Profile

Cover photo
Charles Allison
Attended DePaul University
Lives in Chicago
29 followers|8,605 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

Charles Allison

Shared publicly  - 
 
Its just a lack of belief.
  #theism #atheism  
1
Add a comment...

Charles Allison

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
This video is bullshit because it says "those who defined fascist and naziism as right wing never define what right wing is"

Right wing means capitalistic.
1
Add a comment...

Charles Allison

Shared publicly  - 
 
Comparing deficit spending of various presidencies.
1
Add a comment...

Charles Allison

Shared publicly  - 
 
We all know that the Lorax speaks for the trees, but what do they sound like when they speak for themselves? Rings on a tree can give information about the age of the tree, as well as indicate environmental conditions such as rain levels, disease, and even forest fire. Light colored rings indicate quick growth, while darker rings indicate times when the tree did not grow as quickly. Slices of trees are not uniform, and they all tell a story about...
1
Add a comment...

Charles Allison

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
the game looks great... my biggest complaint about it now is that the metroids went through evolutions during the game in Metroid 2
1
Roverdrive X's profile photoCharles Allison's profile photo
2 comments
 
youre being pedantic.
Add a comment...

Charles Allison

Shared publicly  - 
 
Overview of voting systems and why we should use point-rank voting ~C.D.Allison

As you may or may not be aware of, there are several types of voting systems:

1. Plurality Voting
2. Approval Voting
3. Range Voting
4. Instant Runoff Voting
5. Point Rank Voting(a system of my own design)

1)
Plurality voting is the classic type of voting system, but upon examination, it should be obvious why this type of voting system is the least effective.  First of all, plurality voting only really gives accurate results when there are two choices.  When there are three or more choices, the spoiler effect happens.  This is when a candidate who is similar to one of the top two candidates comes in and siphons votes from them.  This can result in the candidate who initially had more votes, to lose.  This is typically corrected with voting brackets.  However, voting brackets can also be manipulated in a number of ways.  For example, a voter from another party can come in and try to rig the bracket system so that in the final election, one party will have a weaker candidate than the other party.  Another example of manipulation is from within the party, where voters who support one candidate who is weaker, will vote in the preliminary brackets to make them face off against a weaker candidate in later voting standoffs.

2)
Approval voting is an improvement over the plurality voting system.  This works by allowing voters to check off whichever options/candidates they approve of.  The results are then tallied and the person/option with the most votes, wins.  The problem with this system is that while some voters may approve of multiple options... it does not accurately reflect how they feel about those options.  So you may end up with choices that people feel poorly about winning in the electoral process.

3)
Range voting is an improvement over approval voting.  This system works by allowing people to, like approval voting, select which options they approve of, but lets the voters rate the options on a range(maybe 1 to 100 or 1 to 5).  The problem with this system is that it is based on how people feel about these voting options.  This becomes a problem because feelings are an inaccurate measurement, since it would select the winner based on the overall attitudes of the public.  What can happen is a group of voters can collude to give very strong votes to one or more candidates, while other may not understand the system as well, and show their feelings in an honest manner.  So in short, the honest voters get had by the colluders.

4)
Instant runoff voting is an improvement over range voting.  This system works by allowing people to rank who/what they vote for in order.  There are several ways in which IRV can be done.  So for example, one way in which it can be done would involve allowing people to rank all candidates in order of approval... Say for example five people are running for office.
The candidate with the least votes gets eliminated from the voting system, but instead of scrapping their votes, their second picks get added to the remaining four candidates.  And then the process would start over... the person with the least votes would be eliminated, and the 2nd or 3rd picks of the voters would be distributed to the remaining three candidates.   And then the process would start over... the person with the least votes would be eliminated, and the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th picks of the voters would be distributed to the remaining two candidates... and finally, the candidate with the most votes would win.  It eliminates the problem of plurality voting, allows voters to approve of candidates, rank them in order of approval(range) but without distorted value.  But the problem with this system is that the candidate with the least amount of votes in the first round doesnt necessarily warrant having them eliminated in the first round of runoff.  Why? Because that candidate with the least amount of votes in the first round may have been the second pick of the majority of voters, yet they got eliminated in the first round.  

So how do we correct the problems of the other four voting systems?
Well, that is why I invented Point Rank Voting.

5)
Point rank voting works by drawing on the strengths of approval voting, range voting, and instant runoff voting and combing it into a single voting system that corrects all the problems.

How it works is that, like Instant Runoff Voting... you are given a choice to rank your approvals.  But the number of rank-choices are limited to 1/2 the number of candidates(or options) avalible rounded up to the nearest whole number(if it is more than 2 options).  
So for 3 candidates, you would be allowed 2 ranked picks(a first and second pick)....
For 4 candidates, you would be allowed 2 ranked picks(a first and second pick)....
For 5 candidates you would be allowed 3 ranked picks(a first, second, and third pick)....
For 6 candidates you would be allowed 3 ranked picks(a first, second, and third pick)....
For 7 canddiates you would be allowed 4 ranked picks(a first, second, third, and fourth pick)....
Etcetera...

Each vote gives you a certain amout of points, the amount of points for each vote woul depend on the number of ranked picks you are allowed.
So for 2 ranked picks... your first vote is worth 1 point and your second pick is worth 1/2 a point.
For 3 ranked picks... your first vote is worth 1 point, your second pick is worth 2/3rd a point, and your third pick is worth 1/3rd a point.
For 4 ranked picks.... your first vote is worth 1 point, your second pick is worth 3/4th a point, your third pick is worth 2/4th a point, and your fourth pick is worth 1/4th a point.
For 5 ranked picks..... your first vote is worth 1 point, your second pick is worth 4/5th a point, your third pick is worth 3/5th a point, your fourth pick is worth 2/5th a point, your fifth pick is worth 1/5th a point.....
Etcetera

The election takes place... and the total number of points are added up, and the candidate with the most votes wins.

This eliminates the problem that instant runoff voting has of a hugely popular candidate being eliminated in the 1st round, despite being the 2nd choice of the majority of people... yet does not have the manipulation problem that range voting has and the inaccuracy that approval voting has.
1
Add a comment...

Charles Allison

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
 "leftism is essentially about protesting"
no... leftism is about testing the present system and looking for fundamental flaws in an attempt to improve upon the system.

"they are angry at the system because they cannot become successful within it"
or because they refuse to participate in and support a system that is inherently corrupt.

"instead of taking a sober look at their own flaws...."
right there it is assuming the correctness of conservatism and the present system without proving it to be a universally accepted system..

"if you did everything...."
well not exactly.. they would just move down the list of priorities until the system could no longer be improved upon.

I do there there is a use of catch-words by leftists.. but no more than there is a use of catch-words by conservatives.

Leftism is no more a totalitarian force than conservatism is... but now you are is confusing leftism with authoritarianism....they are definitely not the same thing.
1
CartoonPhilosopher's profile photo
 
tell people you are a racist or sexist and you will see leftist totalitarianism. 
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
29 people
Prof. Ron Wang, MSA's profile photo
Esteban Vallejo's profile photo
Tyrone Slyce's profile photo
Brad Rhodes's profile photo
Tom Law's profile photo
Rinku Jakhar's profile photo
Justin Fowler's profile photo
william little's profile photo
Noel Vivar's profile photo

Charles Allison

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
The problem with Friedman's argument is that it was not 200 million per person... and 200 million would have exceeded the cost of manufacturing one car at all.

He could have at least argued that it would have doubled the value of the car.

His argument was not a practical one because Ford would not have been able to sell a single unit if it was 200 million... yet they will would have sold just as many units if it cost them a slight bit more.

Friedman here shows that he is a complete ignoramus when it comes to moral philosophy principals and only thinks of things in terms of economic relationships instead of human relationships.

Completely disgusting on his part.
1
iluvincitingviolence's profile photoCharles Allison's profile photo
14 comments
 
+iluvincitingviolence no dipshit... I have a university degree in it.
Add a comment...

Charles Allison

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
The last one was your mom's.
5
Japanese Pornstar's profile photo
 
No it was my shemale girlfriends.
Add a comment...

Charles Allison

Shared publicly  - 
 
Yearly Deficit Spending with President/Senate/House/Marginal Income Tax/Population and Percentage of debt per citizen increase...

And average yearly deficit as percentage of debt per citizen increase itemized by president.
1
Add a comment...

Charles Allison

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
The Northwestern(Leeward) Hawaiian Islands are in Asia.... was he on any of those at the time?
1
Add a comment...

Charles Allison

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Wendell makes some great points... but as usual... Bill Maher is a fucktard who turns this somehow into a discussion about religion... fucking idiot.
1
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
29 people
Prof. Ron Wang, MSA's profile photo
Esteban Vallejo's profile photo
Tyrone Slyce's profile photo
Brad Rhodes's profile photo
Tom Law's profile photo
Rinku Jakhar's profile photo
Justin Fowler's profile photo
william little's profile photo
Noel Vivar's profile photo
Work
Occupation
Kicking ass at life.
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Chicago
Links
Contributor to
Story
Tagline
Thinking about the current state of humanity makes me shudder.
Bragging rights
Graduated College, I am constantly working on and tweaking my own unified theory of quantum mechanics
Education
  • DePaul University
    Computer Science, 2000 - 2006
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Birthday
December 23