:Democrats voted (Score 1) 932

by nedlohs (#47221725) Attached to: House Majority Leader Defeated In Primary

Obviously IRV since the purpose was to avoid having run off elections. So picking the one that gives the same results (assuming no one changes their minds between votes) is a no brainer.

And yes all voting methods have failure modes and weaknesses to being gamed. Almost all of them are better than the what the US currently uses though, so that doesn't seem worth even bringing up.

Not only is UNIX dead, it's starting to smell really bad. -- Rob Pike

Working...