|
WOWEE ZOWEE posted:Sorry tangent here, but your avatar is very confusing. You were banned like 11 years ago but my first thought is that you were just recently banned. I've taken care of it
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
Mods???
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:it's fine, it's fine 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
Maybe I should check out the primary thread rather than posting here, but Bernie could just say, "I'm fine with more taxes on my wealth, why aren't you?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Approval voting seems real bad, because if a majority of people want the socialist to win, but everyone votes for the centrist just in case, the centrist will get the most votes every time despite a majority preferring someone else. Approval voting means that moderates tend to win, for the electorate's definition of moderate. If your objection is that this doesn't result in enough socialists being elected, no democratic system can elect socialists if the electorate doesn't like socialists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 07:56
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Approval voting means that moderates tend to win, for the electorate's definition of moderate. If your objection is that this doesn't result in enough socialists being elected, no democratic system can elect socialists if the electorate doesn't like socialists. Bernie Sanders has won every state so far.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 13:22
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Approval voting means that moderates tend to win, for the electorate's definition of moderate. If your objection is that this doesn't result in enough socialists being elected, no democratic system can elect socialists if the electorate doesn't like socialists. Approval Voting means socialists won't be elected even if the electorate loving loves socialists. It's bad for democracy to make it so only the least objectionable, least contentious candidate with mainstream and media approval has a chance to emerge victorious. It's a worse version of FPTP because tactical voting means you don't even have to worry about giving lip service to the various parts of your coalition, since they have the "release valve" of a meaningless vote but practically still have to support you to stop the "worse choice" from getting in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 16:44
|
|
|
Chamale posted:If your objection is that this doesn't result in enough socialists being elected, no democratic system can elect socialists if the electorate doesn't like socialists. That wasn't my objection, read it again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
 She is all things, to all people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Approval Voting means socialists won't be elected even if the electorate loving loves socialists. What does a good democratic system look like to you that doesn't reward moderates and that's not FPTP?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
Dias posted:I kinda agree. He needs to hit back with the "socialism isn't a vote of poverty, I acknowledge my privilege but it's not incompatible with wanting a better world". this one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:What does a good democratic system look like to you that doesn't reward moderates and that's not FPTP? "Moderates" aren't the people rewarded, but rather a specific subclass of politicians that appeal to low info and fear based voters while offering nothing potentially objectionable no matter how popular (because offering popular things might get you votes, but all that matters in an AV system is not losing them). RCV beats approval voting by wide margins if you want meaningful democracy to happen, because it doesn't have the hosed up perverse incentives of a system built around voting against people instead of for them (which is what approval voting boils down to, as a system). I think MMP beats out RCV, especially when the short list isn't chosen by entrenched party leadership but through some other system. I think all of those are inferior to a multi-winner legislative power weighting by electoral selection pool system, which addresses a wide set of problems that all of the above don't even look at (higher voter information rates, low cost, more transparency, more accountability), but I recognize I'm pretty niche in that opinion and a primary debate thread that's well past it's expiration date isn't the best place to get into it. It's just approval voting in particular that sucks. And the people who push it like it primarily because it sucks in ways that let's them marginalize those they dislike.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
How do I explain the problems of approval voting in a way so simple even a quivering lib can understand. Okay: there's an election for Headmaster of Hogwarts between Albus Dumbledore, Voldemort, and Dolores Umbridge whose platform is "maybe you don't think I'm perfect but vote for me to keep Voldemort out" 9,998 voters want Dumbledore to win but they're so scared of Voldemort they'll vote for Umbridge too just in case. Voldemort votes for himself and Umbridge. Umbridge votes for herself only because she cares more about winning than beating Voldemort. Final numbers: 10,000 Umbridge 9,998 Dumbledore 1 Voldemort Umbridge is elected even though 99.98% of the voters preferred Dumbledore. Do you see the issue now. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Feb 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How do I explain the problems of approval voting in a way so simple even a quivering lib can understand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Isn't Dumbledore an anti-Semite though? idk I didn't read those books
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I think MMP beats out RCV, especially when the short list isn't chosen by entrenched party leadership but through some other system. I just looked this up and yeah I agree MMP sounds like a good system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Isn't Dumbledore an anti-Semite though? yeah that part where dumbledore helps the nazis was pretty hosed up. loving magic cattle cars and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:yeah that part where dumbledore helps the nazis was pretty hosed up. loving magic cattle cars and poo poo. Reversero circumcisso!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Isn't Dumbledore an anti-Semite though? Dumbledore is Pete in this analogy right? because they're both gay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
What if we did disapproval voting where we take advantage that people hate more than they like and you instead vote against people and the candidate with the least amount of votes wins?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
uh I was just trying to channel jkrowling I don't know if dumbledore is an anti-Semite 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:uh I was just trying to channel jkrowling I don't know if dumbledore is an anti-Semite Now do the goblins.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:What if we did disapproval voting where we take advantage that people hate more than they like and you instead vote against people and the candidate with the least amount of votes wins? 100% on board with this. It's like a system made for a goon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 03:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Umbridge is elected even though 99.98% of the voters preferred Dumbledore. Do you see the issue now. You had to dream up a scenario where nearly 10,000 voters enable two voters to decide everything? That's the least likely thing ever, and if it is ever a real problem then we might as well do away with democracy entirely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 04:30
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:You had to dream up a scenario where nearly 10,000 voters enable two voters to decide everything? That's the least likely thing ever, and if it is ever a real problem then we might as well do away with democracy entirely. That was an extreme example but that problem would occur all the time, because under approval voting the candidate preferred by a majority isn't guaranteed to win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 05:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:In a proper voting system that absurd situation isn't possible at all. It's time to do the right thing once and for all and institute full consensus decision making with mandated non-violent communication training.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 05:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:In a proper voting system that absurd situation isn't possible at all. Yeah no poo poo, if you let individual voters pick as many candidates as they like someone could win with fewer unique individual voters. That’s called consensus and it’s part of the design.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 09:56
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Yeah no poo poo, if you let individual voters pick as many candidates as they like someone could win with fewer unique individual voters. That’s called consensus and it’s part of the design.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 10:48
|
|
|
TheManWithNoName posted:
Couldn't make it past "former white" woman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 16:26
|
|
|
Ranked Choice is the way to go. Your vote actually counts. FPTP voting suppresses turnout in areas where a voter knows their vote won't do poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Now do the goblins. Please don’t steal my fanfic tia Edit: thanks all for the running commentary, btw! I couldn’t watch Wednesday’s debate, and frankly it’s a lot more fun imagining literal Bloomberg gang-shanking Literally Kermit fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Feb 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 17:34
|
|
t
|
I don't know that political scientists in the US are into, but my professors were weirdly horny for the STV system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Yeah no poo poo, if you let individual voters pick as many candidates as they like someone could win with fewer unique individual voters. That’s called consensus and it’s part of the design. That's not consensus at all though. 99.999998% of the voters can agree that candidate A is the best choice, but a tiny minority can elect candidate B instead. It rewards fear and hostage taking, because you're just voting against candidates and not for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:I don't know that political scientists in the US are into, but my professors were weirdly horny for the STV system. Stv only applies to elections where you are electing more than one person. In the case of a caucus where you only transfer the votes of the non viable candidates, stv works the same way as ranked choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Stv only applies to elections where you are electing more than one person. In the case of a caucus where you only transfer the votes of the non viable candidates, stv works the same way as ranked choice. A caucus does elect more than one person though. Each location is picking multiple county level delegates with some exceptions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
This is where we will be happy to go if they keep pushing this Russia horsehit. https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1230905109296496641?s=20
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:A caucus does elect more than one person though. Each location is picking multiple county level delegates with some exceptions. But they are not voting for delegates, they are voting for presidential delegates. To clarify: stv transfers excess votes and votes from unviable candidates. So let's say you are voting for 5 seats in a council and there are 100 voters. So it's 20 votes per seat. So first thing you do is transfer the votes of everyone who got MORE than 20 votes to their second option. After you get through all the excess votes, you start to eliminate all those who are last, until you get 5 candidates with exactly 20 votes. In a caucus you don't do the first part, because the excess votes matter. I.e., you get 35 votes you keep those. In a caucus you only do the "transfer from those below viability" part. I.e., the same as ranked choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:This is where we will be happy to go if they keep pushing this Russia horsehit. I keep cracking up imagining the whole reason he is running is so he can make sure there is no deeper investigation into Epstein.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:I don't get how approval voting is supposed to be better than IRV / Ranked Choice / whatever. The latter gathers more information from voters to determine their preference - wouldn't that naturally lead to a result closer to what the electorate wanted? It seems to me that IRV could be worse for representing a variety of options? It benefits candidates who have a lot of soft support but are widely seen as not being electable for reasons. You can make a show of support for a candidate at the back of the pack without having to do so exclusively. I guess Yang would be the guy in this cycle that fits that description best, there's a lot of people who liked his message but wouldn't vote for him to the exclusion of other candidates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 22:14
|
|