/sen/ - The Senate

OK? Thanks for the article? What are you trying to say?

>>11979
Which paradox is the least bad?

>>11980
Couldn't really say. What do you think?

>>11980
Probably new state paradox. The first two can be solved by simple adjustment for consistency. The third is a bit difficult.

Weil: all paradoxes stem from flawed premises
Weil: for example: "Certain quantities, like milk, can be divided in any proportion whatsoever; others, such as horses, cannot—only whole numbers will do" is partially correct, but not entirely, which leads to the fair division paradoxes
Weil: it is not necessary to physically divide the horses into fractions - instead, one needs only divide the *allotment* of said horses
Weil: e.g. in the case of states with populations of 6/6/2 going from 4/4/2 votes at 10 total to 5/5/1 at 11, this is a matter of the votes being incorrectly distributed and redistributed due to the flawed premise - a better solution that still only involves whole numbers, and yet fairly distributes votes, would be to retain the smaller state's 2 votes, while dividing the 11th vote between the two larger states by time
Weil: i.e. half of the year the votes are 5/4/2 and the other half they are 4/5/2
Weil: do you see?
Weil: no one ends up with a fractional vote or seat, the votes/seats are still distributed proportionately according to math, and the outcome is fairer for the smaller state because it does not involve redistribution (and subsequent lessening) of its votes to the others
Kane: that makes a lot of sense actually
Kane: Why the fuck aren't we running things again?
Weil: because of inheritance and vocal minorities, man
Weil: I'm sure someone once said something to this effect, but "paradoxes are the result of a poor grasp of the rules of their respective situations"

tl;dr paradoxes are bullshit, if you think something is impossible it just means you don't understand it well enough

>>12121
Nice solution, now do it for the other examples in the article: a new state and states with different rates of growth.

BTW, you got your maths wrong: the larger states should each have their 5th vote for seventh tenths of the year, not one half of the year, and the smaller state should only have its second vote for half the year. Otherwise it would be getting too much voting power.

>>12124

Wrong. 1/5 (2 out of 10 total votes) does not equal 1/11 (1 out of 11 total votes). The percentage of total votes of all states based on population should remain as close to static as possible, but not at the cost of losing votes, i.e. if a state has a certain amount of votes (2) at some point in the past for an entire year, then it should not drop any lower than that unless there is a population decrease to account for it (with one exception that I will explain below).

Your "other solutions" add in extra factors to be accounted for. In order to resolve the problem without creating a paradox, you must settle on a set of rules to cover all possible scenarios and factors. The rules I suggested for my initial solution are

>A: once a state has been issued whole votes for at least one year for a specific population, they cannot be taken away without a population decrease of said state to account for lower voting power per said state

and

>B: voting power of individual states must be as closely representative of static percentage of total population as possible - this rule may not supersede rule A

To account for a new state or states, we can add a third rule:

>C: all state votes will be retallied and divided appropriately upon the creation or admittance of a new state; rule A may be superseded as an exception in this case

This doesn't create a paradox, since you are in essence "throwing out" the old vote distribution structure entirely and building a new one from scratch. It's not an "edit".

Rate of growth shouldn't be a factor, IMO. As long as total population of the country and population of the individual states are accounted for, I see no need to include rate of growth. The state is a collective and a group of individuals, not an entity deserving of similar rights and importance - taking rate of population growth into account smacks of corporate favouritism. Corporations are not persons or individuals and do not deserve all the same rights as persons or individuals, unless they can be proven to be a gestalt consciousness or hive mind. protip: they can't

>>12121
>Kane: Why the fuck aren't we running things again?
>Weil: because of inheritance and vocal minorities, man
:/

>>12230
Oh don't take everything so seriously.