sociopolitical

First-past-the-post (abbreviated FPTP or FPP) voting refers to an election won by the candidate(s) with the most votes. The winning candidate does not necessarily receive a majority of all votes cast. There is no ‘post’ (proportion of votes) that must be passed. [wikipedia]

Instant-runoff voting (IRV), also known as the alternative vote (AV), is a voting system used to elect one winner from a pool of candidates using preferential voting. Voters rank candidates in order of preference, and their votes are initially allocated to their first choice candidate. If after this initial count no candidate has a majority of votes cast, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and votes for that candidate are redistributed according to the voters’ second preferences. This process continues until one candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, upon which they are declared the winner. [wikipedia]

Eli Pariser, the president of MoveOn.org, answered the PdF 2010 question “Can the Internet Fix Politics” with a warning about how the hidden personalization features of search and newsfeeds were subtly destroying the notion of a common public space.

directed by max joseph & chris weller, based on an article by graeme wood, adapted by chris weller and max joseph.

“in 2008, 37 death-row inmates were executed. none of their organs were donated. considering that there are currently 2,775 people on the waiting list for heart transplants, shouldn’t we be harvesting healthy organs from executed inmates?

programmer’s notes: good, a collaboration of individuals, businesses, and nonprofits pushing the world forward has joined filmmaker max joseph, animator chris weller, and writer graeme wood to create this entertaining video provocation based upon wood’s original article, which can be found on the good website (http://www.good.is/). wood describes his article’s intent to address the disparity between the moral hand-wringing we apply to the inmate-organ-donation question, compared to the lack of much discussion at all of the capital punishment issue itself. we quibble over whether a man has a right (!) to donate (!) his liver, but we are silent about the fact that the reason he is in a position to donate his liver is because he is soon to be a literal victim of human sacrifice by the state. surely we can find the energy to consider both moral problems.”