For Civ 6, I’d say winning each victory once. Try to do it with different civs each time too. You can set your goal as winning a game on the highest difficulty if you want, but personally I don’t find that to be as interesting as the shift in gameplay necessary to win the different victories without just militarily crushing everyone else.
I agree with that, but there is not the slightest of chances in hell that making into a thing you do with social media will ever turn out well
While I think it’s ridiculous to strip her of citizenship - she’s our problem, we should be dealing with her, and we’re also making her stateless - it’s pretty obvious that the law will treat you differently if you join an organisation that is at war with the government vs one that isn’t. Even when both organisations act heinously.
Heartbreaking: the worst person you know etc etc
Considering that a whole bunch of EDL supporters and adjacent groups are involved, making brown people feel unwelcome in the country is absolutely the goal
God I hope so. That sounds lovely
It’s a method of maximising utility from your vote within a given system. In our system, every vote except the minimum necessary for the winner to win does nothing other than signal support for a given platform. You have to weigh up whether that signal is worth more than the gains from getting your preference of your two local big candidates to win. One of those decisions is much more likely to make an impact, but it’s making an impact that’s less aligned with my actual preferences.
Another issue is that there’s not really any way to stop your political opponents from doing it, and if they do then they have a huge advantage over every other party that is more fractured. They’re making that sacrifice of voting for someone less aligned and in exchange they’re getting that candidate to win every time with 30% of the votes, because the rest of the electorate is split ten ways.
6th largest, with only five seats out of the Commons’ total 650 compared to the SNP’s nine and Sinn Féin’s seven. I suppose you could argue that they are 5th largest since SF don’t take their seats. They did get the third-highest vote share though, just got absolutely fucked by FPTP. And hey, if anyone had to get fucked by FPTP, I’m glad it was them. But the number of votes they got is pretty alarming.
Of the two big parties, yes, without a doubt. There’s plenty to criticise Starmer’s Labour for but they’re a hell of a lot better than what we had before this election. Starmer is certainly not an inspiring candidate and has given a lot of ground to the Conservatives on policy positions, but we can probably at least look forward to a lot less random lashing out at whichever vulnerable group looks like a useful target this week
Makes sense. Thanks
The fuck happened in Leicester East that it’s the sole Con gain in the country?
Does it need to be any quicker? It’s not really important to get the results in by 4am instead of 7am, surely?
They’re not as bad as the Republicans, but given how they have been acting in recent years in particular it is definitely not an entirely unfair comparison. They’re ludicrously, dangerously angry at asylum seekers and trans people.
It is also worth noting that more Conservative MPs voted against same-sex marriage than for it, despite it being one of their own MPs that introduced it
It used to be common! Over a century ago, sure, but it was
Yes, he is. It’s that you can usually expect FPTP elections to produce a winner from one of the two dominant parties. Since your vote does not count for anything if your candidate didn’t win in UK elections, you can use this information to instead pick your favourite of the two candidates that are likely to win and maximise your chances of seeing your preferred of the two win, as opposed to voting third party and achieving nothing. You don’t need to know how quickly a two party system entrenches itself for this to be useful. You just need to know if it already has and which parties are the dominant ones in your constituency.
It almost certainly does, but we still mustn’t be complacent. Instead we should aim for that stretch goal of knocking them below the Lib Dems. If nothing else it’d be really funny
Ahh, I hadn’t interpreted the comment that way. I thought that Jackthelad was suggesting Farage was being unfairly maligned by the article. My apologies if I got that wrong
Maybe read the article and find out
I don’t know, though I would be interested to read. Taagepera and Grofman’s 1985 work examined the elections of western Europe, the Anglosphere, and a couple of others across 1945-1980. They found that of the seven single-winner sytems, only France had a reliable third party (and of course, France does not use regular FPTP), and of the 15 multi-winner systems only Austria and Ireland did not have at least three. That is, of course, only correlation, and the authors have some other interesting points about major political issues within a country, but they do come down in favour of Duverger’s approach.
Some of the papers I’ve read on it have mentioned that particularly young democracies (such as Nigeria after re-establishing democracy in the late 90s, and I think the paper using that example was from the 2010s) do not appear to have settled into this pattern. On the other hand, in an older system like the UK, we see examples like the 1922 general election. The Liberals performed very badly in the prior election, Labour outperformed them in 1922, and the Liberals have never risen above third place since.
If Duverger’s law is completely off base, why do you think that the UK has such a strong two party donination? No party outside the top two has won a general election for a century, and prior to that it was the same story with one of the top two swapped out.
They must surely be too busy confusing child abusers with foot fetishists for us to worry about it