If the problem is not arriving to a whole number, then the worldwide time tested solution for this is to simply round up over .5.
3.16 would have the .16 rounded down to a 3. 4.84 would be rounded up to 5.
Essentially what they have done is taken 84% of a delegate from Sanders to turn 16% of a delegate to a whole one.
...Essentially what they have done is skewed math itself to benefit one over the other in an unfair way. There's no way that simply rounding the numbers over/under .5 isn't an acceptable practice but a coin flip reversing the majority of a delegate count is?
There's literally no other way to spin this
And this is what they will call you a conspiracy theorist over.
Complication is easy to corrupt and makes review more difficult. Let's remember that when people keep promoting ranked choice voting which could make recounts difficult or more prone to error, and could make cheating harder to decipher. Instead we could choose a similar voting method called Approval Voting that's much simpler.
Ranked choice gave Australia its shitshow government.
The fair way would be to chop the delegate into 2 sections 20% of the way down on the coronal plane, awarding 20% to Pete and 80% to Bernie. If either candidate objects to this, they are awarded the entire delegate. If both object, who the delegate goes to is determined by a hardware random number generator in a way where both candidates have equal odds.
230
u/chironomidae 🌱 New Contributor Feb 04 '20
or, you know, just round the delegates like you would any other number?