<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Silverpie</id>
		<title>explain xkcd - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Silverpie"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:Contributions/Silverpie"/>
		<updated>2026-04-09T17:21:31Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.30.0</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2225:_Voting_Referendum&amp;diff=202228</id>
		<title>2225: Voting Referendum</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2225:_Voting_Referendum&amp;diff=202228"/>
				<updated>2020-11-23T00:55:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: reads more naturally with consistent plural, plus a typo fix nearby&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{comic&lt;br /&gt;
| number    = 2225&lt;br /&gt;
| date      = November 6, 2019&lt;br /&gt;
| title     = Voting Referendum&lt;br /&gt;
| image     = voting_referendum.png&lt;br /&gt;
| titletext = The weirdest quirk of the Borda count is that Jean-Charles de Borda automatically gets one point; luckily this has no consequences except in cases of extremely low turnout.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Explanation==&lt;br /&gt;
The day before this comic's publication was an {{w|election day}} throughout the {{w|United States}}, primarily for local and state issues (normal elections for federal offices of the President, Senate, and House of Representatives are always in even years). The topic of today's comic highlights many different methods for conducting elections and counting votes. While elections are primarily used to allow voters to select from candidates for public offices, election ballots also frequently present questions for voters to directly voice their support or opposition to some change in a process or law - commonly called a {{w|Referendum|referendum}}.  The comic depicts an election ballot referendum for voters to select the method to be used in future elections.  While the referendum is asking voters to select a method from a long list of methods, a referendum is usually presented as a specific proposal which requires a simple Yes or No vote.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example, the ballot in New York City included a referendum ([https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/5/20948376/new-york-election-results-ranked-choice-voting which passed]) on whether to use a different method, ranked choice voting (another name for instant-runoff voting as described below). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A common issue with such referenda is what method to use to conduct the referendum itself. Here, the method of marking each choice on the ballot reflects the marking method which would be used if it were the winner. Moreover, each item is listed in a way which is suggestive of what it means (e.g., &amp;quot;First past the post&amp;quot; is the first one, &amp;quot;Top-two&amp;quot; is among the top two, and &amp;quot;Multiple non-transferable vote&amp;quot; is selected among numerous other ones). A few of the methods allow for multiple winners, which can often be good when electing councils and representatives, but it is unclear what it would mean to have several of these voting methods all win.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''{{w|First-past-the-post voting|First past the post}}'''&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of political elections in first-past-the-post is to determine which of the candidates standing for election is most preferred by the most voters. In a simple two-person contest, this process is quite effective, since whichever candidate receives the most votes will be the one that the majority of voters prefer. This system works well for simple cases, but for elections with more than two candidates this system may result in a candidate being elected who less than 50% of the voters would prefer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, in a contest with three candidates, A, B and C, in which candidate A receives 43% of the vote, candidate B 38%, and candidate C 19%, candidate A will be elected, even though some of the voters who chose candidate C might have preferred candidate B as their second choice instead of candidate A, leading to a result which pleases less than half of the population. For example, the above distribution of votes happened in the {{w|2000 United States presidential election in Florida}}, where George W. Bush beat Al Gore by less than 1000 votes largely because of the third-party candidacy Ralph Nader, whose 100,000 voters would mostly have otherwise gone to Gore.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, in election of multiple candidates across a country (or region etc.), first past the post does not lead to a distribution of elected representatives proportional to the total number of votes, only electing the lead candidate in each case. For example, imagine a country with 100 representatives to be elected, with each seat having the same distribution as described in the example above. Under first past the post, 100 representatives will be elected representing party A, and none for party B or C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite these drawbacks, First Past the Post voting continues to be used for political elections in many countries including the US and UK, which historically have both had two main parties receiving the majority of votes. The First Past the Post system has received much criticism, particularly from smaller parties who may lose out; however, supporters promote the simplicity of the system compared to other methods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system is shown with a {{w|radio button}}, the classic computer metaphor for being allowed one choice out of a set.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''{{w|Top-two primary}}'''&lt;br /&gt;
This method is used in California and Washington to select candidates for the US House of Representatives. In most states' primary-election systems, each party votes separately to select one candidate to continue to a first-past-the-post general election ballot. In these two states, on the other hand, candidates from all parties, as well as &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; candidates from no party, run in a single race, and the top two finishers then contest the general election, even if both are from the same party (a common occurrence in heavily-Democratic California), and even if one candidate has a clear majority of the vote. (In an older version, a majority winner in the primary was immediately declared elected. This was held to be in violation of federal law, by effectively setting an &amp;quot;election day&amp;quot; before the national Election Day in November.) This is a form of the {{w|two-round system}}, a system for selecting elected officials most notably used to elect the President of {{w|France}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''{{w|Louisiana primary}}'''&lt;br /&gt;
This system is almost identical to the top-two primary, but with two differences. First, the open-to-all ballot is held on the national Election Day, instead of on the state's primary day. (This avoids the conflict with Federal law described above.) Also, the second round of the election is not held if one candidate has a clear majority (more than 50%) of the votes in the first round. Like the top-two primary and the first-past-the post system, the comic represents this system with a radio button, except this one has been marked, indicating the vote.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''{{w|Cumulative voting}}'''&lt;br /&gt;
In cumulative voting, voters get as many votes as there are seats to be filled, and may distribute them as they choose. This system's most common use is in selecting corporate boards of directors. It is also used in some areas to allow a minority bloc within an electorate to elect some of its preferred candidates without imposing a system of separate districts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The comic illustrates this with multiple radio buttons, each row representing an option/candidate and each (implied) column one vote. On the ballot the first 2 radio buttons are marked, as they are each the only radio buttons in their column and cannot be unmarked.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''{{w|Approval voting}}'''&lt;br /&gt;
In this system, each candidate is listed as a yes/no choice, where the voters can choose which candidates they approve of winning the election, and which ones they do not approve of.  The winner of the election is the candidate with the highest approval rate. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This type of voting system can be used as a vetting process to filter out undesirable candidates before the final vote; for example, the United Nations [https://web.archive.org/web/20080227114317/http://www.unsgselection.org/files/WisnumurtiGuidelinesSelectingCandidateSecretary-General.pdf uses a series of &amp;quot;straw polls&amp;quot;] to filter out candidates for the Secretary General before the Security Council makes a final vote.  In 2018, Fargo, North Dakota [https://ballotpedia.org/Fargo,_North_Dakota,_Measure_1,_Approval_Voting_Initiative_(November_2018) switched to using approval voting] to elect local politicians, making it the only jurisdiction in the United States to use this system.&lt;br /&gt;
In the xkcd ballot, the approval option is presented as a checkbox, where a check in the box is &amp;quot;approve&amp;quot; or an empty box is &amp;quot;disapprove&amp;quot;. Checkboxes are distinct from radio buttons in that several can be marked in the same field, and can also be unmarked without marking another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''{{w|Multiple non-transferable vote}}'''&lt;br /&gt;
This system for electing multiple members to a ruling body is also known as {{w|plurality-at-large voting}} or block vote. It is commonly used in the US for city council elections, and simply limits the number of votes per voter to the number of winners. It allows a cohesive plurality of the electorate to claim all of the seats, denying other voters any representation whatsoever.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2019, the Justice Department required {{w|Eastpointe, Michigan}} to run at least the next two elections via {{w|single transferable vote}} because their existing plurality-at-large system was disenfranchising black citizens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system is also shown as a checkbox, as each candidate gets either 0 or 1 votes from each voter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''{{w|Instant runoff voting}}'''&lt;br /&gt;
In this system, people vote for all the candidates, or perhaps their favorite three, but assign different preferences to each candidate they vote for, as in 1 for their first choice, 2 for the second, 3 for their third, etc.  If at least 50% of voters vote for a candidate as their first choice, that candidate wins.  If not, the person with the least votes gets eliminated, and anyone who voted for that person has their next (slightly less favorable) choice automatically move up a rung.  The 50% mark is again checked, and if there is no winner, another lowest-voted candidate is eliminated.  Eventually one candidate will emerge victorious. The advantages of this system are that there is rarely a need to have another election if things are close (the information is already there to &amp;quot;instantly&amp;quot; recalculate the vote based on additional voter preferences), and &amp;quot;spoiler&amp;quot; candidates only cause problems when they become competitive. And as {{w|Arrow's impossibility theorem}} shows, as with all ranking methods, sometimes {{w|Monotonicity_criterion#Instant-runoff_voting_and_the_two-round_system_are_not_monotonic|voters can hurt a candidate by ranking them more favorably}}.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On this weird xkcd ballot, we see this type of ranking between this type of voting (''Instant runoff voting'') and the two that follow (''Single transferable vote'' and ''Borda count''), all of which allow multiple ranked votes.  It appears that between these three, Randall has voted for ''Single transferable vote'' as his top choice, ''Borda count'' for his second choice, with ''Instant runoff voting'' as his third choice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''{{w|Single transferable vote}}'''&lt;br /&gt;
This system extends the instant runoff to multiple-winner elections. Specifically, the election threshold is set not at 50%, but at 100%/(''k''+1) where ''k'' candidates will win (in other words, just high enough to prevent more candidates from reaching it than there are seats). The bottom candidates are eliminated as in instant-runoff and their votes redistributed. In addition, if a candidate wins with more than enough votes, the extra votes (either a fraction of each vote, or some subset of the ballots) are also redistributed. This procedure continues until the requisite number of winners is reached.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''{{w|Borda count}}'''&lt;br /&gt;
Each ballot is counted as 1 point for the last choice, 2 for next-to-last, and so on up to ''n'' for the first choice among ''n'' candidates. The highest point-earner(s) win. This system may also be calculated as 1 point for first choice, 2 for second, etc., with the lowest total winning; this variant, called the &amp;quot;cross-country vote&amp;quot; (due to its resemblance to the scoring system of the sport of cross-country running), is used by the NCAA's various selection committee as one step in choosing championship tournament fields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The title text refers to the inventor of the Borda count, {{w|Jean-Charles de Borda}} (for whom it is named), implying that the use of the system implies the inclusion of a ballot in which he gets one point in the counting. This &amp;quot;1 point&amp;quot; would be quickly drowned out by any sensible quantity of actual votes. This also humorously suggests that if no one were to vote at all, Borda would win by default.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''{{w|Range voting}}'''&lt;br /&gt;
For each candidate, the voter selects a value within a fixed range (the xkcd voter sees this choice presented as a slider) for each candidate, independent of the values given to other candidates. The highest total wins. (If the range is restricted to two values, this becomes the approval system.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The punchline for the comic is that the whole referendum is a chicken-and-egg problem: in order to accomplish the purpose of a referendum, one needs to know how the votes will be translated into a result, but in this case, determining that rule is the purpose of the referendum. Additionally this xkcd demonstrates one of the mechanisms that makes it hard to change the currently-used voting system in any state: Each voting system in fact votes for itself as the ones who are able to decide upon the voting system being in use have been elected using the current voting system and therefore are likely to profit from it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Transcript==&lt;br /&gt;
:[A voting ballot is shown with an underlined header and 10 different options below with different boxes/buttons next to each choice.  Some are empty, some are marked/checked or numbered.]&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;Which voting system should we use?&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*[Empty radio button]: First past the post&lt;br /&gt;
:*[Empty radio button]: Top-two primary&lt;br /&gt;
:*[Filled radio button]: Louisiana primary&lt;br /&gt;
:*[Three radio buttons in a row, first two filled]: Cumulative voting&lt;br /&gt;
:*[Checked box]: Approval voting&lt;br /&gt;
:*[Checked box]: Multiple non-transferrable vote&lt;br /&gt;
:*[Box marked]: 3: Instant runoff voting&lt;br /&gt;
:*[box marked]: 1: Single transferrable vote&lt;br /&gt;
:*[box marked]: 2: Borda count&lt;br /&gt;
:*[Slider with value slightly below half]: Range voting&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[Caption below the panel:] &lt;br /&gt;
:The referendum went well, but we can't figure out how to count the ballots.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{comic discussion}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Elections]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]] &amp;lt;!-- Jean-Charles de Borda --&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2366:_Amelia%27s_Farm_Fresh_Cookies&amp;diff=198282</id>
		<title>Talk:2366: Amelia's Farm Fresh Cookies</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2366:_Amelia%27s_Farm_Fresh_Cookies&amp;diff=198282"/>
				<updated>2020-10-01T02:12:01Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: 328xx&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
32841 is not a valid zip code. I'm also dubious that the town/city name is Orlando. Sure, it probably does start with an O (and not a cursive A, since the street name has a capital A to show the way the letter should look), but it certainly doesn't continue on long enough to be Orlando, especially with no ascending stroke for the 'd' and not appearing to end with a round shape for a letter like 'o'. It appears to me to be more of an n/m/r final letter. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.14|162.158.75.14]] 23:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Ah, that's what I get for just punching &amp;quot;32841 zip code&amp;quot; into Google and seeing Orlando FL come up. The closest-looking valid zip code I can find that's still in Orlando is 32891; fixed the transcript. The end of the word Orlando just seems intended to be generic squiggles not actually matching any letters, like almost everything after the Ingredients label. If you can find another town/city in FL that starts with O and has a similar-looking enough zip code, go for it. [[User:Zowayix|Zowayix]] ([[User talk:Zowayix|talk]]) 23:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::All zip codes that begin 328 are in Orlando.  32841 specifically is not in use. [[User:Silverpie|Silverpie]] ([[User talk:Silverpie|talk]]) 02:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't see that the mouse-over suggests an escalation as described. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 00:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:I saw it as &amp;quot;had address on packaging, just so; grandma starts campaign of complaints to give granddaughter a similar experience; granddaughter suggests stopping original action if that would stop granny's retalation; (but apparently an armistice purely on those terms is not acceptable to Big-G)&amp;quot; - But there's other interpretations, I'll admit. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.154|141.101.98.154]] 00:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
::That's how I saw it too -- no suggestion that the package didn't originally have the address. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 01:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=589:_Designated_Drivers&amp;diff=196312</id>
		<title>589: Designated Drivers</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=589:_Designated_Drivers&amp;diff=196312"/>
				<updated>2020-08-21T21:42:03Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: /* Explanation */ Another later reference&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{comic&lt;br /&gt;
| number    = 589&lt;br /&gt;
| date      = May 27, 2009&lt;br /&gt;
| title     = Designated Drivers&lt;br /&gt;
| image     = designated_drivers.png&lt;br /&gt;
| titletext = Calling a cab means cutting into beer money.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Explanation==&lt;br /&gt;
When a group of people go together to any kind of event where they expect to drink alcohol, and would like to drive to and from the event, it is usual to select one who has to be the '''{{w|designated driver}}'''.{{Citation needed}} This person will then stay sober during the event, and can thus safely drive the other people home afterwards disregarding how drunk the other people become.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, as this comic points out, if it's not a simple task of going from A to B and back, all together at the same time, then it becomes a complex problem that requires an intricate kind of strategy and logical thinking to solve. And may need more than one driver.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this comic [[Cueball]] addresses his friends, regarding this problem right before they enter a bar. It seems they have already decided that one of the friends will be the designated driver. But then Cueball mentions that they will have to leave in two groups. And for some reason one of these groups will need at least two drivers (this is hard to explain - see below under [[#Number of drivers|number of drivers]].) So now they already need three designated drivers. Furthermore, someone has to go and pick up another friend. And also two of them have to leave earlier than the rest by 10:00. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the third panel the situation seems to be illustrated. Three people are drawn outside the bar with three lines going to the bar, so the number of lines leaving and entering each destination seems to represent a person each. Since the number of people leaving and entering each destination is the same, this makes it seem like the diagram is intended to be accurate. There are four people entering and exiting the bar and six people entering and exiting both the party and the dinner. The confusing part of the diagram is that there are only three people at the bar to begin with, not the four shown in the first panel. It also seems strange that someone will go back to the bar and especially that another goes back to the dinner from the party. It is thus not easy to make the diagram fit the description. See below for a possible take on [[#The chart|the chart]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the general concept would be that some people meet at a bar before joining the rest of a group at dinner, then later most of these move on to a party. After the party (or bar/dinner) people are going to head home in different groups. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The enormous complexities of planning who {{w|car pool}}s with whom, from where to where, and when, make an excellent logic puzzle. And what is worse, anyone who has to drive needs to stay sober. So it is important to solve the puzzle before the drinking starts, or else there will be too few that can drive, or too many who never get to drink.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To make matters worse one of the friends complicates this already complicated {{w|logical puzzle}}, by involving the classic logic puzzle of the {{w|Wolf, goat and cabbage puzzle|wolf, goat and cabbage}} (more commonly known as [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FoxChickenGrainPuzzle Fox-chicken-grain puzzle]). In the last panel the guy is shown standing with a goat on a tether, saying he can't be in the car with the wolf. Cueball is then brought to swearing over this. (The goat puzzle was also the subject of [[1134: Logic Boat]] and [[2348: Boat Puzzle]]). And this may go some way of explaining why there needs to be a [[#Number of drivers|number of drivers]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The title text makes it clear why ordering a taxi is out of the question as it would take money out of the beer budget. Of course it also cost money to use your own car for gas etc. But when you already have a car, it is always cheaper to use that than pay for a taxi.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The chart===&lt;br /&gt;
It's possible to match the chart up with the events in the comic if we assume two things: first, that everyone's initial position in the chart is at home, and second, that the party takes place at Cueball's house.&lt;br /&gt;
Whether or not [[Randall]] intended it this way isn't certain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For clarity, I'll be referring to the first cueball as Cueball, the second as David, Megan as Emily, and the third cueball as Tom.&lt;br /&gt;
*Cueball leaves his house to meet Tom, David, and Emily at the bar.&lt;br /&gt;
**When leaving the bar, Cueball returns home before dinner, possibly to set up for the party.&lt;br /&gt;
**Emily leaves with either Tom or David to go to dinner while the other goes to pick up Paul.&lt;br /&gt;
*At dinner Julia arrives from her house, Cueball arrives from his house, Emily arrives with either Tom or David from the bar, and Paul arrives with the person that didn't drive for Emily.&lt;br /&gt;
**When leaving dinner, David has to be the one going home by himself as Emily and Julia will leave together, Tom has agreed to be a designated driver, Paul does not have a car, and Cueball is the host of the party.&lt;br /&gt;
**The remaining five take three cars to Cueball's for the party. (Julia's car, Cueball's car, and Tom's car)&lt;br /&gt;
*At 10:00 Julie will leave with Emily, and Tom will take Paul home once the party is over.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Number of drivers===&lt;br /&gt;
Unless a more efficient solution exists, the minimum number of people that have to remain sober is three: Tom, David, and either Julia or Emily. Emily is able to begin drinking the earliest, starting at the bar and continuing the rest of the night. If the place everyone is having dinner at serves alcohol, Paul can begin drinking at dinner. If Emily elected to stay sober, Julia can start drinking when Paul does. Cueball is the last to be able to drink, only getting to start once everyone is at the party.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interestingly enough, if the goat and wolf cannot drive, then they only make a difference if Paul has the wolf, in which case David would have to pick Paul up and take him home, and Tom and his goat would leave after dinner.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If either the wolf or the goat can drive, then a sober human driver is not needed for the vehicle in which that animal travels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Transcript==&lt;br /&gt;
:[Cueball is addressing three people outside a bar, indicated by a sign (two Cueball-like guys and Megan).]&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: Wait, who's driving?&lt;br /&gt;
:First Cueball-like guy: Why?&lt;br /&gt;
:First Cueball-like guy: Tom, right?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[Zoom in on Cueball.]&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: Yes, but we have to leave in two groups. One of which will need at least two drivers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[There is text both above and below a flowchart with arrows between a group of the three people Cueball is talking to, and three houses that are labeled 'bar', 'dinner', and 'party'. Three lines point from the group of people to the bar and a fourth arrives from the party. Four lines points away from the bar. Two goes to the dinner one to the party and one away to the left. There are six arrows arriving at the dinner. Apart from the two lines coming from the bar, there is one long arrow pointing to the dinner from the left and two coming in from above. One more comes from the party below. Six arrows points away. One arrow goes away to the top right, the other five arrows points straight down to the party. There are also six arrows coming and leaving the party. Apart from the five from the dinner there was the one coming in from the bar. The six arrows leaving are the one arrow that went to the bar and the one to the dinner. The other four leaves in two groups of two, on straight down and two curving to the left.]&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball (off-panel): Someone has to get Paul, and Julia and Emily have to leave by 10:00.&lt;br /&gt;
:Labels: Bar &lt;br /&gt;
:Labels: Dinner&lt;br /&gt;
:Labels: Party&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball (off-panel): The logistics of who can get drunk are nontrivial.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[The second Cueball-like guy to the right has an goat on a string behind him, which was not visible in the first panel, as he was at that time only partly inside the frame.]&lt;br /&gt;
:Second Cueball-like guy: Yeah, and I can't ride in a car with the wolf because he'll eat my goat.&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: Dammit, guys.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{comic discussion}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Flowcharts]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Logic]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Animals]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2348:_Boat_Puzzle&amp;diff=196189</id>
		<title>2348: Boat Puzzle</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2348:_Boat_Puzzle&amp;diff=196189"/>
				<updated>2020-08-20T02:39:55Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: that's Beret Guy in there&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{comic&lt;br /&gt;
| number    = 2348&lt;br /&gt;
| date      = August 19, 2020&lt;br /&gt;
| title     = Boat Puzzle&lt;br /&gt;
| image     = boat_puzzle.png&lt;br /&gt;
| titletext = 'No, my cabbage moths have already started laying eggs in them! Send the trolley into the river!' 'No, the sailing wolf will steal the boat to rescue them!'&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Explanation==&lt;br /&gt;
{{incomplete|Created by a GOAT THAT EATS WOLVES. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}&lt;br /&gt;
This comic is a twist on {{w|Wolf, goat and cabbage problem|an old riddle}}. In the original riddle, a person has to cross a river in a boat that can only hold them and one other object. They have a wolf, a goat, and a cabbage that they need to bring across with them, similar to the first panel. If the wolf is left alone with the goat, however, the wolf will eat the goat; and if the goat and cabbage are alone, the goat will eat the cabbage. (The problem can be solved in seven trips.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the comic quickly devolves into surrealism in the later panels as new characters show up, bringing deviations of the original &amp;quot;cabbage&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;goat&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;wolf&amp;quot; that add extra layers of complexity to the riddle.  White Hat brings extra wolves and cabbages, Black Hat brings cabbage moths, who presumably cannot be left alone with cabbages, and boat-destroying termites.  How he intends to bring them across the river is unknown, but it brings to mind the parable of {{w|The Scorpion and the Frog}}. Beret Guy arrives with a wolf who can operate a boat, who could perhaps serve as a second pilot to expedite the crossing, so long as he is not asked to ferry a goat, and also a goat who eats wolves (which does not alter the problem constraints but is unusual, as one would expect from Beret Guy's associate).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last panel is a reference to the {{w|Trolley_Problem|Trolley Problem}}, a moral test that asks the participant whether they would let a person in the way of an uncontrollable trolley die or divert the trolley and kill other people standing on the tracks. The comic gives a twist here too: according to the title text, the characters must choose between stopping the trolley full of wolves with a cushion of cabbages (in which the cabbage moths have laid eggs, which the speaking character treats as morally equivalent to &amp;quot;innocent children&amp;quot;) or letting it crash into the river (at which point the wolf who can operate a boat will steal the boat to rescue the wolves from the trolley, which will delay the other characters from crossing the river).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The River Crossing puzzle was also mentioned in [[1134: Logic Boat]] and referenced in [[589: Designated Drivers]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Trolley Problem was also mentioned in [[1455: Trolley Problem]] and referenced in [[1938: Meltdown and Spectre]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Transcript==&lt;br /&gt;
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{comic discussion}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Logic]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Animals]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Food]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2225:_Voting_Referendum&amp;diff=182393</id>
		<title>2225: Voting Referendum</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2225:_Voting_Referendum&amp;diff=182393"/>
				<updated>2019-11-07T02:10:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{comic&lt;br /&gt;
| number    = 2225&lt;br /&gt;
| date      = November 6, 2019&lt;br /&gt;
| title     = Voting Referendum&lt;br /&gt;
| image     = voting_referendum.png&lt;br /&gt;
| titletext = The weirdest quirk of the Borda count is that Jean-Charles de Borda automatically gets one point; luckily this has no consequences except in cases of extremely low turnout.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Explanation==&lt;br /&gt;
{{incomplete|Created by a BORAD OF BORDA-ELECTED CANDIDATES. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}&lt;br /&gt;
The day before this comic's publication was an election day throughout the USA, primarily for local and state issues (normal elections for federal offices of the President, Senate, and House of Representatives are always in even years). The topic of today's comic highlights many different methods for conducting elections and counting votes. In New York City, the ballot included a referendum ([https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/5/20948376/new-york-election-results-ranked-choice-voting which passed]) on whether to use a different method, ranked choice voting (another name for instant-runoff voting as described below). The comic depicts an election ballot referendum for voters to select the method to be used in future elections.   While elections are primarily used to allow voters to select from candidates for public offices, election ballots also frequently present questions for voters to directly voice their support or opposition to some change in a process or law - commonly called a {{w|Referendum|referendum}}.  A common issue with such referenda is what method to use to to conduct the referendum itself. Here, the method of marking each choice on the ballot reflects the marking method which would be used if it was the winner. Moreover, each item is listed in a way which is suggestive of what it means (e.g., &amp;quot;First past the post&amp;quot; is the first one, &amp;quot;Top-two&amp;quot; is among the top two, and &amp;quot;Multiple non-transferable vote&amp;quot; is selected among numerous other ones). A few of the methods allow for multiple winners, which can often be good when electing councils and representatives, but it is unclear what it would mean to have several of these voting methods all win.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''First past the post'''&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of political elections is to determine which of the candidates standing for election is favoured by the majority of voters. In a simple two-person contest, this process is trivial, since whichever candidate receives the most votes will be the one that the majority of voters prefer. This {{w|First-past-the-post voting}} system works well for simple cases, but for elections with more than two candidates this system may result in a candidate being elected who less than 50% of the voters would prefer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, in a contest with three candidates, A, B and C, in which candidate A receives 41% of the vote, candidate B 40%, and candidate C 19%, then candidate A will be elected, even though some of the voters who chose candidate C might have preferred candidate B as their second choice instead of candidate A, leading to a result which pleases less than half of the population. (Wikipedia's example for this shows that if Tennessee were selecting a capital, this system would place it in Memphis, even though there are parts of the state for which a closer location could be found in Canada.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite this drawback, First Past the Post voting continues to be used for political elections in many countries including the US and UK, which historically have both had two main parties receiving the majority of votes. The First Past the Post system has received much criticism, particularly from smaller parties who may lose out; however, supporters promote the simplicity of the system compared to other methods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system is shown with a radio button, the classic computer metaphor for being allowed one choice out of a set.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Top-two primary'''&lt;br /&gt;
This method is used in California and Washington to select candidates for the US House of Representatives. In most states' primary-election systems, each party votes separately to select one candidate to continue to a first-past-the-post general election ballot. In these two states, on the other hand, candidates from all parties, as well as “independent” candidates from no party, run in a single race, and the top two finishers then contest the general election, even if both are from the same party (a common occurrence in heavily-Democratic California), and even if one candidate has a clear majority of the vote. (In an older version, a majority winner in the primary was immediately declared elected. This was held to be in violation of federal law, by effectively setting an &amp;quot;election day&amp;quot; before the national Election Day in November.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Louisiana primary'''&lt;br /&gt;
This system is almost identical to the top-two primary, but with two differences. First, the open-to-all ballot is held on the national Election Day, instead of on the state's primary day. (This avoids the conflict with Federal law described above.) Also, the second round of the election is not held if one candidate has a clear majority (more than 50%) of the votes in the first round. Like the top-two primary and the first-past-the post system, the comic represents this system with a radio button.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Cumulative voting'''&lt;br /&gt;
In cumulative voting, each voter gets as many votes as there are seats to be filled, and may distribute them as he chooses. This system's most common use is in selecting corporate boards of directors. It is also used in some areas to allow a minority bloc within an electorate to elect some of its preferred candidates without imposing a system of separate districts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The comic illustrates this with multiple radio buttons, each row representing an option/candidate and each (implied) column one vote.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Approval voting'''&lt;br /&gt;
In this system, each candidate is listed as a yes/no choice, where the voters can choose which candidate they approve of winning the election, and which ones they do not approve of.  The winner of the election is the candidate with the highest approval rate. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the XKCD ballot, the approval option is presented as a checkbox, where a check in the box is &amp;quot;approve&amp;quot; or an empty box is &amp;quot;disapprove&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Multiple non-transferable vote'''&lt;br /&gt;
This system for electing multiple members to a ruling body is also known as {{w|plurality-at-large voting}} or block vote. It is commonly used in the US for city council elections, and simply limits the number of votes per voter to the number of winners. It allows a cohesive plurality of the electorate to claim all of the seats, denying other voters any representation whatsoever.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2019, the Justice Department required {{w|Eastpointe, MI}} to run at least the next two elections via {{w|Single Transferable Vote}} because their existing plurality-at-large system was disenfranchising black citizens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system is also shown as a checkbox, as each candidate gets either 0 or 1 votes from each voter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Instant runoff voting'''&lt;br /&gt;
In this system, people vote for all the candidates, or perhaps their favorite three, but assign different preferences to each candidate they vote for, as in 1 for their first choice, 2 for the second, 3 for their third, etc.  If at least 50% of voters vote for a candidate as their first choice, that candidate wins.  If not, the person with the least votes gets eliminated, and anyone who voted for that person has their next (slightly less favorable) choice automatically move up a rung.  The 50% mark is again checked, and if there is no winner, another lowest-voted candidate is eliminated.  Eventually one candidate will emerge victorious. The advantages of this system are that there is rarely a need to have another election if things are close (the information is already there to &amp;quot;instantly&amp;quot; recalculate the vote based on additional voter preferences), and &amp;quot;spoiler&amp;quot; candidates only cause problems when they become competitive. And as {{w|Arrow's impossibility theorem}} shows, as with all ranking methods, sometimes {{w|Monotonicity_criterion#Instant-runoff_voting_and_the_two-round_system_are_not_monotonic|voters can hurt a candidate by ranking them more favorably}}.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On this weird XKCD ballot, we see this type of ranking between this type of voting (''Instant runoff voting'') and the two that follow (''Single transferable vote'' and ''Borda count'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Single transferable vote'''&lt;br /&gt;
This system extends the instant runoff to multiple-winner elections. Specifically, the election threshold is set not at 50%, but at 100%/(''k''+1) where ''k'' candidates will win (in other words, just high enough to prevent more candidates from reaching it than there are seats). The bottom candidates are eliminated as in instant-runoff and their votes redistributed. In addition, if a candidate wins with more than enough votes, the extra votes (either a fraction of each vote, or some subset of the ballots) are also redistributed. This procedure continues until the requisite number of winners is reached.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Borda count'''&lt;br /&gt;
Each ballot is counted as 1 point for the last choice, 2 for next-to-last, and so on up to ''n'' for the first choice among ''n'' candidates. The highest point-earner(s) win. This system may also be calculated as 1 point for first choice, 2 for second, etc., with the lowest total winning; this variant, called the &amp;quot;cross-country vote&amp;quot; (due to its resemblance to the scoring system of the sport of cross-country running), is used by the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s various selection committee as one step in choosing championship tournament fields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The alt text refers to the inventor of the Borda count (for whom it is named), implying that the use of the system implies the inclusion of a ballot in which he gets one vote. This vote would be quickly drowned out by any sensible quantity of actual votes. This also humorously suggests that if no one were to vote at all, Borda would win by default.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Range voting'''&lt;br /&gt;
For each candidate, the voter selects a value within a fixed range (the XKCD voter sees this choice presented as a slider) for each candidate, independent of the values given to other candidates. The highest total wins. (If the range is restricted to two values, this becomes the approval system.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The punchline is that the whole referendum is a chicken-and-egg problem: in order to accomplish the purpose of a referendum, one needs to know how the votes will be translated into a result, but in this case, determining that rule is the purpose of the referendum.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Transcript==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[Single panel depicting a ballot item for selecting a voting system]&lt;br /&gt;
:Which voting system should we use?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:* (empty radio button) First past the post&lt;br /&gt;
:* (empty radio button) Top-two primary&lt;br /&gt;
:* (filled radio button) Louisiana primary&lt;br /&gt;
:* (two filled, one empty radio button) Cumulative voting&lt;br /&gt;
:* (checked box) Approval voting&lt;br /&gt;
:* (checked box) Multiple non-transferrable vote&lt;br /&gt;
:* (box marked &amp;quot;3&amp;quot;) Instant runoff voting&lt;br /&gt;
:* (box marked &amp;quot;1&amp;quot;) Single transferrable vote&lt;br /&gt;
:* (box marked &amp;quot;2&amp;quot;) Borda count&lt;br /&gt;
:* (slider with value slightly below half) Range voting&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Caption below panel: The referendum went well, but we can't figure out how to count the ballots.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{comic discussion}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Elections]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2225:_Voting_Referendum&amp;diff=182374</id>
		<title>2225: Voting Referendum</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2225:_Voting_Referendum&amp;diff=182374"/>
				<updated>2019-11-06T21:21:02Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{comic&lt;br /&gt;
| number    = 2225&lt;br /&gt;
| date      = November 6, 2019&lt;br /&gt;
| title     = Voting Referendum&lt;br /&gt;
| image     = voting_referendum.png&lt;br /&gt;
| titletext = The weirdest quirk of the Borda count is that Jean-Charles de Borda automatically gets one point; luckily this has no consequences except in cases of extremely low turnout.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Explanation==&lt;br /&gt;
{{incomplete|Created by a BORAD OF BORDA-ELECTED CANDIDATES. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}&lt;br /&gt;
The day before this comic's publication was an election day throughout the USA, primarily for local and state issues (normal elections for federal offices of the President, Senate, and House of Representatives are always in even years), so the topic of today's comic highlights many different methods for conducting elections and counting votes.  The comic depicts an election ballot referendum for voters to select the method to be used in future elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''First past the post'''&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of political elections is to determine which of the candidates standing for election is favoured by the majority of voters. In a simple two person contest, this process is trivial, since whichever candidate receives the most votes will be the one that the majority of voters prefer. This {{w|First-past-the-post_voting}} system works well for simple cases, but for elections with more than two candidates this system may result in a candidate being elected who less than 50% of the voters would prefer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, in a contest with three candidates; A, B and C, where candidate A received 41% of the vote, candidate B 40% and candidate C 19%, then candidate A will be elected, even though some of the voters who chose candidate C might have preferred candidate B as their second choice instead of candidate A, leading to a result which pleases fewer than half of the population. (Wikipedia's example for this shows that if Tennessee were selecting a capital, this system would place it in Memphis, even though there are parts of the state for which a closer location could be found in Canada...)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite this drawback, First Past the Post voting continues to be used for political elections in many countries including the US and UK, which historically have both had two main parties receiving the majority of votes. The First Past the Post system has received much criticism, particularly from smaller parties who may lose out; however, supporters promote the simplicity of the system compared to other methods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system is shown with a radio button, the classic computer metaphor for being allowed one choice out of a set.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Top-two primary'''&lt;br /&gt;
Used in California and Washington to select candidates for the USA House of Representatives. In the usual primary-election system, each party votes separately to select one candidate to continue to a first-past-the-post general election ballot. In these states, on the other hand, candidates from all parties, as well as “independent” candidates from no party, run in a single race, and the top two finishers then contest the general election, even if both are from the same party (a common occurrence in heavily-Democratic California), and even if one candidate has a clear majority of the vote. (In an older version, a majority winner in the primary was immediately declared elected. This was held to be in violation of federal law, by effectively setting an &amp;quot;election day&amp;quot; before the national Election Day in November.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Louisiana primary'''&lt;br /&gt;
This system is almost identical to the top-two primary, but with two differences. First, the open-to-all ballot is held on the national Election Day, instead of on the state‘s primary day. (This avoids the conflict with Federal law described above.) Also, the second round of the election is not held if one candidate has a clear majority (more votes than the rest combined) in the first round. Like the top-two primary and the first-past-the post system, the comic represents this system with a radio button.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Cumulative voting'''&lt;br /&gt;
In cumulative voting, each voter gets as many votes as there are seats to be filled, and may distribute them as he chooses. This system's most common use is in selecting corporate boards of directors. It is also used in some areas to allow a minority bloc within an electorate to elect some of its preferred candidates without imposing a system of separate districts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The comic illustrates this with multiple radio buttons, each row representing an option/candidate and each (implied) column one vote.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Approval voting'''&lt;br /&gt;
In this system, each candidate is listed as a yes/no choice, where the voters can choose which candidate they approve of winning the election, and which ones they do not approve of.  The winner of the election is the candidate with the highest approval rate. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the XKCD ballot, the approval option is presented as a checkbox, where a check in the box is &amp;quot;approve&amp;quot; or an empty box is &amp;quot;disapprove&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Multiple non-transferable vote'''&lt;br /&gt;
This system appears similar to cumulative voting, but without the ability to concentrate votes on highly preferred candidates. It allows a cohesive majority of the electorate to claim all of the seats, denying the minority any representation whatsoever, and has thus been largely abolished in the USA.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system is also shown as a checkbox, as each candidate gets either 0 or 1 votes from each voter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Instant runoff voting'''&lt;br /&gt;
In this system, people vote for all the candidates, or perhaps their favorite three, but assign different preferences to each candidate they vote for, as in 1 for their first choice, 2 for the second, 3 for their third, etc.  If enough people vote for a candidate as their first choice to clear 50%, that person wins.  If not, the person with the least votes gets eliminated, and anyone who voted for that person has their next (slightly less favorable) choice automatically move up a rung.  The 50% mark is again checked, and if no winner another lowest-voted candidate is eliminated.  Eventually one candidate will emerge victorious, and overall that person will have been liked by the voters more than anyone else.  The advantages of this system are there is rarely a need to have another election if things are close (the information is already there to &amp;quot;instantly&amp;quot; recalculate the vote based on additional voter preferences), and there is no concept of a &amp;quot;spoiler&amp;quot; candidate taking votes away from your favorite.  If people are truly voting their favorite, second favorite, etc., no vote need be seen as being thrown away.  For example, a voter really likes the Hippo candidate even though few others do. They can still vote that candidate #1 and the apparently-popular Giraffe candidate 2nd, knowing that if Hippo is eliminated, they have still voted for Giraffe and that vote counts.  If it turns out people secretly really like Hippo, however, that candidate actually has a real chance because people are not trying to guess what candidate everyone else will vote for in order to ensure Vulture doesn't get in.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On this weird XKCD ballot, we see this type of ranking between this type of voting (''Instant runoff voting'') and the two that follow (''Single transferable vote'' and ''Borda count'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Single transferable vote'''&lt;br /&gt;
This system extends the instant runoff to multiple-winner elections. Specifically, the election threshold is set not at 50%, but at 100%/(''k''+1) where ''k'' candidates will win (in other words, just high enough to prevent more candidates from reaching it than there are seats). The bottom candidates are eliminated as in instant-runoff and their votes redistributed. In addition, if a candidate wins with more than enough votes, the extra votes (either a fraction of each vote, or some subset of the ballots) are also redistributed. This procedure continues until the requisite number of winners is reached.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Borda count'''&lt;br /&gt;
Each ballot is counted as 1 point for the last choice, 2 for next-to-last, and so on up to ''n'' for the first choice among ''n'' candidates. The highest point-earner(s) win)s(. This system may also be calculated as 1 point for first choice, 2 for second, etc., with the lowest total winning; this variant, called the &amp;quot;cross-country vote&amp;quot; (due to its resemblance to the scoring system of the sport of cross-country running), is used by the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s various selection committee as one step in choosing championship tournament fields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The alt text refers to the inventor of the Borda count (for whom it is named), implying that the use of the system implies the inclusion of a ballot in which he gets one vote. This vote would be quickly drowned out by any sensible quantity of actual votes. This also humorously suggests that if no one were to vote at all, Borda would win by default.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Range voting'''&lt;br /&gt;
For each candidate, the voter selects a value within a fixed range (the XKCD voter sees this choice presented as a slider) for each candidate, independent of the values given to other candidates. The highest total wins. (If the range is restricted to two values, this becomes the approval system.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The punchline is that the whole referendum is a chicken-and-egg problem: in order to accomplish the purpose of a referendum, one needs to know how the votes will be translated into a result, but in this case, determining that rule is the purpose of the referendum....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Transcript==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[Single panel depicting a ballot item for selecting a voting system]&lt;br /&gt;
:Which voting system should we use?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:* (empty radio button) First past the post&lt;br /&gt;
:* (empty radio button) Top-two primary&lt;br /&gt;
:* (filled radio button) Louisiana primary&lt;br /&gt;
:* (two filled, one empty radio button) Cumulative voting&lt;br /&gt;
:* (checked box) Approval voting&lt;br /&gt;
:* (checked box) Multiple non-transferrable vote&lt;br /&gt;
:* (box marked &amp;quot;3&amp;quot;) Instant runoff voting&lt;br /&gt;
:* (box marked &amp;quot;1&amp;quot;) Single transferrable vote&lt;br /&gt;
:* (box marked &amp;quot;2&amp;quot;) Borda count&lt;br /&gt;
:* (slider with value slightly below half) Range voting&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Caption below panel: The referendum went well, but we can't figure out how to count the ballots.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{comic discussion}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Elections]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2225:_Voting_Referendum&amp;diff=182372</id>
		<title>2225: Voting Referendum</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2225:_Voting_Referendum&amp;diff=182372"/>
				<updated>2019-11-06T21:19:54Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: /* Explanation */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{comic&lt;br /&gt;
| number    = 2225&lt;br /&gt;
| date      = November 6, 2019&lt;br /&gt;
| title     = Voting Referendum&lt;br /&gt;
| image     = voting_referendum.png&lt;br /&gt;
| titletext = The weirdest quirk of the Borda count is that Jean-Charles de Borda automatically gets one point; luckily this has no consequences except in cases of extremely low turnout.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Explanation==&lt;br /&gt;
{{incomplete|Created by a BORAD OF BORDA-ELECTED CANDIDATES. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}&lt;br /&gt;
The day before this comic's publication was an election day throughout the USA, primarily for local and state issues (normal elections for federal offices of the President, Senate, and House of Representatives are always in even years), so the topic of today's comic highlights many different methods for conducting elections and counting votes.  The comic depicts an election ballot referendum for voters to select the method to be used in future elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''First past the post'''&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of political elections is to determine which of the candidates standing for election is favoured by the majority of voters. In a simple two person contest, this process is trivial, since whichever candidate receives the most votes will be the one that the majority of voters prefer. This {{w|First-past-the-post_voting}} system works well for simple cases, but for elections with more than two candidates this system may result in a candidate being elected who less than 50% of the voters would prefer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, in a contest with three candidates; A, B and C, where candidate A received 41% of the vote, candidate B 40% and candidate C 19%, then candidate A will be elected, even though some of the voters who chose candidate C might have preferred candidate B as their second choice instead of candidate A, leading to a result which pleases fewer than half of the population. (Wikipedia's example for this shows that if Tennessee were selecting a capital, this system would place it in Memphis, even though there are parts of the state for which a closer location could be found in Canada...)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite this drawback, First Past the Post voting continues to be used for political elections in many countries including the US and UK, which historically have both had two main parties receiving the majority of votes. The First Past the Post system has received much criticism, particularly from smaller parties who may lose out; however, supporters promote the simplicity of the system compared to other methods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system is shown with a radio button, the classic computer metaphor for being allowed one choice out of a set.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Top-two primary'''&lt;br /&gt;
Used in California and Washington to select candidates for the USA House of Representatives. In the usual primary-election system, each party votes separately to select one candidate to continue to a first-past-the-post general election ballot. In these states, on the other hand, candidates from all parties, as well as “independent” candidates from no party, run in a single race, and the top two finishers then contest the general election, even if both are from the same party (a common occurrence in heavily-Democratic California), and even if one candidate has a clear majority of the vote. (In an older version, a majority winner in the primary was immediately declared elected. This was held to be in violation of federal law, by effectively setting an &amp;quot;election day&amp;quot; before the national Election Day in November.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Louisiana primary'''&lt;br /&gt;
This system is almost identical to the top-two primary, but with two differences. First, the open-to-all ballot is held on the national Election Day, instead of on the state‘s primary day. (This avoids the conflict with Federal law described above.) Also, the second round of the election is not held if one candidate has a clear majority (more votes than the rest combined) in the first round. Like the top-two primary and the first-past-the post system, the comic represents this system with a radio button.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Cumulative voting'''&lt;br /&gt;
In cumulative voting, each voter gets as many votes as there are seats to be filled, and may distribute them as he chooses. This system's most common use is in selecting corporate boards of directors. It is also used in some areas to allow a minority bloc within an electorate to elect some of its preferred candidates without imposing a system of separate districts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The comic illustrates this with multiple radio buttons, each row representing an option/candidate and each (implied) column one vote.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Approval voting'''&lt;br /&gt;
In this system, each candidate is listed as a yes/no choice, where the voters can choose which candidate they approve of winning the election, and which ones they do not approve of.  The winner of the election is the candidate with the highest approval rate. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the XKCD ballot, the approval option is presented as a checkbox, where a check in the box is &amp;quot;approve&amp;quot; or an empty box is &amp;quot;disapprove&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Multiple non-transferable vote'''&lt;br /&gt;
This system appears similar to cumulative voting, but without the ability to concentrate votes on highly preferred candidates. It allows a cohesive majority of the electorate to claim all of the seats, denying the minority any representation whatsoever, and has thus been largely abolished in the USA.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system is also shown as a checkbox, as each candidate gets either 0 or 1 votes from each voter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Instant runoff voting'''&lt;br /&gt;
In this system, people vote for all the candidates, or perhaps their favorite three, but assign different preferences to each candidate they vote for, as in 1 for their first choice, 2 for the second, 3 for their third, etc.  If enough people vote for a candidate as their first choice to clear 50%, that person wins.  If not, the person with the least votes gets eliminated, and anyone who voted for that person has their next (slightly less favorable) choice automatically move up a rung.  The 50% mark is again checked, and if no winner another lowest-voted candidate is eliminated.  Eventually one candidate will emerge victorious, and overall that person will have been liked by the voters more than anyone else.  The advantages of this system are there is rarely a need to have another election if things are close (the information is already there to &amp;quot;instantly&amp;quot; recalculate the vote based on additional voter preferences), and there is no concept of a &amp;quot;spoiler&amp;quot; candidate taking votes away from your favorite.  If people are truly voting their favorite, second favorite, etc., no vote need be seen as being thrown away.  For example, a voter really likes the Hippo candidate even though few others do. They can still vote that candidate #1 and the apparently-popular Giraffe candidate 2nd, knowing that if Hippo is eliminated, they have still voted for Giraffe and that vote counts.  If it turns out people secretly really like Hippo, however, that candidate actually has a real chance because people are not trying to guess what candidate everyone else will vote for in order to ensure Vulture doesn't get in.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On this weird XKCD ballot, we see this type of ranking between this type of voting (''Instant runoff voting'') and the two that follow (''Single transferable vote'' and ''Borda count'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Single transferable vote'''&lt;br /&gt;
This system extends the instant runoff to multiple-winner elections. Specifically, the election threshold is set not at 50%, but at 100%/(''k''+1) where ''k'' candidates will win (in other words, just high enough to prevent more candidates from reaching it than there are seats). The bottom candidates are eliminated as in instant-runoff and their votes redistributed. In addition, if a candidate wins with more than enough votes, the extra votes (either a fraction of each vote, or some subset of the ballots) are also redistributed. This procedure continues until the requisite number of winners is reached.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Borda count'''&lt;br /&gt;
Each ballot is counted as 1 point for the last choice, 2 for next-to-last, and so on up to ''n'' for the first choice among ''n'' candidates. The highest point-earner(s) win)s(. This system may also be calculated as 1 point for first choice, 2 for second, etc., with the lowest total winning; this variant, called the &amp;quot;cross-country vote&amp;quot; (due to its resemblance to the scoring system of the sport of cross-country running), is used by the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s various selection committee as one step in choosing championship tournament fields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The alt text refers to the inventor of the Borda count (for whom it is named), implying that the use of the system implies the inclusion of a ballot in which he gets one vote. This vote would be quickly drowned out by any sensible quantity of actual votes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Range voting'''&lt;br /&gt;
For each candidate, the voter selects a value within a fixed range (the XKCD voter sees this choice presented as a slider) for each candidate, independent of the values given to other candidates. The highest total wins. (If the range is restricted to two values, this becomes the approval system.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The punchline is that the whole referendum is a chicken-and-egg problem: in order to accomplish the purpose of a referendum, one needs to know how the votes will be translated into a result, but in this case, determining that rule is the purpose of the referendum....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The alt text refers to the inventor of the Borda count (for whom it is named), implying that the use of the system includes a ballot in which he gets one vote. This vote would be quickly drowned out by any sensible quantity of actual votes. This also humorously suggests that if no one were to vote at all, Borda would win by default.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Transcript==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[Single panel depicting a ballot item for selecting a voting system]&lt;br /&gt;
:Which voting system should we use?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:* (empty radio button) First past the post&lt;br /&gt;
:* (empty radio button) Top-two primary&lt;br /&gt;
:* (filled radio button) Louisiana primary&lt;br /&gt;
:* (two filled, one empty radio button) Cumulative voting&lt;br /&gt;
:* (checked box) Approval voting&lt;br /&gt;
:* (checked box) Multiple non-transferrable vote&lt;br /&gt;
:* (box marked &amp;quot;3&amp;quot;) Instant runoff voting&lt;br /&gt;
:* (box marked &amp;quot;1&amp;quot;) Single transferrable vote&lt;br /&gt;
:* (box marked &amp;quot;2&amp;quot;) Borda count&lt;br /&gt;
:* (slider with value slightly below half) Range voting&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Caption below panel: The referendum went well, but we can't figure out how to count the ballots.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{comic discussion}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Elections]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2225:_Voting_Referendum&amp;diff=182360</id>
		<title>Talk:2225: Voting Referendum</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2225:_Voting_Referendum&amp;diff=182360"/>
				<updated>2019-11-06T20:37:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lousiana Primary ==&lt;br /&gt;
I didn't know - WikiP: The so-called Louisiana primary is the common term for the Louisiana general election for local, state, and congressional offices.[1] On election day, all candidates for the same office appear together on the ballot, often including several candidates from each major party. The candidate who receives a simple majority is elected. If no candidate wins a simple majority in the first round, there is a runoff one month later between the top two candidates to determine the winner. This system is also used for United States Senate special elections in Mississippi and Texas, and all special elections for partisan offices in Georgia.[2][[User:Afbach|Afbach]] ([[User talk:Afbach|talk]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is also known as a &amp;quot;Jungle Primary&amp;quot; and is also done in Washington state and California. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 20:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- NOTICE: Click the [edit] button next to the Google Ads title to discuss the ads. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had to resolve an editing conflict in the first paragraph with another editor, but please feel free to further resolve our differing edits. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 20:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Talk:2220: Imagine Going Back in Time/Ads}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OK, I just created a massive edit conflict, I see. Will move my content into the appropriate parts of the template already in place. [[User:Silverpie|Silverpie]] ([[User talk:Silverpie|talk]]) 20:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2225:_Voting_Referendum&amp;diff=182358</id>
		<title>2225: Voting Referendum</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2225:_Voting_Referendum&amp;diff=182358"/>
				<updated>2019-11-06T20:34:03Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: /* Explanation */ this whole thing might be better done as a table...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{comic&lt;br /&gt;
| number    = 2225&lt;br /&gt;
| date      = November 6, 2019&lt;br /&gt;
| title     = Voting Referendum&lt;br /&gt;
| image     = voting_referendum.png&lt;br /&gt;
| titletext = The weirdest quirk of the Borda count is that Jean-Charles de Borda automatically gets one point; luckily this has no consequences except in cases of extremely low turnout.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Explanation==&lt;br /&gt;
{{incomplete|Created by a VOTING SYSTEM. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}&lt;br /&gt;
The main part of this comic is a ballot on the subject of voting methods—that is, of ways to choose one or more winning options from a set of options at an election.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first three options are shown with radio buttons, a standard ccomputer convention for a choice where the user may make only one selection, and they are indeed methods where a voter selects one and only one option.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first listed, '''first-past-the-post''', is a common method used in the USA, UK, and Canada where an election will select only one winner. Each voter selects one preferred candidate, and the one with the most votes wins, even if that is a small fraction of the total (the winner of the UK Parliamentary seat for Belfast South in 2015 did not even receive a quarter of the vote).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second listed, the '''top-two primary,''' is the system used in California for USA House of Representatives elections. Candidates from all parties and from no party all appear on one ballot at the primary (unlike most states, where each party’s primary is a separate race, winners then proceeding to the first-past-the-post general election). The two highest finishers then contest the general election, even if both are from the same party, and even if one had an absolute majority in the primary. (This is because the Constitution requires that representatives be elected on the same day, and having a seat decided in advance via the primary would violate this.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The third, the '''Louisiana primary''', is more like the traditional runoff system, in that the second part of the election is not held if one candidate has a clear majority (one vote more than the combined total of all other candidates). In this case, though, the primary is held on the national Election Day, and any needed runoffs are held on a later date. This also resembles the system used in France, where the runoff is known as the &amp;quot;deuxième tour&amp;quot; (the &amp;quot;premier tour&amp;quot; being the main election).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next option is '''cumulative voting''', in which each voter gets as many votes as there are seats to be filled, and may distribute them as he chooses among one or more candidates. This system was long used to select the Illinois House of Representatives; its most common use today is in choosing corporate boards of directors. A computer would typically represent this kind of choice with multiple columns of radio buttons (one per vote), each candidate represented by one row (as we see here).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next two methods involve voting yes or no on each option presented, which the comic represents with the traditional metaphor of a checkbox.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Approval voting''' is the single-winner version of this system, in which the most-approved-of candidate is the winner. This system is not in widespread use, but was adopted in 2018 if Fargo, ND, USA.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under '''multiple non-transferable vote,''' a voter may vote for up to ''k'' candidates (in a ''k''-winner election), and the ''k'' highest vote-getters win. This system resembles cumulative voting, but without the ability to concentrate votes on candidates. Its use in the USA has been largely outlawed because it allows a cohesive majority of voters to claim all of the seats and thus to deny the minority any representation whatsoever.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next three methods involve allowing voters to rank their preferred alternatives from best to worst, represented by numeric entry fields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The simplest of these, '''instant runoff''' voting, is increasingly popular for single-winner elections. The conventional runoff (in which the top candidates run again if there is no clear majority), as described above, requires holding a second election, printing new ballots, renting the voting spaces, and otherwise incurring additional cost. Under the instant-runoff system, voters indicate their lower preferences on the same ballot as their main vote, and the runoff election is &amp;quot;held&amp;quot; by using this data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The '''single transferable vote''' system extends this concept to multiple-winner elections. A candidate wins by reaching a vote total of (''v''/(''k''+1))+1, or just enough to prevent there from being too many winners. Excess votes for a winner are then distributed to those voters’ next choices, as are those cast for the bottom candidates eliminated when no additional winners can otherwise be determined. The Republic of Ireland elects its lower house, the Dáil, by this system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the '''Borda count''' system, each ballot is counted as 1 points for the last choice, 2 for next-to-last, and so on up to ''n'' for the first choice among ''n'' candidates. The highest point-earner(s) win)s(. This system may also be calculated as 1 point for first choice, 2 for second, etc., with the lowest total winning; this variant, called the &amp;quot;cross-country vote&amp;quot; (due to its resemblance to the scoring system of the sport of cross-country running), is used by the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s various selection committee as one step in choosing championship tournament fields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, '''range voting''' allows a voter to give any value in a range (say 0 to 10) to each candidate, with the highest total winning. (If the range contains only two values, this reduces to the approval system.) Our imaginary voter is asked to choose the point on the range by way of a slider, the classic computer metaphor for it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The punchline is that the whole referendum is a chicken-and-egg problem: in order to accomplish the purpose of a referendum, one needs to know how the votes will be translated into a result, but in this case, determining that rule is the purpose of the referendum....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The alt text refers to the inventor of the Borda count (for whom it is named), implying that the use of the system includes a ballot in which he gets one vote. This vote would be quickly drowned out by any sensible quantity of actual votes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The day before this comic's publication was an election day throughout the USA, primarily for local and state issues (normal elections for federal offices of the President, Senate, and House of Representatives are always in even years), so the topic of today's comic highlights many different methods for conducting elections and counting votes.  The comic depicts an election ballot referendum for voters to select the method to be used in future elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of political elections is to determine which of the candidates standing for election is favoured by the majority of voters. In a simple two person contest, this process is trivial, since whichever candidate receives the most votes will be the one that the majority of voters prefer. This {{w|First-past-the-post_voting}} system works well for simple cases, but for elections with more than two candidates this system may result in a candidate being elected who less than 50% of the voters would prefer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, in a contest with three candidates; A, B and C, where candidate A received 41% of the vote, candidate B 40% and candidate C 19%, then candidate A will be elected, even though some of the voters who chose candidate C might have preferred candidate B as their second choice instead of candidate A, leading to a result which pleases fewer than half of the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''First past the post'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Top-two primary'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Louisiana primary'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Cumulative voting'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Approval voting'''&lt;br /&gt;
In this system, each candidate is listed as a yes/no choice, where the voters can choose which candidate they approve of winning the election, and which ones they do not approve of.  The winner of the election is the candidate with the highest approval rate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the XKCD ballot, the approval option is presented as a checkbox, where a check in the box is &amp;quot;approve&amp;quot; or an empty box is &amp;quot;disapprove&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Multiple non-transferable vote'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Instant runoff voting'''&lt;br /&gt;
In this system, people vote for all the candidates, or perhaps their favorite three, but assign different preferences to each candidate they vote for, as in 1 for their first choice, 2 for the second, 3 for their third, etc.  If enough people vote for a candidate as their first choice to clear 50%, that person wins.  If not, the person with the least votes gets eliminated, and anyone who voted for that person has their next (slightly less favorable) choice automatically move up a rung.  The 50% mark is again checked, and if no winner another lowest-voted candidate is eliminated.  Eventually one candidate will emerge victorious, and overall that person will have been liked by the voters more than anyone else.  The advantages of this system are there is rarely a need to have another election if things are close (the information is already there to &amp;quot;instantly&amp;quot; recalculate the vote based on additional voter preferences), and there is no concept of a &amp;quot;spoiler&amp;quot; candidate taking votes away from your favorite.  If people are truly voting their favorite, second favorite, etc., no vote need be seen as being thrown away.  For example, a voter really likes the Hippo candidate even though few others do. They can still vote that candidate #1 and the apparently-popular Giraffe candidate 2nd, knowing that if Hippo is eliminated, they have still voted for Giraffe and that vote counts.  If it turns out people secretly really like Hippo, however, that candidate actually has a real chance because people are not trying to guess what candidate everyone else will vote for in order to ensure Vulture doesn't get in.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On this weird XKCD ballot, we see this type of ranking between this type of voting (''Instant runoff voting'') and the two that follow (''Single transferable vote'' and ''Borda count'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Single transferable vote'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* '''Borda count'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Transcript==&lt;br /&gt;
Voting Referendum&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which voting system should we use?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* (empty radio button) First past the post&lt;br /&gt;
* (empty radio button) Top-two primary&lt;br /&gt;
* (filled radio button) Louisiana primary&lt;br /&gt;
* (two filled, one empty radio button) Cumulative voting&lt;br /&gt;
* (checked box) Approval voting&lt;br /&gt;
* (checked box) Multiple non-transferrable vote&lt;br /&gt;
* (box marked &amp;quot;3&amp;quot;) Instant runoff voting&lt;br /&gt;
* (box marked &amp;quot;1&amp;quot;) Single transferrable vote&lt;br /&gt;
* (box marked &amp;quot;2&amp;quot;) Borda count&lt;br /&gt;
* (slider with value slightly below half) Range voting&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The referendum went well, but we can't figure out how to count the ballots.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{comic discussion}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2136:_Election_Commentary&amp;diff=172626</id>
		<title>2136: Election Commentary</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2136:_Election_Commentary&amp;diff=172626"/>
				<updated>2019-04-13T02:26:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: /* Explanation */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{comic&lt;br /&gt;
| number    = 2136&lt;br /&gt;
| date      = April 12, 2019&lt;br /&gt;
| title     = Election Commentary&lt;br /&gt;
| image     = election_commentary.png&lt;br /&gt;
| titletext = This really validates Jones's strategy of getting several thousand more votes than Smith. In retrospect, that was a smart move; those votes were crucial.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Explanation==&lt;br /&gt;
{{incomplete|Created by XOF NEWSBOT 3000. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}&lt;br /&gt;
This comic is a joke about the way newscasters commentate elections, and how they make it far more complicated than it needs to be in an election in which the candidate with the most votes wins. It's not uncommon for these methods to be used to imply the election is neck-and-neck long past the point one candidate has an insurmountable lead. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Smith has 55384 votes, while Jones has 59102 votes. Instead of comparing the votes as one number, and admitting that Jones' four thousand vote lead is likely going to earn him the lead, Cueball compares each digit to see which is larger. Ultimately he implies that Smith has a chance to win, ''if only he could pull ahead in the thousands digit'' and secure a dramatic upset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted that for U.S. Presidential elections, the candidate with more votes does not necessarily win, and instead the winner is determined by which candidate leads in which state, are actually more complicated than depicted, and require 57 separate comparisons (51 to determine who is leading in each of 50 states and the District of Columbia, five more for the Congressional districts in Nebraska and Maine (which choose electors at both district and statewide levels), and then one to compare the candidates' total electoral vote).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The title text is a similarly satirical twist on a common news comment during elections. Candidates often employ different strategies during the election season, with varying degrees of success. For example, if a strategy collected many votes (or important votes, see above paragraph), then it could be said that the area it affected was &amp;quot;crucial&amp;quot;. Here, the area affected by Jones' ''strategy'' (an entire place value&amp;quot; is said to have been crucial- an obvious claim, seeing as greater place values always result in greater amounts indicated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Transcript==&lt;br /&gt;
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[Cueball is presenting a graphic on his left that shows two names followed by five digits]&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: Smith is leading in 3 of the 5 digits, and is tied in another. But Jones has a solid lead the thousands place, if Smith can't catch up there, it's over.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Smith&amp;amp;nbsp; 5 &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:gray&amp;quot;&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 3 8 4&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;tie&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; X ✓ ✓ ✓&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;tie&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ✓ &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:gray&amp;quot;&amp;gt;X X X&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:Jones&amp;amp;nbsp; 5 9 &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:gray&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1 0 2&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[Caption below the panel:]&lt;br /&gt;
:A lot of election commentary just consists of unnecessarily convoluted ways to add up who has more votes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{comic discussion}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1935:_2018&amp;diff=149992</id>
		<title>1935: 2018</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1935:_2018&amp;diff=149992"/>
				<updated>2017-12-30T01:36:07Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: /* Explanation */  Factors of 2018&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{comic&lt;br /&gt;
| number    = 1935&lt;br /&gt;
| date      = December 29, 2017&lt;br /&gt;
| title     = 2018&lt;br /&gt;
| image     = 2018.png&lt;br /&gt;
| titletext = We should really start calculating it earlier, but until the end of December we're always too busy trying to figure out which day Christmas will fall on.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Explanation==&lt;br /&gt;
{{incomplete|Anything missing? - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this [[:Category:New Year|New Year comic]], [[Megan]] is bizarrely incredulous about basic arithmetic. In fact 2018 is ''not'' a {{w|Leap year|leap year}}; it is easy to determine if 2018 is evenly divisible by 4 (it's not). For some reason, [[Cueball]] is easily swayed by her aggressively stupid statements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Megan wonders if 2018 will be a leap year. Cueball thinks 2018 will not be a leap year, and Megan responds that she &amp;quot;doubts anyone knows at this point.&amp;quot; This appears to be a jab at the complexity of the leap year system. As Cueball says, leap years occur every four years (though there are a few exceptions), adding an extra day to account for the fact that Earth takes a bit longer than 365 days to orbit the Sun. Therefore, most years that are a multiple of four are leap years. As Megan says, this is easy for odd-numbered years, since no odd numbers are divisible by four. However, for even-numbered years, it isn't always obvious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last panel expresses a misunderstanding of modern {{w|Cryptography|cryptography}}, which relies on the fact that it is difficult to factorize large numbers. Megan is applying this concept to the year, claiming that it is hard to determine whether or not 2018 is a multiple of four and hence is a leap year. In reality, integer division, which is needed here, is fairly easy. Even if it weren't, 2018 is a sufficiently small number that it can be factorized quickly (yielding 2*1009). Megan states that if it were possible to factor large numbers with a calculator, modern cryptography would collapse. While this is ostensibly true, cryptographic algorithms use numbers much, much bigger than 2018--on the order of hundreds (or even thousands) of digits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of the strip, Megan hopes the answer can be {{w|Brute-force attack|brute-forced}} by February. Brute force is a method of breaking cryptography by trying every possible option until one works; this is clearly overkill for something as simple as determining whether 2018 is a leap year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The title text refers to calculating which day of the week Christmas will fall on. Given that any calendar app will easily tell you, this is not a difficult thing to calculate. Also it always falls on December 25th, and not like, for instance, Easter which date jumps from year to year. But nevertheless December 25th is either the 359th or the 360th (leap years) day of the year and so the day of the week could be different.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Transcript==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[Megan is walking.]&lt;br /&gt;
:Megan: I wonder if 2018 will be a leap year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[Now it turns out that Cueball walks behind Megan.]&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: ...it won't be, right?&lt;br /&gt;
:Megan: I doubt anyone knows at this point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[Same scene in a frame-less panel.]&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: No, it's definitely not. Leap years are divisible by 4.&lt;br /&gt;
:Megan: Right, and for odd numbers, that's easy. &lt;br /&gt;
:Megan: But 2018 is even.&lt;br /&gt;
:Megan: 50/50 chance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[Zoomed-out view with both walking in silhouette on a dark slightly curved ground.]&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: I can settle this with a calculator.&lt;br /&gt;
:Megan: No way. If it were easy to factor large numbers like that, modern cryptography would collapse.&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: I see.&lt;br /&gt;
:Megan: I just hope we manage to brute-force it by February.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Trivia==&lt;br /&gt;
*Released on Friday, December 29, this is the last comic of 2017. The next scheduled comic will be on New Year's Day of 2018.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*This is the third year in a row with New Year's comics with only the year used as the title, before that there where two more comics with such titles, but those two (and thus the first three) were only released in the even years: [[998: 2012]] in 2012, [[1311: 2014]] in 2014, [[1624: 2016]] in 2016 and [[1779: 2017]] in 2017.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{comic discussion}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:New Year]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Comics sharing name|2017]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Math]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Time]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cryptography]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1934:_Phone_Security&amp;diff=149888</id>
		<title>Talk:1934: Phone Security</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1934:_Phone_Security&amp;diff=149888"/>
				<updated>2017-12-28T23:09:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: Comment on android miner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Detonated&amp;quot; ah, so this is the feature that Samsung was prototyping last year... [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 15:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
    &lt;br /&gt;
:Ha! Yes, it's too bad their phones kept mistakenly registering as being stolen... stupid bugs. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.107|172.69.70.107]] 17:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Sam&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Back in the day if a hacker really hated you, you'd come back to your computer and see smoke pouring out of the CPU.  I bet there's some way to detonate a phone in software by overheating the battery, but I imagine it could be different for every phone/battery combination. {{unsigned ip| 108.162.219.64}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Already done. http://www.zdnet.com/article/this-crypto-mining-android-malware-is-so-demanding-it-burst-a-smartphone/ [[User:Silverpie|Silverpie]] ([[User talk:Silverpie|talk]]) 23:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Someone needs to make a jailbreak that does as much of this as possible, especially the ridesharing and siren 😂 [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 15:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: there was or is at least one house in the U.S. that was reported, apparently inaccurately, as the location of an extraordinary number of stolen cell phones.  Presumably that house would suffer all of the pranks that this phone security performs.  As for payment details - someone who stole a phone may have also stolen banking cards, so, the account number that you steal back may belong to another innocent victim.  It's just a joke of course, but, saying.  [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.235|162.158.111.235]] 22:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Made a account just to ask this - why is the post still considered incomplete? It looks complete to me. [[User:Donutman|Donutman]] ([[User talk:Donutman|talk]]) 13:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Because I added the core explanation, but many improvements have been made since then (bullet points, bolding, transcript). Also, the siren would be insanely easy to do, as would an automated &amp;quot;send the GPS location to the police&amp;quot; among other things. [[User:Kashim|Kashim]] ([[User talk:Kashim|talk]]) 14:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
::I've removed the tag right now after I added that the phone would have to sense that it is stolen. There is no sensor to detect this. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1902:_State_Borders&amp;diff=146664</id>
		<title>Talk:1902: State Borders</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1902:_State_Borders&amp;diff=146664"/>
				<updated>2017-10-15T21:56:50Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: fixing format of previous comment&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let's be honest- it should ''all'' be Canada. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.123|162.158.74.123]] 12:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:Or...  Indigenous people's land? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.232|108.162.216.232]] 04:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could Arizona, New Mexico be a reference to Trump? Like, make the border straighter so it's easier to build a wall? [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 12:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:More likely the joke is that conceding territory to Mexico is about the last thing Trump would do [[User:AnotherAnonymous|AnotherAnonymous]] ([[User talk:AnotherAnonymous|talk]]) 13:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My first thought is to wonder if it would be possible to arrange the map such that all internal borders are &amp;quot;straight lines&amp;quot; that span the entire country, to satisfy as many criteria as possible:&lt;br /&gt;
* The number of states remains unchanged&lt;br /&gt;
** …and they all get to keep their capitals (probably quite difficult)&lt;br /&gt;
*** …or (and?) each state manages to keep either its current population, land area, or coastline length&lt;br /&gt;
* Or all internal borders are parallels or meridians&lt;br /&gt;
* Or all states have the same land area&lt;br /&gt;
** …or population; or population density&lt;br /&gt;
* Or if you're allowing more (or fewer) states than the present layout, what's the greatest number of states possible such that they all contain at least one complete city?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which of those criteria would be the most interesting challenge? And which could you construct an algorithm to solve?&lt;br /&gt;
I really should refrain from trying to build those algorithms, because I'm supposed to be working --[[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 13:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd like to see what a map of the US would look like with each house gerrymandered by their legislative preferences... Borders everywhere, and wow what a nightmare of litigation it would generate as people cross from one district to another!&lt;br /&gt;
:More to your query: I don't see any modifications you could make that would keep the population unchanged. Some people would inevitably end up in a different state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:How about a map where every state has an equal number of spiders? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.232|108.162.216.232]] 04:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
::Population as in number of people; not necessarily the same people. --[[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 10:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Oh... Hm, that doesn't sound very useful ''or'' aesthetically satisfying... I think mapping the regions where various spider populations dominate might be more interesting. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.232|108.162.216.232]] 10:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are some great videos on YouTube about weird State boundaries. There are some REALLY weird oddities out there. Take for instance the &amp;quot;Give to Canada&amp;quot; piece - that's the Northwest Angle in Minnesota. It's really an accident that it ever ended up in the USA at all, and doesn't make any sense! [[User:Martini|Martini]] ([[User talk:Martini|talk]]) 13:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Martini&lt;br /&gt;
:I wouldn't call the NW Angle an accident as much as a slightly illogical solution in order to maintain the terms of the original border agreement in the face of the Mississippi River's inconveniently located headwaters. My recollection is that it said roughly: the border goes west of &amp;lt;this&amp;gt; point until reaching the Mississippi river [which all parties assumed continued that far north]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.40|108.162.216.40]] 14:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe Randall's overall point is that though a large part of the individual United States have straight boundaries, especially in the West, or other features that are aesthetically pleasing, as in the S Carolina/Georgia/Florida coastline, there are a good number of internal inconsistencies. Many of these (most of the untagged &amp;quot;fixes&amp;quot;) can be attributed to the concept that &amp;quot;Rivers make good logical boundaries&amp;quot;, but even then, if you look closer, there are some really puzzling bits: &lt;br /&gt;
* The &amp;quot;Give To Canada&amp;quot; bit of Minnesota is almost all Indian Reservation land, so that kind of makes sense...&lt;br /&gt;
* The &amp;quot;Fix this thing&amp;quot; in Missouri is even stranger than it initially looks - while the notch in Arkansas is caused by the Mississippi River, there is a large bight of land in the middle of the Missouri-owned bit that is actually Kentucky (yes, there's an island of Kentucky that is separate from the main Kentucky state and entirely surrounded by Missouri)&lt;br /&gt;
* Not edited, but equally odd is the dip Florida cuts into Georgia near the east coast - there's no apparent town or natural features there to cause that irregularity &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't happen to think the Arizona/New Mexico bits are political commentary, just &amp;quot;the entire rest of the state is a box, make this a straight line, too.&amp;quot; cleanup. I mean yes, it would make wall-building easier, theoretically, but the Chinese showed the world centuries ago that straight lines are not needed to build a big fricking wall. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.131|108.162.238.131]] 14:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- While I agree it probably isn't conscious political commentary, its interesting that there are not places the border increases; always     concessions, never gains. May take into account its easier to give than take territory? --[[User:Jgt|Jgt]] ([[User talk:Jgt|talk]]) 19:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)--[[User:Jgt|Jgt]] ([[User talk:Jgt|talk]]) 19:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm surprised Randall didn't suggest cleaning up Point Roberts as well [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Roberts,_Washington]. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.174|141.101.107.174]] 14:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
: Presumably the graphic designers are okay with that, since it maintains the 49th Parallel as a nice, tidy border. [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 20:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm shocked he didn't support fixing the Idaho/Wisconsin/Montana/Oregon border. That top part should be either given to Montana, or split between Washington and Oregon... I wonder if he left out certain things in order to avoid offending certain groups of people. Like suggesting that Rhode Island and Connecticut should probably be one state, or that Vermont and New Hampshire should be as well.  [[User:Kashim|Kashim]] ([[User talk:Kashim|talk]]) 17:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the suggestions are ironic, for example Michigan's upper peninsula actually used to be part of the Wisconsin territory, but it was ceded to Michigan in exchange for the port of Toledo being ceded to Ohio. &amp;quot;why does Florida get Alabama's coastline&amp;quot; is actually because Alabama got part of Florida's coastline so it wouldn't be landlocked. The bit of Nevada that he wants to fix it so Nevada has territory along the Colorado River [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.250|162.158.75.250]] 17:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nobody seems to have noticed that Delaware's curved northern border has been flattened (removing Wilmington). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.83|108.162.238.83]] 21:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One significant thing about this map is that, under this map, Hillary Clinton may have won the 2016 election. Citations needed, but I've seen it said that if the Upper Peninsula were moved from Michigan to Wisconsin and the Florida Panhandle were moved to Alabama, Clinton would have won Michigan and Florida, giving her an Electoral College majority. I don't think the Upper Peninsula has enough population to cost Michigan an electoral vote, and I think Florida would lose two electoral votes, putting Clinton exactly at the 270 needed to win. Perhaps the changes around Colorado and Nevada would make a difference, although there were also five faithless Clinton electors who might have voted for her if it would have made a difference. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.4|108.162.219.4]] 01:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good curve!  The curve is called the Georgia Bight, or less euphoniously, the South Atlantic Bight. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.76|162.158.63.76]] 03:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;'''Align to Grid'''&amp;quot; refers to the option to have icons snap to a grid on a Windows desktop. The idea is that the states become &amp;quot;aligned&amp;quot; like icons on a desktop. [[User:FakeCrash|FakeCrash]] ([[User talk:FakeCrash|talk]]) 17:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be really useful  if this could link to somewhere that described why the various panhandles and oddities exist. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.247|162.158.154.247]] 21:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_States_Got_Their_Shapes [[User:Silverpie|Silverpie]] ([[User talk:Silverpie|talk]]) 21:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They should be called geo-graphic designers [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 06:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Randall had no references to Trump here. Get over it.&lt;br /&gt;
I mean really. Why does everybody think everything about the country has to do with Trump winning? [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 14:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the sentence: &amp;quot;Many U.S. residents will be made to live in new states, and thus be required to pay different taxes and obey different state laws, and even root for different sports teams.&amp;quot; It should be expanded to explain that people are indeed required to root for sports teams in the state they live in⸮ --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.234|172.68.133.234]] 21:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1902:_State_Borders&amp;diff=146663</id>
		<title>Talk:1902: State Borders</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1902:_State_Borders&amp;diff=146663"/>
				<updated>2017-10-15T21:26:58Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: proposing a source&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let's be honest- it should ''all'' be Canada. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.123|162.158.74.123]] 12:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:Or...  Indigenous people's land? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.232|108.162.216.232]] 04:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could Arizona, New Mexico be a reference to Trump? Like, make the border straighter so it's easier to build a wall? [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 12:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:More likely the joke is that conceding territory to Mexico is about the last thing Trump would do [[User:AnotherAnonymous|AnotherAnonymous]] ([[User talk:AnotherAnonymous|talk]]) 13:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My first thought is to wonder if it would be possible to arrange the map such that all internal borders are &amp;quot;straight lines&amp;quot; that span the entire country, to satisfy as many criteria as possible:&lt;br /&gt;
* The number of states remains unchanged&lt;br /&gt;
** …and they all get to keep their capitals (probably quite difficult)&lt;br /&gt;
*** …or (and?) each state manages to keep either its current population, land area, or coastline length&lt;br /&gt;
* Or all internal borders are parallels or meridians&lt;br /&gt;
* Or all states have the same land area&lt;br /&gt;
** …or population; or population density&lt;br /&gt;
* Or if you're allowing more (or fewer) states than the present layout, what's the greatest number of states possible such that they all contain at least one complete city?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which of those criteria would be the most interesting challenge? And which could you construct an algorithm to solve?&lt;br /&gt;
I really should refrain from trying to build those algorithms, because I'm supposed to be working --[[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 13:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd like to see what a map of the US would look like with each house gerrymandered by their legislative preferences... Borders everywhere, and wow what a nightmare of litigation it would generate as people cross from one district to another!&lt;br /&gt;
:More to your query: I don't see any modifications you could make that would keep the population unchanged. Some people would inevitably end up in a different state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:How about a map where every state has an equal number of spiders? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.232|108.162.216.232]] 04:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
::Population as in number of people; not necessarily the same people. --[[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 10:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Oh... Hm, that doesn't sound very useful ''or'' aesthetically satisfying... I think mapping the regions where various spider populations dominate might be more interesting. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.232|108.162.216.232]] 10:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are some great videos on YouTube about weird State boundaries. There are some REALLY weird oddities out there. Take for instance the &amp;quot;Give to Canada&amp;quot; piece - that's the Northwest Angle in Minnesota. It's really an accident that it ever ended up in the USA at all, and doesn't make any sense! [[User:Martini|Martini]] ([[User talk:Martini|talk]]) 13:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Martini&lt;br /&gt;
:I wouldn't call the NW Angle an accident as much as a slightly illogical solution in order to maintain the terms of the original border agreement in the face of the Mississippi River's inconveniently located headwaters. My recollection is that it said roughly: the border goes west of &amp;lt;this&amp;gt; point until reaching the Mississippi river [which all parties assumed continued that far north]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.40|108.162.216.40]] 14:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe Randall's overall point is that though a large part of the individual United States have straight boundaries, especially in the West, or other features that are aesthetically pleasing, as in the S Carolina/Georgia/Florida coastline, there are a good number of internal inconsistencies. Many of these (most of the untagged &amp;quot;fixes&amp;quot;) can be attributed to the concept that &amp;quot;Rivers make good logical boundaries&amp;quot;, but even then, if you look closer, there are some really puzzling bits: &lt;br /&gt;
* The &amp;quot;Give To Canada&amp;quot; bit of Minnesota is almost all Indian Reservation land, so that kind of makes sense...&lt;br /&gt;
* The &amp;quot;Fix this thing&amp;quot; in Missouri is even stranger than it initially looks - while the notch in Arkansas is caused by the Mississippi River, there is a large bight of land in the middle of the Missouri-owned bit that is actually Kentucky (yes, there's an island of Kentucky that is separate from the main Kentucky state and entirely surrounded by Missouri)&lt;br /&gt;
* Not edited, but equally odd is the dip Florida cuts into Georgia near the east coast - there's no apparent town or natural features there to cause that irregularity &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't happen to think the Arizona/New Mexico bits are political commentary, just &amp;quot;the entire rest of the state is a box, make this a straight line, too.&amp;quot; cleanup. I mean yes, it would make wall-building easier, theoretically, but the Chinese showed the world centuries ago that straight lines are not needed to build a big fricking wall. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.131|108.162.238.131]] 14:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- While I agree it probably isn't conscious political commentary, its interesting that there are not places the border increases; always     concessions, never gains. May take into account its easier to give than take territory? --[[User:Jgt|Jgt]] ([[User talk:Jgt|talk]]) 19:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)--[[User:Jgt|Jgt]] ([[User talk:Jgt|talk]]) 19:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm surprised Randall didn't suggest cleaning up Point Roberts as well [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Roberts,_Washington]. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.174|141.101.107.174]] 14:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
: Presumably the graphic designers are okay with that, since it maintains the 49th Parallel as a nice, tidy border. [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 20:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm shocked he didn't support fixing the Idaho/Wisconsin/Montana/Oregon border. That top part should be either given to Montana, or split between Washington and Oregon... I wonder if he left out certain things in order to avoid offending certain groups of people. Like suggesting that Rhode Island and Connecticut should probably be one state, or that Vermont and New Hampshire should be as well.  [[User:Kashim|Kashim]] ([[User talk:Kashim|talk]]) 17:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the suggestions are ironic, for example Michigan's upper peninsula actually used to be part of the Wisconsin territory, but it was ceded to Michigan in exchange for the port of Toledo being ceded to Ohio. &amp;quot;why does Florida get Alabama's coastline&amp;quot; is actually because Alabama got part of Florida's coastline so it wouldn't be landlocked. The bit of Nevada that he wants to fix it so Nevada has territory along the Colorado River [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.250|162.158.75.250]] 17:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nobody seems to have noticed that Delaware's curved northern border has been flattened (removing Wilmington). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.83|108.162.238.83]] 21:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One significant thing about this map is that, under this map, Hillary Clinton may have won the 2016 election. Citations needed, but I've seen it said that if the Upper Peninsula were moved from Michigan to Wisconsin and the Florida Panhandle were moved to Alabama, Clinton would have won Michigan and Florida, giving her an Electoral College majority. I don't think the Upper Peninsula has enough population to cost Michigan an electoral vote, and I think Florida would lose two electoral votes, putting Clinton exactly at the 270 needed to win. Perhaps the changes around Colorado and Nevada would make a difference, although there were also five faithless Clinton electors who might have voted for her if it would have made a difference. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.4|108.162.219.4]] 01:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good curve!  The curve is called the Georgia Bight, or less euphoniously, the South Atlantic Bight. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.76|162.158.63.76]] 03:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;'''Align to Grid'''&amp;quot; refers to the option to have icons snap to a grid on a Windows desktop. The idea is that the states become &amp;quot;aligned&amp;quot; like icons on a desktop. [[User:FakeCrash|FakeCrash]] ([[User talk:FakeCrash|talk]]) 17:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would be really useful  if this could link to somewhere that described why the various panhandles and oddities exist. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.247|162.158.154.247]] 21:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_States_Got_Their_Shapes [[User:Silverpie|Silverpie]] ([[User talk:Silverpie|talk]]) 21:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They should be called geo-graphic designers [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 06:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Randall had no references to Trump here. Get over it.&lt;br /&gt;
I mean really. Why does everybody think everything about the country has to do with Trump winning? [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 14:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the sentence: &amp;quot;Many U.S. residents will be made to live in new states, and thus be required to pay different taxes and obey different state laws, and even root for different sports teams.&amp;quot; It should be expanded to explain that people are indeed required to root for sports teams in the state they live in⸮ --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.234|172.68.133.234]] 21:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1576:_I_Could_Care_Less&amp;diff=101567</id>
		<title>Talk:1576: I Could Care Less</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1576:_I_Could_Care_Less&amp;diff=101567"/>
				<updated>2015-09-11T17:52:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Another excellent comic by Randall.  In case of interest to anyone a different perspective, David Mitchell did a wonder rant on this... &amp;quot;Dear America... | David Mitchell's SoapBox&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw {{unsigned ip|‎141.101.98.100}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only people who complain about this phrase are pedantic morons who have never heard such things as &amp;quot;head over heels&amp;quot;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here, I've composed a list of common vernacular/slang idioms which are valid, clear, and diametrically opposed to their original meaning:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Head over heels&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Break a leg&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;It's the shit&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;That's bad&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;She's phat&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Irregardless&amp;quot;{{unsigned|Cwallenpoole}}&lt;br /&gt;
:The reason I dislike &amp;quot;I could care less&amp;quot; is because it just grates me. It disrupts the flow of parsing language in my brain, throwing up a &amp;quot;wait, what?&amp;quot; exception that I have to expend far more mental energy than usual to correctly interpret the meaning of something in my head. I'm not being pedantic for the sake of uptight rule adherence and feeling superior (I play around with language and use it in non-standard forms all the time), I'm pedantic because it causes my brain real difficulties in processing the meaning of what a person's said. I mean I'm a woman with Asperger's (and a British one at that) so maybe things are a little different for me, but that's just why I personally strongly dislike this usage. The things on your list though are all different in some way to &amp;quot;I could care less&amp;quot;, at least for me, for example:&lt;br /&gt;
:* &amp;quot;Head over heels&amp;quot; - How is this an opposite meaning, exactly? Doesn't it give a rather nice metaphor for being giddy about something? Being hyperbolic and metaphorical doesn't make it an opposite meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
::*Because your head is ''normally'' over your heels. Nothing special about it. Heels over head would be much more interesting...[[User:Silverpie|Silverpie]] ([[User talk:Silverpie|talk]]) 17:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:* &amp;quot;Break a leg&amp;quot; - This is closer to being an opposite, but the exact opposite to wishing an actor good luck would be to wish them bad luck. The mutation to a slightly absurdist statement marks it out as having a different meaning, especially as &amp;quot;break a leg&amp;quot; isn't really used in any other context than to wish a person good luck. While it may be the case that &amp;quot;I could care less&amp;quot; is rarely (if at all) used in its literal form, there's still nothing to mutate it and obviously mark it out as a linguistic special usage case. It's also still how I'd expect someone to phrase it if they were actually telling me they could care less about something.&lt;br /&gt;
::: The &amp;quot;Vaudeville theory&amp;quot; on this page is where I got my understanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_a_leg --EE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.135|108.162.216.135]] 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:* &amp;quot;It's the shit&amp;quot; - Again, this is mutated. People aren't saying &amp;quot;it's shit&amp;quot;, the word &amp;quot;the&amp;quot; handily tags it for my brain parser to handle differently.&lt;br /&gt;
:* &amp;quot;That's bad&amp;quot; - Well, you've got me here actually. I mean, context (and tone) makes the meaning obvious but I can't objectively understand why this phrase doesn't cause me the same sort of difficulties at all. Perhaps because I grew up in the 80s, and a big part of my musical upbringing was Michael Jackson. ''♬ A-hee-hee! Hoo! ♬''&lt;br /&gt;
:* &amp;quot;She's phat&amp;quot; - This is completely literal, &amp;quot;phat&amp;quot; is a slang term meaning excellent or attractive. It may be a mutation of the word &amp;quot;fat&amp;quot; or not, its etymology is uncertain, but it is indisputably a very different word now (much like how &amp;quot;orchids&amp;quot; means a species of flower rather than testicles, and &amp;quot;sinister&amp;quot; hasn't meant left in centuries).&lt;br /&gt;
::: I understand it's an acronym: Pretty Hot And Tempting. --EE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.135|108.162.216.135]] 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:* &amp;quot;Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar&amp;quot; - This is also completely literal, Freud meant that while he believed many things ''could'' have hidden, psychosexual meanings... that while sometimes a person might be puffing on a cigar due to some suppressed phallic desires... they could also just be puffing on a cigar because they're enjoying a nice cigar. That is to say, not everything has a hidden subconscious meaning, and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, not a substitute object to fellate.&lt;br /&gt;
:* &amp;quot;Irregardless&amp;quot; - Well yes, the suffix added to &amp;quot;regardless&amp;quot; here would usually invert its meaning, but &amp;quot;irregardless&amp;quot; isn't actually a word that existed before it came into use with its current meaning so it's not like saying a previously established and defined word (or phrase).&lt;br /&gt;
: Anyway, while I do believe language is flexible and mutable, this particular phrase fails the easily interpretable test for my brain. I try not to be too uptight about it, but it really does irritate me in a way I can't help. Obviously my opinion is not the only one, so that's just my 1.29587 British pence on the matter :D [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.195|141.101.98.195]] 12:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
::(In response to Cwallenpoole, not 141.101.98.195, who makes good points that I didn't actually read first!) &amp;quot;Head over heels&amp;quot; is of course &amp;quot;head over (and down), heels (upwards) (...and continue this rotation to its logical conclusion)&amp;quot;; &amp;quot;Break a leg&amp;quot; has {{w|Break_a_leg|a number of possible origins}} (I always assumed wishing luck was unlucky, thus the inverse, but several &amp;quot;the leg not being yours&amp;quot; versions also ring true); &amp;quot;It's the shit&amp;quot; is using a somewhat unfortunate object (certainly if you miss out the &amp;quot;the&amp;quot;) that is a short-cut off-colour superlative like &amp;quot;the dog's bollocks&amp;quot;; &amp;quot;bad==good&amp;quot; I always assumed was &amp;quot;what's bad to the establishment is good for our own clique&amp;quot;; &amp;quot;phat&amp;quot; is far too modern for me, but probably arises a similar positive superlative with some counter-culture anti-standard spelling; Cigars being cigars don't sound diametrically opposed, to me, although who knows ''what'' went on in Freud's head!; &amp;quot;Irregardless&amp;quot; is an obvious portmanteau/malapropism blend that is so easy to create.  - Or so I would personally explain these.&lt;br /&gt;
:: Here's an additional one, though, if you care for it: &amp;quot;Cheap at half the price&amp;quot;.  It sounds wrong if you dig deep and work out that it must mean &amp;quot;It is not more than or equal to twice the actually fair price you should have been asking&amp;quot; (i.e. it's less than double the price).  But I've always internally rationalised it as really saying &amp;quot;If this figure you mention actually were only half of the full price you are ''truly'' asking for, the real price would still be considered cheap&amp;quot; (i.e. it's less than half price).  Or it could just be obfuscated salesman patter, i.e. telling the truth (still making a profit, but less than a 100% mark-up) but using weasel-words and terminology that create misleading imagery in the listener's mind. i.e. No crime, no foul, should Trading Standards happen to come-a-visiting, one day... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 13:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:::''Actually'', to follow-up on myself: &amp;quot;It's cheap(, it being in this instance) at half the price (I would normally charge)&amp;quot; works best. Why has that only just occured to me? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'I couldn't care less' is the standard formulation in the UK, for one.   I always assumed that the US version was originally a variant on this which was later contracted, eg 'I could care less, but not much'.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.106|141.101.99.106]] 07:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that xkcd is so pro-science, I don't think the analysis here should endorse the peeve that there's anything wrong with &amp;quot;I could care less&amp;quot; (or use of &amp;quot;literally&amp;quot; as an intensifier), since most actual linguists, experts on how language works, think it's fine. See for example the list of posts dealing with the question here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=21170#more-21170 And of course, the comic itself points out how petty an besides the point this kind of &amp;quot;correction&amp;quot; is. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 07:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: As a linguist, regarding the claim that most actual linguists think it's fine, I'd have to respectfully say HELL NO! There is a difference between acknowledging the pragmatic implementation of the phrase, that is, its use in common parlance and the general acceptance and understanding of it, and the question wether or not it is &amp;quot;fine&amp;quot;. The comic exemplifies a rather extreme version of the idea &amp;quot;Whatever people use is proper language&amp;quot; - in other words, as long as everybody involved in a conversation gets what is meant, there is no point in arguing semantics, grammer, etc. This is, however, neither the only, nor the dominant approach to language and linguistics. For exapmle, it doesn't answer the question how such an ostensibly paradox use of this phrase came to happen, where (geographically, socially, etc.) the phrase might have originated, and other puzzless regarding the origin of the phrase; this attitude also dismisses any inquiry into how humans process (or ignore) such discrepancies between literal meaning and actual use, and in general, how humans organise, structure, and conecptualise language. Additionally, this comic adds a radical deconstructional (and maybe existential) twist to this perspective by basically saying, &amp;quot;We're all alone, and can never really know or understand anybody else&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
: Such an attitude of total relativism (&amp;quot;Every experience ist entirely subjective and unique&amp;quot;) makes my skin crawl. It is by far more presumptious than being a little pedantic about grammar and the use of expressions.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.176|162.158.114.176]] 11:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Agreed. Words have meanings and reducing the amount of trust you can place in those meanings decreases the value of the language. &amp;quot;You could never understand me, so I might as well not even try to make myself understood&amp;quot; is a cop-out. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.23|108.162.219.23]] 15:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As it's currently written, the explanation seems to suggest that &amp;quot;I could care less&amp;quot; is the American form and &amp;quot;I couldn't care less&amp;quot; British. In fact, both forms are in use in the US, and it wouldn't surprise me if &amp;quot;I could care less&amp;quot; occurs occasionally in British English as well. There are also other English-speaking countries in the world. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 07:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:As a Brit, I can't think of any time I've heard a fellow Briton say &amp;quot;I could care less&amp;quot;, it's always seemed very much an American phenomenon. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.195|141.101.98.195]] 12:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Another American chiming in here to say that I never, ever, ever say &amp;quot;I could care less&amp;quot; when I mean &amp;quot;I couldn't care less&amp;quot;. Characterizing it as &amp;quot;*the* American form&amp;quot; is incorrect. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.167|173.245.56.167]] 15:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the title text, I'd disagree with &amp;quot;The sentence is also ambiguous, as it may mean that literally or figuratively, the speaker could or couldn't care less.&amp;quot; I think that Randall is pretty clear here: he ''should'' ('could' as in polite request) care less about irrational idioms instead of wasting time  drawing comics about it. But he just can't resist. And without him doing so, we wouldn't be here. So in fact, it is nonsense for Randall to care less, and this contradiction is the point of the title text joke. But then again, I'm not native English speaker, and even less of a thought reader to understand what was on his mind. -- kavol, [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.224|141.101.96.224]] 08:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:I had an alternate take on the title text. Since I could care less literally means I care some but could stand not to care as much, I took it to mean that for all the comic says about the true spirit and nature of communication and the evils of forcing linguistic absolutism onto other people, at the end of the day Randall still does care about people using correct phraseology. Yes, language is so much more than words and sounds but without clear grammatical usage rules communication could descend into chaos. This is actually one of the pivotal points in Jet Li's movie Hero which is a great commentary on this comic's profundity. The deep resonating pools of meaning that communication stores is only useful for peace and coexistence if we can all understand each other and come together as one. --[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 15:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm solidly with the IP. Randall is saying that, evidently, this is something which is important to him, and something he's put a lot of thought into. [[User:FourViolas|FourViolas]] ([[User talk:FourViolas|talk]]) 17:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think &amp;quot;I could care less&amp;quot; is completely unheard of in Britain - I had to come here to find out what this was all about!  In the UK the correction wouldn't be seen as pedantic, but rather that you had said something really rather odd, possibly for effect.  I'm guessing in the US this doesn't stand out, and the phrase is &amp;quot;familiar&amp;quot; so the brain will run with it, but it just sounds really weird and jarring to me.  That's not being pedantic, we toss double negatives around all over the place.  Randall's point is that it how you interpret the words, rather than exact rules.  So if ponytail is British then she is genuinely just trying to check that it wasn't a slip of the tongue and not meant for effect.  To experience how odd it sounds its like a similar phrase &amp;quot;I don't give a s**t&amp;quot;, but someone saying &amp;quot;I do give a s**t&amp;quot; (unless you guy's say that as well?!). {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.205}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You're right, the British National Corpus has essentially no hits for &amp;quot;could care less&amp;quot; [http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/]. However, Ponytail's &amp;quot;correction&amp;quot; doesn't sound like she's unfamiliar with the expression, but more like the common pedantic objection to it, so I doubt that she's intended to be British, or that it's anything other than &amp;quot;showing off how well she knows some mental checklist.&amp;quot; The Lawler link above ([http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/giveadamn.html]) discusses the example &amp;quot;They could give a damn about Whitewater&amp;quot; (as in they '''don't''' actually give a damn about it). I think you could get away with &amp;quot;I give a shit?&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;[Like] I give a shit!&amp;quot; (with the &amp;quot;like&amp;quot; elided) as implicitly negative, but no, you can't put in an affirmative &amp;quot;do.&amp;quot; [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 10:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm fighting a long lost battle, I know, but can I mention my fight against the (long-standing) misuse of Decimation when the speaker/writer probably means Devastation?  These days it's often assumed to be its own mathematical complement (around ~10% survival, rather than the intended ~10% depletion). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 13:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am right with you on this one.  Although I don't think the users are mistaking the Dev- for the Dec-,  they have just forgotten or never learned that &amp;quot;decimate&amp;quot; had anything to with percentages.  Heck, many English speakers don't grasp that percent has anything to do with percentages.  [[User:NoniMausa|NoniMausa]] ([[User talk:NoniMausa|talk]]) 15:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Either one works, depending on how the sentence is finished:&lt;br /&gt;
* I could care less...about this than other things.&lt;br /&gt;
* I couldn't care less...about this than I already do.&lt;br /&gt;
--EE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.135|108.162.216.135]] 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, but &amp;quot;I could...&amp;quot; also begs the question &amp;quot;...but will I?&amp;quot; and so does not actually affirms that &amp;quot;I ''will'' care less (than with other things)&amp;quot;, whilst &amp;quot;I couldn't...&amp;quot; is more imperative as in &amp;quot;...and therefore I wouldn't&amp;quot;.  (Unless you want to read the latter as &amp;quot;I couldn't care less because I actually care quite a lot already and I know that this will never change&amp;quot;, I suppose!  Oh dear, we uregently need to start using one of those totally-umambiguous ConLangs based upon predicate logic!) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 15:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a different note: The way the panels are set up is pretty interesting. Anyone a idea, why he set it up like that? Does he want to tell us something? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.196|162.158.92.196]] 17:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1112:_Think_Logically&amp;diff=91681</id>
		<title>1112: Think Logically</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1112:_Think_Logically&amp;diff=91681"/>
				<updated>2015-04-29T16:31:38Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: /* Explanation */ &amp;quot;forfeit&amp;quot; means something else&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{comic&lt;br /&gt;
| number    = 1112&lt;br /&gt;
| date      = September 24, 2012&lt;br /&gt;
| title     = Think Logically&lt;br /&gt;
| image     = think logically.png&lt;br /&gt;
| titletext = I've developed a more logical set of rules but the people on the chess community have a bunch of stupid emotional biases and won't reply to my posts.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Explanation==&lt;br /&gt;
{{w|Chess}} is a centuries-old board game in which two players take turns moving one of their 16 pieces to try and checkmate the other player's king (one of the pieces). When one player is in a position to capture his or her opponent's king on their next move, and the opponent has no legal move available to avoid such capture, the opponent is said to be in &amp;quot;checkmate&amp;quot;. This is considered to be the end of the game with a win for the first player; though chess etiquette suggests that a player facing inevitable checkmate ought to resign at that point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The game, with origins around the 6th century, and with the modern rules being essentially set in the late 15th century, has a significant amount of history. The rules and traditions are well established. The knight is a piece that can only move in an L-shaped pattern (two squares in one direction, and one square perpendicular), but has the unique ability to jump over other pieces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The comic highlights two mistakes players often make in chess: complete fixation on the king at the cost of their other pieces, and failure to take advantage of the knight's movement patterns. At the same time this is a jab at how people sometimes oversimplify an argument when confronted with a topic they are not familiar with. Previously this was depicted in [[675: Revolutionary]] and [[793: Physicists]]. See also the {{w|Dunning–Kruger effect}}. The units in chess are widely agreed to be well-balanced, and Cueball's criticism of the knight shows an obvious lack of knowledge of the knight's potential.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given the long history of chess, a significant amount of writing and research has been dedicated to the game and its strategies. This is inadvertently mocked by Cueball who naively suggests it would be trivial to make a list of all situations in which a piece would move backwards (called a &amp;quot;retreat&amp;quot; in chess). Such a list — at least a partial one — certainly does exist, as do lists of numerous other chess moves and situations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cueball]]'s friend proceeds to demonstrate Cueball's lack of knowledge by beating him in four moves, which typically would only occur when an experienced player plays a novice. The checkmate depicted is likely the {{w|Scholar's mate|scholar's mate}} and is one of the classic checkmates in chess. Scholar's mate is easily parried by moving the knight, the piece considered weak by Cueball, to f6, although ironically, all movements in the scholar's mate are towards the enemy king.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cueball, instead of admitting he underestimated the game, believes the failure is in the game itself. The title text indicates that Cueball attempted to suggest revisions to the rules of chess. Given that Cueball has no experience as a chess player, it is likely many of the changes are illogical or ridiculous. In the face of hundreds of years of history, it is not surprising that the chess community is ignoring them. The last major changes to the rules of chess occurred more than 400 years ago when, among other things, the pawn was given its two-space starting move and the queen was made into the most powerful piece (previously it was the weakest). The chess community's ties to the traditions of the game and their refusal to accept Cueball's suggestions are written off by Cueball as &amp;quot;{{w|emotional bias}}&amp;quot; suggesting his changes are logical, but that the community is letting their emotions cloud their rational decision making abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The comic may also be a jab at competitive online games whose fans call for &amp;quot;buffs&amp;quot; (power additions) and &amp;quot;nerfs&amp;quot; (power reductions) to characters they believe to be underpowered or overpowered, often with inadequate knowledge of those characters. On the other hand, some online games and multiplayer computer games in general are unbalanced since they lack centuries of history to balance themselves, unlike chess.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Transcript==&lt;br /&gt;
:[Person wearing a skullcap is sitting down at a computer. Cueball is standing behind him.]&lt;br /&gt;
:Laptop: ''*Move*''&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: Why'd you move your knight away?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[Person wearing skullcap turns around and rests his arm on his chair.]&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: Just think ''logically''. The goal is checkmate, so you should always move pieces ''toward'' the other player's king.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[Closeup of Cueball.]&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: I guess occasionally you need to move backward, but it'd be trivial to make a list of those circumstances and-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[Person wearing skullcap is leaning back in chair facing Cueball.]&lt;br /&gt;
:Skullcap: Have you ever ''played'' chess?&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: Not much, but—&lt;br /&gt;
:Skullcap: Wanna?&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: Uh, ok.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[Skullcap and Cueball playing chess.]&lt;br /&gt;
:Skullcap: *Move*&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: *Move*&lt;br /&gt;
:Skullcap: *Move*&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: *Move*&lt;br /&gt;
:Skullcap: *Move*&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: *Move*&lt;br /&gt;
:Skullcap: *Move* Checkmate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[Cueball standing and staring at the chess board.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[Skullcap returns to computer.]&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: This game isn't very well-designed. For starters, knights are too weak...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{comic discussion}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Chess]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1484:_Apollo_Speeches&amp;diff=84395</id>
		<title>Talk:1484: Apollo Speeches</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1484:_Apollo_Speeches&amp;diff=84395"/>
				<updated>2015-02-12T18:15:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[http://watergate.info/1969/07/20/an-undelivered-nixon-speech.html Speech] for reference[[User:Blawho|Blawho]] ([[User talk:Blawho|talk]]) 06:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any chance the scenario with extra astronauts coming back is a reference to Scott Card's Xenocide, in the book they find a way for FTL travel but some odd things happen on the first voyage including extra people coming back ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenocide#Outside click if you're not afraid of spoilers])? {{unsigned ip|188.114.98.29}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scenario that the spacecraft was sold for scrap might be a reference to the apolo having a fire during a training and trapping the asyronauts inside. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.127}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Probably it could also be a reference to Tarkowski's movie &amp;quot;Solaris&amp;quot;? {{unsigned ip|141.101.92.93}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: It's also similar to the premise of the comic ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chimpanzee_Complex The Chimpanzee Complex]''. Probably just a coincidence, though. – [[User:PhantomLimbic|PhantomLimbic]] ([[User talk:PhantomLimbic|talk]]) 17:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anyone remember the Saturday Night Live skit with Dana Carvey as Tom Brokaw recording contingency broadcasts reporting on Gerald Ford's death from more and more unlikely circumstances (including one where Brokaw was told to add, &amp;quot;and also, I'm gay&amp;quot;, because &amp;quot;If that happens, you don't want another reporter to get the scoop!&amp;quot;) [[User:Mwburden|mwburden]] ([[User talk:Mwburden|talk]]) 17:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind&amp;quot; has to be a reference to the Rupert Brooke poem ''The Soldier'', which Safire no doubt knew. It begins &amp;quot;If I should die, think only this of me:/That there's some corner of a foreign field/That is forever England.&amp;quot; {{unsigned ip|108.162.246.219}}&lt;br /&gt;
:Maybe, but that would not be a reference in the context of the comic, since the first two pages are from the actual speech. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 23:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
::Exactly, it's a reference that Safire was making in writing the speech.[[User:Silverpie|Silverpie]] ([[User talk:Silverpie|talk]]) 18:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You know, technically Apollo 11 probably had enough delta-v to make it into Mars orbit - the service module alone had around 2.8 km/s - although I don't know if there was a point in the actual mission where you could have made this work. Nobody would have survived the trip, of course. [[User:Ijkcomputer|Ijkcomputer]] ([[User talk:Ijkcomputer|talk]]) 15:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=315:_Braille&amp;diff=67733</id>
		<title>315: Braille</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=315:_Braille&amp;diff=67733"/>
				<updated>2014-05-21T15:45:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: /* Transcript */ only the first word has a capital marker&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{comic&lt;br /&gt;
| number    = 315&lt;br /&gt;
| date      = September 12, 2007&lt;br /&gt;
| title     = Braille&lt;br /&gt;
| image     = braille.png&lt;br /&gt;
| titletext = The only big difference I've seen is in colors. Where the regular text reads 'press red button', the braille reads 'press two-inch button'.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Explanation==&lt;br /&gt;
{{w|Braille}} is a writing system for the blind and {{w|Visual impairment|visually impaired}} using bumps on a paper, slate, etc. However, since most sighted people cannot read braille, and because braille messages may need to convey purely-visual information to blind people, the text may be adjusted from its actual, intended message.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The title text shows the real difference between braille and the common written explanations using just a simple text. The visually impaired cannot see color.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Transcript==&lt;br /&gt;
:I learned to read braille a while back, and I've noticed that the messages on signs don't always match the regular text.&lt;br /&gt;
:[There is a sign which reads: Third Floor Office with braille print underneath. Cueball is reading the braille.]&lt;br /&gt;
:Cueball: S-i-g-h-t-e-d--p-e-o-p-l-e--s-u-c-k ... Hey!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{comic discussion}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Language]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:315:_Braille&amp;diff=67362</id>
		<title>Talk:315: Braille</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:315:_Braille&amp;diff=67362"/>
				<updated>2014-05-15T20:10:09Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Silverpie: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Don't know braille enough to sight-read (I know, but I certainly can't touch-read it, so I have to go on the visuals), but when I work out the cipher, each time, sometimes the 'translation' ''is'' revealed to be interesting, but more often than not there's a braille-enabled sign that doesn't seem to make sense in the first place.  Mainly ones where the effort of finding the sign is probably a bigger handicap than dealing with what the sign says.  &amp;quot;Push&amp;quot; on a 'next stop' button on a bus, that to me would seem obviously such a button if you make tactile contact with it in the first place (although the driver usually liaises with anyone with that sort of difficulty, anyway).  &amp;quot;If you need any assistance, please ask&amp;quot; tacked down onto a reception desk, where any receptionist that is there would surely notice the blind person &amp;lt;strike&amp;gt;looking&amp;lt;/strike&amp;gt; feeling around for such a 'handy' notice and so should intervene straight off the bat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the one that always gets me is the one that labels a WC's external light-switch.  No other switches are labelled, around that area (nor anything else, save for the WC sign, high up on the door, surely difficult to examine or even ''imagine'' you should try to find to examine), and I can ''barely'' justify that sign by the possibility that a person might have bad sight in low light and have learnt braille to compensate, for which this is useful.  But I just can't get past the thought that every reasonably sighted person and every 'reasonably blinded' person would have no use at all for the braille component, one way or another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I stand to be corrected by anyone who knows better, of course. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 20:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hope I'm not typing where I shouldn't be #noob but it would make more sense if cueball read &amp;quot;s-i-g-h-t-(ed) p-e-o-p-l-e s-u-c-k&amp;quot; [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.88|173.245.50.88]] 04:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)noob&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    If you want to go for grade 2, it gets much shorter than that: s-i-gh-t-ed p s-u-c-k (&amp;quot;p&amp;quot; alone is read as &amp;quot;people&amp;quot;, and gh is also a two-letter sign). [[User:Silverpie|Silverpie]] ([[User talk:Silverpie|talk]]) 20:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Silverpie</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed>