chaogomu @ chaogomu @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

417

Joined

2 yr. ago

Ahh, the bullshit "bullet voting" nonsense.

That's a sort of made up problem with cardinal systems that ignores one tiny little issue. Approval, is a Cardinal voting method that is 100% bullet voting, because there's no scale. Just a simple yes and no per candidate.

It gives better results than every single Ordinal system.

These geeks study election systems in far too much detail. And have a handy little chart of Baysian Regret Basically they did math and computer shit to figure out how "happy" people would be with the results of a set number of simulated elections with roughly identical factors except the voting system used and how honestly vs strategic you are in your voting,

Approval, which is 100% bullet voting, and still comes out better for overall satisfaction of results than its closest Ordinal competitor.

Consensus is just Condorcet voting. Technically, Approval is Condorcet compliant. It might actually be the only true way to find the Condorcet winner.

Anyway, there's more, and I should link more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

The two are not functionally identical at all.

Ranked Choice is a broken Ordinal voting system.

All Ordinal voting systems are flawed, because when you have to rank A over B, you will eventually reach a point where C can become a spoiler candidate.

Cardinal voting systems are immune from this, because you rate the candidates independent of each other. It doesn't matter how many candidates are on the ballot, because you're rating them vs your support, not their rank vs each other.

Cardinal systems allow you to rate two candidates the same, either with full support or full disdain.

Good points except for Ranked Choice. That archaic voting system is a sort of poison pill.

It doesn't actually solve any of the problems proponents claim it does, and it adds complexity and additional points of failure. It was designed in 1788, but rejected for use in France at the time due to the habit of eliminating the Condorcet winner. (The person who would win in a one on one election vs all other candidates)

The bad idea was then reinvented in the early 1800s as the Single Transferrable Vote, with no fixes for that pesky Condorcet issue.

No, the way to go is either the simplicity of Approval, or the more granular STAR. (STAR is the new hotness, designed this century, with the pitfalls of past systems in mind)

Both systems are completely immune to the Spoiler effect while also allowing, or even encouraging the growth of third parties.

I was wondering what that expression was...

I'll say that Andy Weir got most of it right on how to do manned missions to Mars.

You build a huge space station, and then use that as the ship that goes to and from Mars.

Then the actual mission on the surface lasting a month or three before the astronauts pack up and head home.

Simple question, where are the Whigs today? Gone? Because that's what it takes to have a different party. The Whigs imploded, and the Democratic Republicans then swept the elections for a couple of years until the Republican Party coalesced.

Gore did not in fact win. Not because he didn't have more votes, but because it was close enough that Republicans could steal the election. I Ralph Nader had not been on the ballot, Gore would have easily pulled the win. But several thousand unimpeachable votes.

This is called the Spoiler Effect. It's the mechanism by with Durverger's Law works. A vote for a third party is a vote against your own interests. Ralph Nader voters were horrified to learn that they helped Bush win the election.

But all this debate here is effectively in a vacuum. We're not actually talking about the current election. A vote for a socialist third party in this year's election is a wasted vote. Full Stop. You'll not impress anyone, and the socialist candidate will not care about you. And that's because the "socialist" candidate is likely a Republican plant. Because the two major parties know about the Spoiler Effect, and Republicans specifically have been funding the "left leaning" third parties to split the vote so that they can win.

If you as an individual want to harm yourself, I'll not really care. I can't stop you. But if you start advocating for others to join you, I'll call you out as a Republican plant, working to fuck over the rest of us.

Just because you're too lazy to actually look them up, doesn't mean that they aren't full of equations.

This is one Proof of Arrow's Theorem;

Let G be a coalition with size ≥ 2. Partition the coalition into nonempty subsets G 1 , G 2.

Fix distinct x , y , z. Design the following voting pattern (notice that it is the cyclic voting pattern which causes the Condorcet paradox):

voters in G 1 : x ≻ i y ≻ i z voters in G 2 : z ≻ i x ≻ i y voters outside G : y ≻ i z ≻ i x

(Items other than x , y , z are not relevant.)

Since G is decisive, we have x ≻ y. So at least one is true: x ≻ z or z ≻ y.

If x ≻ z, then G 1 is weakly decisive over ( x , z ) . If z ≻ y, then G 2 is weakly decisive over ( z , y ). Now apply the field expansion lemma.

See how helpful that is? No, Well, if you had a phd in math or political science it would be.

This is the wiki link if you want the full Proofs. And that's just Arrow's Theorem.

Durverger's Law is both simpler, and more targeted. It simply states that if you have a system of government where there is single winner elections and plurality voting, you will inevitable have a two party system, and that further, any attempt to create a viable Third Party is not only doomed to failure, but is actively harmful to the interests of those Third Party voters.

In other words, the Spoiler Effect, Like what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000. He's the reason why Bush won.

Arrow's Theorem and Duverger's Law.

So, your plan for fixing everything is for the left to stop voting so that the right can win and make voting illegal.

Because that's how it works.

This election in particular has democracy itself on the ballot.

It may be a flawed democracy, but the only other option is a fascist dictatorship.

There are no other options because of First Past the Post voting. Literally. The math does not lie.

Bots building post history in an abandoned looking sub. Usually done to get access to some other sub.

With the right looking post history you can scam your way onto a surprising large number of moderation teams.

And he likely also has a certain idea of who the criminals are.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Did you know that Nelson Mandela was the leader of a literal terrorist organization?

He ordered attacks that killed people. That's why he was in prison.

And every one forgave him, and even voted him into power.

All because South African Apartheid was fundamentally evil.

Israeli Apartheid is orders of magnitude worse than the South African version.

Have you checked out Live from Emmett's Place?

Live jazz streamed every week.

Instead they went with the stupidest and most cruel option. Make sure there's no ventilation on the mask, and that it had a tight seal before turning on the gas. A gas they were treating like a deadly poison.

And since there was no ventilation at all, there was no gas flow. There was no oxygen displacement. Just the CO2 buildup.

A big part of it was scientific illiteracy. There was talk at the time about "protecting the prison officers from exposure to the gas".

They were treating it like a poison.

Which adds stupidity to the malice.

Lenin betrayed the revolution. You mention the banning of the political parties. While it's true that they "took up arms against Sovnarkom", you're leaving out the part where Lenin used Sovnarkom to coup the newly elected government because his party didn't win.

Again, Lenin was flat out wrong. But I don't think he ever actually cared about Russia ever reaching the true Marxist communist utopia. Lenin cared about power first and foremost.

He built up that dictatorship, and then handed it over to a monster.

Tried a bunch, but tried wrong.

The Lenin model of communism is inherently flawed for one simple reason. An Authoritarian Communism is an Impossibility. It cannot exist by pure definition.

The true ideal communism is a stateless utopia.

So yeah, the Lenin model is flawed to the point of uselessness. Or worse because any authoritarian government is going to kill its own citizens, while also being a low grade threat to neighboring countries.

No. The only path to true communism is via democracy. And there are countries that are moving in that direction.

Hydrogen fuel cells actually show quite a bit of promise. Mostly for large trucks. Batteries have a scaling issue. A battery powered 18-wheeler needs a much larger battery for a much shorter range.

Adding more load means you need more battery, and that larger battery is just more load that you need to haul.

This is sort of true with everything, but the important note is that a full battery and empty battery weigh the same.

Anyway. Commercial use is where it makes sense. There are actually a few other technologies that make sense in the commercial transportation space. Like ammonia.

Keeping these rather dangerous fuels commercial also allows for more strict safety standards.

There's actually some merit to this statement.

In the late 1940s, the philosophical arm of the Lehi terrorist organization literally plagiarized Nazi race science with Aryan scratched out and "God's chosen people" subbed in.