Simulating alternate voting systems

[@carykh]

As someone who believes CGP Grey's voting videos from 2011 should be shown to everyone, I'm so glad you made this! I feel like every possible political issue arises downstream from the voting system itself. It's hard to overstate how important that is.

[@SerSark_]

Agreed

[@thaias9654]

Glad to see you on a informative video like this. And I do agree.

[@abrasmage]

Yes. [obligatory hai cary]

[@jack-gf6jw]

Also someone who thinks CGP grays voting videos should be promoted!!! Was very happy to see this

[@Plastikhalo]

kary kh kary kh kary kh KARY KH KARY KH Is a cool dude

[@evankos]

We cannot ignore that the blobs have forward facing eyes, and are thus predators

[@randomsheepman9772]

My life is a lie!!!

[@ohhxcake5434]

Prey have side facing eyes to look out for predators but the blobs ave no natural predators so it would make sense that they have front facing eyes to detect fruit.

[@alexlogan202]

They prey on slobbin blob knobs

[@ForAnAngel]

@@ohhxcake5434 In a world where a creature has no predators and is not a predator themself, there would be no reason to even have two eyes. They would most likely evolve to have only one eye in the middle.

[@voltronimusprime3833]

@@ForAnAngel The reason most creatures have at least 2 eyes is not due to running from, or being a predator themselves. The reason most creatures have at least 2 eyes is because that's the minimum required for depth perception.

[@RobertoDeMundo]

I love how whenever something bad happens, the blobs look down and shake their heads

[@realprotonn]

Oh cool bfb prof

[@t3p564]

@@realprotonn ya mean pfp?

[@ambrosxa]

@@t3p564 bfb PROF. prof is profile for short

[@carykh]

OMG it's a gelatin pfp account!!!! 😍😍😍😍😍

[@jasoninirllife]

@@carykh Bruh why are you here

[@bscfan1237]

In case somebody is interested: There is actually a theorem called 'arrows impossibilty theorem' which states that there is no fair ranked voting system that satifies certain quality criterias. One of the criterias is in fact the here mentioned spoiler effect doesnt occur.

[@bobbywatson942]

That theorem doesn’t include approval voting, though

[@orang1921]

fortunately, AI will soon do away with all forms of government that we currently know of

[@kirbya9545]

@@orang1921i hope

[@nickcunningham6344]

So what if you used a version of the instant runoff system, but you tallied up the number of times a candidate was the last pick and eliminated the candidate with the most last picks? Doesn't that solve the spoiler effect?

[@Daniel-tj2yq]

​@@nickcunningham6344I think this fails when people strategically last pick then? If purple knows orange will beat them 1v1 and knows that they'll beat green in a head to head, then they have an incentive to knock orange out But I'm not sure if I'm following your model exactly, Im picturing a ranked choice runoff thing

[@docnathan3959]

The blobs have evolved a lot. They learned to search and hunt. They formed an economy. They eradicated a disease. Now, they are looking for someone to be their leader.

[@chrisbrindas1559]

terrifying theyre catching up so fast. what will they do when king blob figures out how to escape a simulation

[@igunn8632]

@@chrisbrindas1559 2020 december

[@ianc.472]

Oh no

[@BootBizarre]

LOL! 😶😶😶😶

[@enderan647]

Well, they have rocket business afterall

[@The24thFret]

Man, I wish elections were as simple as houses and mangos.

[@captaintoad5421]

mango houses

[@Stolens87]

Yeah, and although politics are much more complex than this, you only have two choices. So the system is pretty shitty...

[@gming8225]

Proud to support the apples! Fuck mangos!

[@HalIOfFamer]

@@gming8225 mangos are a superior fruit. All unterfruits are to be composted!

[@aakashsahani2991]

@@gming8225 This is decleration of War. MangoGang Assemble!

[@downstairsshelf6711]

One of the most accurate parts of this video was how much the candidates were changing their positions

[@gdcomponent4359]

TRUE

[@ArcanineEspeon]

Aw, because of this comment I expected "candidates change their position" to be one of the complicating factors discussed in runoff voting. I came out disappointed.

[@jdmeesey]

As any good public servant should, to best represent an evolving demographic/civilization.

[@fasddfadfgasdgs]

@@jdmeesey or just trick them enough that they can head back to their old position when they win the election.

[@hj2479]

You can rename this video to why Bernie will probably never win despite holding ideas that most Americans agree with.

[@anthonydesportes9968]

What you describe at 6:23 is what happened in the French presidential election in 2002, "forcing" the left-wing voters to vote for the moderate right wing candidate Chirac, who got elected with a crazy 82.21% of the votes in the second round.

[@MilkyWayGrump]

Its also literally what happened with Joe Biden, and the inverse of what happened with Canadian Liberal leader Justin Trudeau in his first election cycle (Conservatives didn't love/like Trudeau, but they hated his then-current Conservative leader opponent Stephen Harper even more after 8 years of his BS, so some of them strategically voted Trudeau so the Conservatives would be forced to change leaders)

[@CC-hx8gj]

False

[@WalterLiddy]

Why would that be a problem? If they weren't going to win, they got a moderate rather than an opposing government - this is a desirable outcome.

[@geenkaas6380]

@@WalterLiddyBecouse they are upposed to him but they have nothing to show that

[@monkeebunz8580]

​@@WalterLiddyit's only good at face vaule, add the 1000 plus variables then it's easily negative. The biggest one is the force social identity of the masses. You force people to vote this election with no opportunity, when the next election comes people and society will be impact by the last election results and have many undesirable ideas and votes without thinking. There's so many variable leaning negative

[@frocco7125]

Broke Political Compass: Socialist vs Capitalist + Anarchist vs Authoritarian Woke Political Compass: Apple vs Mango + Old houses vs Spooky houses

[@squid_cake]

Glad these blobs have their priorities straight

[@blorblin]

Mango old gang (this doesn't correlate to my beliefs on the polcomp.) Oh and also political models create political illiteracy.

[@herscher1297]

If you like apples and spooky houses you are a god demn commie

[@Eduardo-wd3dv]

@@herscher1297 😂

[@Eduardo-wd3dv]

If you prefer apples and spooky houses you are a moral degenerate and I shun you😤

[@Mt.Berry-o7]

"Just look how complacent they are." Orange Blob waves He's got my vote

[@tears_of_asariel3198]

anything orange is not going to get my vote for a while..

[@Jtking3000]

Orange blob bad

[@David.d.d.d]

Orange Blob controls the media. Green Blob speaks the truth, even while big Orange Media Co. tries to suppress him. Vote Green! Never believe big Orange Media!!

[@talhahhussain5603]

@@David.d.d.d Green Blob spreads fake news; don't trust them! Purple Blob will make Blobia great again!

[@chillyconmor]

green wants to spend your tax money on asshole stimulants dont vote for green

[@PrimerBlobs]

This video contains a mistake! At 7:44, I show a graphic of the Australian Senate, which uses the "single transferable vote" (STV) method. This has similarities to instant runoff, but it's a multi-winner system, which does a better job of making room for third parties. The Australian House is what uses instant runoff, and the House is actually more polarized (at time of writing). If you'd like to learn more about STV, CGP Grey has a nice video about it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/omm7gI2AoNStnKs Apologies to Australian friends.

[@Eliza-yd7fi]

You should pin this

[@sockscav]

I’m an Australian and even I didn’t know this lol

[@torbjorn630]

I got confused for a second but this sorted it out.

[@laterbot]

@@sockscav strongly recommend you learn about our government system

[@davidpecherskiy7414]

Don't worry, we've got much bigger problems, don't you agree uncle Rupert? No?! Everything's going fine you say. I don't have to worry about the ever increasing transfer of wealth from poor to rich, the outflow of jobs, the botched covid response, the suspicious reluctance to introduce a federal anti-corruption commission, the fires, the floods. Ok uncle Rupert, Mr former smart money man, Mr Stokes, the collection of oligarch owners of 10, the compromised federal broadcaster, I'll just drink my beer, watch ball kick (or ball throw), and continue to vote for the "party of good economic managers". Let's hope this next election is better. - Totally not a statement in support of the ALP, the party of subpar advertisements.

[@trayfr]

For some reason, the fact that they are blobs made them somewhat more human and I felt bad when they lost and had that sad expression.

[@R4M_Tommy]

This model ignores Italy: an infinite party system where everyone votes for himself, so no one ever wins.

[@ims6671]

I can relate, I live in Israel.

[@lorefox201]

that's the last of our problems, the Constitution was written as to make us ungovernable after WW2 so as to ensure that the Communist party could not take power in regular elections nor could it lose relevance: it is an artifact of the postwar period.

[@EternalShadow1667]

@@lorefox201 that’s pretty interesting

[@kevinreilley9400]

That sounds very individualistic. I like it!

[@aph391]

I feel that, I live in Azerbaijan. Not really but yeah Plurality Voting is fucked. We could at least remove the Electoral College in the USA. That would at least be an improvement.

[@screenzombie1393]

I appreciate that blue and red weren’t used in this video.

[@biarus_7382]

0:04

[@justarandomfrogonyourlawn]

Uh

[@tristangoncalves1417]

@PACOMOKA orange man bad

[@williamhuang8309]

@@tristangoncalves1417 Oh no... U anti Trump?

[@YachtyBurner]

Why?

[@TheKeksadler]

Plurality voting inevitably leads to what I like to call "Yes-no politics" where one party says "yes" to one issue and the other says "no". It reduces nuance and creates an easily divisive, black-or-white ideological landscape in viable politics.

[@Firedag]

I agree, Duverger's law is the bane of the USA's political system. It forces voters to pick a side and divide themselves from the opposite side which just causes unnecessary drama between people of differing politics. Not to mention people get sucked into agreeing to things they don't believe in just because their political party supports it. It's just a mess that could be fixed so easily

[@clemensmartin1034]

@@Firedag I don't know about easily - every action to make the system more nuanced with several parties would mean the big 2 loose power. Which of course they would have to enact themselves. Which of course they wouldn't do... So it is simple, I agree - but it is unfortunately not easy

[@BlackSabbath1989]

and if you pay them off they say both YES to the most horrible stuff.

[@williamwinstrop3918]

@stephen sampson Why does the US have a two party system? “Winner takes all electorate system” If the question, and your answer read like a middle school social studies test, you’re probably pulling your knowledge from the same educational pool. There is a definite reason your comment reads as though you just got out of class, and watched a few youtube videos on the subject. Your take is basic, its something someone else told you that you dont even know why you believe it. You look for people to agree with so you don’t have to admit you don’t know and never actually tried to know.

[@williamwinstrop3918]

@@Firedag How does having more sides keep one from picking a side, and also keep one from dividing from the others? Have you ever done division? Here ill help 1/2 of 100 is 50 so if im on one side, im against one side of 50 1/3 of 100 is 33.3 so if im on one side, im against two sides of 33.3 totaling 66.6 Your statement leads me to believe that pro abortionist and anti abortionist wouldn’t have any drama if they just had more people to vote for. Do you go outside? Do you interact with humans? How in gods name have you equated number of potential candidates to vote for to people not having drama about disagreements Go Talk To A Human

[@OskarPiano]

Outstanding channel. The prodogy of this channel and value is that it explains large group phenomenons and more over shows or even prooves phenomenons existance thanks to computer simulation which to most people is impossible to prepare and conduct. I absolutely love laying out things case by case as they really are without biases. I love the high quality, careful , adequate, slow wording. I love the tempo. The voice, pauses, intonation everything improves understanding.

[@shimmel796]

I would vote Orange, reasons: -He likes nice houses, and prefers mango -He is a nicer color than any other of them -HE SAID HI TO GREEN 7:27 and that's cute :3

[@samuellevac-levey2170]

he's a nicer color???!?!?!?!?!?!? racist...

[@epamaarainenroina220]

I'm allergic to mangos. I'm gonna need to search for a political asylum if mangos win :S

[@shimmel796]

@@samuellevac-levey2170 but in a good way

[@kered13]

Orange blob bad!

[@MD-mk3lh]

Better vote him off, seems kinda sus

[@jessicobra7]

As a member of the mango-spooky house party, I find this video incredibly biased towards those establishment apple-normal house grifters.

[@softwaretechniker]

Actually it is biased, but you sound more like a apple-fanboy making fun of these nice dark houses ;-)

[@epsilon5733]

Just like a mango lover to find bias where there is none...

[@bouncydachon]

Actually apples are far superior than the mangos and normal houses have proven to be much more efficient cost wise, next time do your research, i bet you’re a green voter.....

[@buddythemoth]

@@bouncydachon Can i ask how apples are scientifically superior to mangos aswell as how a 'normal house' would be more cost efficient?

[@kaiwilson5628]

As a mango-normalist, I disagree with your Apple-centric view but respect the cost efficiency of normal houses.

[@ringkunmori]

"Look how complacent they are" The blobs: (. .)

[@Dill_The_Warrior]

(. .)

[@Dill_The_Warrior]

(' ')

[@GGBGameplays]

I like to think that in real life each person will have a different range size. But when there's no option to choose within their original range, they might "expand" their range to find the closest candidates fiting their ideas and don't let the other candidates to have a chance.

[@TonyShark.]

That's the smart thing to do, but instead people skip voting, thinking it makes little difference which party gets elected since none completely satisfies their demands and then complain about the outcome. I have noticed that only in my country, but i bet it happens everywhere.

[@olsirmonkey]

​@@TonyShark. In Australia we have mandatory voting, meaning if you don't go vote you get fined. This ends up making around 98-99% of the population vote, bar some people that either just couldn't make during the period, or just didn't want to

[@TonyShark.]

@@olsirmonkey I've heard about the Australian election system and I think it should be a role model for other countries, because it's simple but fair and makes sure that everyone takes part like you said. However, some may find it quite difficult to vote (for example the elder) so I wonder if there's an age limit regarding the mandatory voting.

[@spindash64]

@@TonyShark. Perhaps, but if the candidates are all far enough removed from your opinions, then you need to ask yourself if it’s worth the effort of going all the way out to the voting areas, waiting in line, and dealing with all that mess… just to get absolutely nothing for your efforts. Sometimes, the politicians have so little interest in what you have to say that you need to treat the election less like something to participate in and more like a passing storm: a natural disaster you can’t hope to control

[@TonyShark.]

@@spindash64 Let's say that more and more people start believing that it's not worth it to vote, since none of the candidates satisfies their needs. Then we will witness a great absence from elections and as a result, the people who will participate, are going to be in other words a small percentage of people that is deciding for the entire country. This is what's happening in Greece right now, as the youths don't even consider educating themselves about politics and are more likely to skip elections and this leads to elderly people deciding for their future. Doesn't make sense to me.

[@filipatavares2196]

CGP Grey: animal kingdom Primer: cute little blobs Both explain voting systems so well

[@danielmcgibbon8200]

Exactly

[@teepee3279]

i love the fact that there is a society of blobs that are arguing about which house is cooler and what fruit is better

[@adrian-gk1yh]

Voting orange

[@ps92809]

Voting purple

[@ViriyaSP]

Voting Green

[@ramennoodles6473]

Voting green

[@daphnerubio2600]

Voting orange

[@someonerandom704]

One thing I noticed about approval voting is how many blobs are outside of all candidates' ranges. If they want to vote honestly then they don't get a vote at all, so they're essentially forced to be strategic.

[@derrickthewhite1]

They should probably have been included in the simulation by voting for the closest to their position.

[@Слышьты-ф4ю]

@@derrickthewhite1 or become new candidates that cover.

[@dogchaser520]

You'll see many more candidates and parties overall with ranked choice. Candidates will pop up to fill those vacuums.

[@OtherDAS]

@@dogchaser520 Candidates will pop up inside occupied areas as well.

[@dogchaser520]

@@OtherDAS Yes, which is just fine. More candidates means closer representation for larger numbers of people. Does mean more homework, though.

[@clearviewmoai]

Thomas Sowell said "There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs" which I think fits in regard to voting systems as well. Some trade-offs are better than others but they will always have a flaw.

[@demoniack81]

You forgot to mention the Italian system, where it's a weird mix of first past the post and proportional, there are 73 parties, everyone loses, a temporary coalition government is formed, and then after 5 minutes it disbands due to internal divisions and you replace it with another temporary coalition. When you run out of permutations to make your coalitions you vote again. Rinse and repeat.

[@simonestroppiana4529]

The difference between the italian system and the video is that the video is talking about presidential election where plurality is bad. In parliamentary election, as the italian ones, plurality is the best system

[@OmikronZeta]

Still sounds a lot better than what we have in the US

[@simonestroppiana4529]

@@OmikronZeta as a European, we see only what president says. I think you see also what happens in the Senate and in the Chamber of Representatives. We compare our system (with a lot of parties), with your system (2 parties), but the USA and a European nation are different

[@poiuyt975]

The Italian political system is too a large topic for a short video. It might be even too large for a thick book. It's basically organized and (barely) functioning chaos. ;-)

[@enriconiccoli3486]

We can reasume it with "MAMMA MIA"

[@wombat4191]

Imagine political parties calling each other radical mangoists and wackyspookycurvy symphatizers.

[@bruhsauce644]

id get real heated in politics

[@addisonalbert9078]

I am both.

[@froogletanimations1086]

*snort* I do that when I laugh

[@leap541]

Sounds like something a modern sympathizer would say.

[@billjamal4764]

@@bruhsauce644 sounds like something a dirty wackyspookscurvy supporter would say

[@iamkabukii]

"Two-party system." Peru: **Laughs in 24 parties**

[@realbignoob1886]

Lmao

[@sebastiancordoba489]

Have you seen India?

[@MasterofBeats]

@@sebastiancordoba489 seen*

[@samarendra109]

In India probably we have at least 6 parties in each state. Still there are independent candidates. And we have nearly 30 states. So do the math.

[@rasputozen]

@@MasterofBeats tbf the irregular past participle "seen" of the verb "saw" is essentially a pleonasm that adds no real meaning to a statement.

[@zix2421]

Well, center squeeze isn't as bad as the spoiler effect, because green is still chosen by more than half of voters, which was not the case with the spoiler effect

[@somebody5571]

"They have to decide ahead of time how much to betray each other" Yeah, a perfect summary of modern politics.

[@brianbarber5401]

Certainly seems to be the decision the politicians make.

[@benjiusofficial]

*of typical himan interaction ftfy

[@jout738]

Why betray eachother, when why just not vot the one your closer to, when you prefer that person better, while your inside multiple rings. Thoese people who are not inside any ring at all are propably the sleeping voters who say voting system sucks and so their not into voting anybody, when say there is no good candidate to vote for.

[@2hotflavored666]

@@LeoMastroTV Lmfao you wish. Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Brazilian politics*

[@erseshe]

@@LeoMastroTV There are two types of modern politics. The shit kind, and the shitter kind.

[@aerosma5021]

As a spooky house mango extremist, seeing green lose all the time makes me sad.

[@therion8469]

No nice house apples is clearly the best option dunderhead green is a dumb

[@famweefood7073]

Ehh im an applo-moderate. Im a pink bro

[@kouron]

Try being a regular house and mango fan. You'll get rekt by these parties.

[@thedeliveryboy1123]

Spooky houses are structurally unsound! That's the spooky part! 47% of blobs reported that their spooky houses collapsed! Make way for modern houses!

[@David.d.d.d]

@@thedeliveryboy1123 Another Modern house extremist. Let me guess - these are the lies that Big Real Estate told you? Wake up! Green Blob is on the right path. We must embrace the Spooky houses, not let the likes of Orange or Purple take control over our home choice! Green2020!!!

[@andrzejpakistan3200]

Plurality be like: -How do i make my favourite candidate win? -That's the neat part, you don't

[@spongmongler6760]

it's 1 vote for 1 person wdym..

[@TY-df7fg]

@@spongmongler6760 comment above assumes that your favorite candidate isn’t one of the 2 most popular ones. If you vote for them, they don’t win and the popular candidate that you like more has a lower chance of winning. Effectively making your vote wasted. If you vote for the popular candidate that you agree with more, your favorite candidate doesn’t get a vote, and support for them is low, which is will lower their chance of winning in the next election since last election they didn’t do well, so people won’t vote for them next election. Either way, you can’t vote how you want without feeling somewhat bad. If your favorite candidate happens to already be one of the popular ones, then his comment doesn’t apply.

[@isleohagger5455]

I don't get why people won't vote multiple candidates, if some are almost as good. Give your favorite an A, and the others a B or C. In fact it's equally reasonable that someone would give their two favorites a B instead of an A.

[@angusmatthews1806]

@@TY-df7fg could you just not find an unattractive candidate as your favourite then. just thought.

[@bradymiclea1705]

@@steijnvanb4634 haha

[@brandonharper7171]

This needs to be discussed more on a National scale

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

I think things are starting to change a bit. During this year's general election we got ranked choice voting. It was one of two options, the other being this weird thing where you vote for as many of the candidates as you like and winner takes all. I do think that with the increasing concentration of the population in urban areas that we will hit a critical mass where enough of the population is already using one of these improved voting systems that entire states will reform their voting methods. Considering that people on both sides of the spectrum feel disenfranchised by the current system, it's mostly corporations that are opposed to fixing it.

[@May-gr8bp]

By national, I'm pretty sure you mean the usa. While I am not a fan of the American two-party system, other democracies often have the same problem. Britain uses first-past the post and I don't think it is an amazingly good system. these voting systems should be discussed more on an International scale, not just in your country.

[@cameronfleming173]

Definitely! So, how are we going to vote for the voting system?

[@TiaanKruger]

@@May-gr8bp Yeah, the Uk definitely has FPTP, and there is a growing movement inside the country to switch to a more proportional system. Unfortunately, I don't think the 2 main parties will go for this, so kinda of stuck. Guess we will see how the next election goes, and see if Labour actually listens to the people (assuming they win)

[@LeonardoRinaldiYautja]

You cannot, if you try to discuss about the voting system in Brazil, you are sent to jail.

[@MartinoMaroso]

I feel like this only scraps the surface of voting issues, so i'd really appreciate more videos on this topic

[@PrimerBlobs]

It's true. My hope is that this small intro makes more people excited to look further into it.

[@MartinoMaroso]

​@@PrimerBlobs E.G. In italy we have a system wich is at least partially proportional, so when an election happens there is not an automatic winner but parties create a coalition and then form the government, so everything is hugely different from your exemples. Anyway thanx for your answer, your channel is great!

[@Martykun36]

@@MartinoMaroso You mean the parties congregate in two large factions? like most of the world does?

[@norastar1444]

@@Martykun36 We have all sinned & fallen short to the glory of God. We have all broken God’s commandments, therefore we deserve hell , we deserve eternal punishment in hell bc of our sins. But bc God is love & merciful He offered a way for sinners to be saved from the eternal punishment we deserve. He died on the cross for the punishment that we deserve so that we can be free from hell. & what we have to do is repent of our sins & turn away from all sin & put faith & trust in the only one who can save us from hell which is Jesus. Will you accept Him in your heart? He’s our Lord & Savior! He changed my life! I’m so much better now I find peace with Him. Without Him Idk where I would be. Salvation is a gift from God we are saved by WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE ALONE FAITH ALONE!❤️❤️❤️❤️ Also be careful what you feed your spirit, feed it the word of God! :)))

[@MartinoMaroso]

@@Martykun36 we will probably get there but at the moment there are three major parties and the coalition between 2 of them is formed after the election happens

[@toastedfish996]

I would definitely be more interested in politics if it involves voting on whether we should live in spooky homes or modern ones

[@laterbot]

But what would you vote for? I'm personally a centerist who leans towards spooky slightly

[@ultratheman]

@@laterbot fucking moderate...................... I NEEED MODERN HOMES AND THE APPLE INDUSTRY HAS BEEN SIDELINED LONG ENOUGH!! YOU PEOPLE ARE THE ONES RUINING OUR NATION OF BLOBS..........

[@ramennoodles6473]

Go spooky houses!

[@kazzz2765]

i’m a spooky extremist. HAIL SPOOKY HOUSES

[@tenplusten1116]

am voting purple - spooky houses will scare the young blob citizens away

[@GermaphobeMusic]

Presidential election in two days: i sleep Primer makes video about first-past-the-post: _real shit_

[@b1bbscraz3y]

now let me berate you with reasons why each X candidate is best

[@M-Cyn4269]

please vote if you haven't (and are capable)

[@plutus0]

Vote for X candidate because x,y,z

[@crystalzhu6066]

for real go vote if you can because there's a question about ranked choice voting on some of the state ballots

[@lordofmushrooms8804]

Friend and I watched this together cause he seemed really interested in it and wanted to share; surprisingly, it was extremely entertaining and informative. 10/10, would recommend

[@thesecretkey9845]

You forgot to mention the best system: Disenfranchising everybody except me

[@Agent-Blaze]

Based

[@mangoshi1251]

Kim jong un: is for me?

[@smartaleckduck4135]

These blobs are evolving too quickly!

[@catface_q2123]

Yes

[@catface_q2123]

We’re going to the top

[@Eazoon]

XD

[@desk9695]

KILL THEM WHILE WE ARE STILL AHEAD

[@realprotonn]

100th like

[@Mail-chan]

I think this is why we should pick a leader the old fashion way, making them fight their opponent in hand-to-hand combat while holding off a family of bears. Good times, good times...

[@michaellyndon6982]

I'm from Texas, I remember when we decided our Governor by seeing who was able to beat down a random firing gun turret mounted longhorn with their bare fists and drag its body up an oil rig the fastest, now that was a REAL runoff election!!!!!!!!!!

[@peterle1957]

wouldn't mind having The Rock as president

[@Adam-dd9lo]

Thanks for this. Ranked Choice vs Approval is on the Seattle general ballot, and this is really helpful to visualize voting strategies.

[@eyescreamcake]

I hope Approval wins, but I'm not optimistic. RCV has way more marketing behind it.

[@milkshakecalico3877]

@@eyescreamcake Idea, use both approval AND instant runoff With approval, there was a chance for them to aggressively throw green into the limelight, but if we had instant runoff, the voting parties would not have cared about making orange or purple loose in that moment, and therefore would not aggressively bring the votes down, causing green to be taken out of the election and then orange and purple to truly go up against each other. This also fixes the spoiler effect from being in range of all three as not voting for your least favorite this time would have no effect on orange and purple, it would just help remove green and then orange and purple would be fair again.

[@radical_eyez]

I wish STAR voting got more attention too

[@DMSBrian24]

ranked is better than approval

[@sinterso2.036]

It is a good day when a vid from Primer shows up.

[@killr292]

True

[@swiftman57]

Month* lmao

[@CTAK_CO6AK]

You forget to mention a "Put in" voting: No matter who you vote, Putin always wins.

[@U.Inferno]

Putin is stepping down

[@x1Wolf101x]

@@U.Inferno But he'll still get elected with 70% of the vote come the next elections

[@MaeaCh]

Dont forget about his 207% approval rate

[@limynal]

@@U.Inferno no he isnt they said

[@ultimatum97]

@@U.Inferno He's got Parkinson's disease

[@thatguyindenver]

Try using approval Voting yourself… The next time you and your friends are trying to decide on a movie, a place to eat, or a time to meet, list all the options and have each individual in your group mark all the options they approve. The option marked on the most ballots is what you do, because you want to stay together as a group not to have winners or losers…

[@flamingpi2245]

Cgp grey did a video on that

[@psychoseagull3104]

...this sounds like a cheesy school assignment.

[@eyescreamcake]

Just do 3-position score voting with your thumbs: Thumb up = +1, thumb down = -1, thumb sideways = 0. Count up the points for each option and highest number wins. "Tacos has 3 in favor and 1 against = 2, pizza has 3 in favor and 0 against = 3, pizza wins"

[@draconariousthegamer1444]

@@eyescreamcake This! Why are people not talking about this more. We need score voting. It's obvious dang it... Though please edit and correct your message. You wrote 3-1=1 when you likely meant 3-1=2

[@karimm.elsayad9539]

AKA CGP Grey's "Quick and Easy Voting for Normal People "

[@danielloeb2044]

I hope the multi-winner voting systems video gets made!

[@webeewaboo]

"as long as everyone votes" the blobs out of the range of any candidate: Am I a joke to you? Edit: I knew they would likely vote for the nearest candidate, I just ditched that fact for the sake of the joke.

[@tailez606]

I'm not fun at parties: They're not voting cause if you draw a circle around them, no candidate falls within that circle. In less abstract terms, it means they're not satisfied with the solutions proposed by any of the candidates, so they choose not to vote (i.e. the blobs in the top right corner want mangoes AND nice houses, but the candidates are offering either apples and nice houses OR mangoes and squiggly houses and the blobs don't like either of those options). In real life this would be less likely since if there's no proposed solutions favorable to you, you might "compromise" and expand your circle in order to find the "least worst" option, at the very least.

[@wrpen99]

@@tailez606 the "least worst" option, huh? Sounds familiar and highly relevant.

[@loganstrong5426]

@@tailez606 I feel like a more real-world analog might've been to say anyone that's not in any circle will give a single vote to the candidate nearest them. It's POSSIBLE that people may legitimately go in for a "none of these candidates" or just not vote, but I think the higher the office is, the less likely people are to do that.

[@Zolhungaj]

@@wrpen99 Difference is that this situation requires that no candidate are within your range, which should be rather rare seeing as the system should allow any number of parties to be started. And if you find yourself in the least worst position you can just start your own party to cater to your fringe need, forgoing the whole least worst option.

[@adjmoo]

Imagine not voting for president irl because you aren't in a 5 feet range of them.

[@Tobi-ci3ns]

Instant runoff voting has worked pretty well in Australia. What didn't work so well was letting one man buy up all of the newspaper publishers, but that's another story.

[@vegahimsa3057]

IRV (Preferential in Oz) still maintains two party stranglehood. Its results are no different from one choice plurality, except IRV allows a symbolic gesture once in a while. Consider: 2 voters rank: Favorite > Lesser 1 voter ranks: Lesser > Evil 2 voters rank: Evil > Favorite The above will elect Evil. Your better strategy is to betray your Favorite for the "Lesser evil": 1: Favorite > Lesser 2: Lesser > Evil 2: Evil > Favorite In four candidate RCV (IRV) races, support can hurt and lack of support can help. Consider the following election; after Boring then Evil lose, your Favorite would win: 6: Favorite > Lesser 5: Evil > Favorite 4: Lesser > Evil 2: Boring > Lesser However, fearing a close race, suppose you convince most Boring supporters to rank Favorite highest. But insanely enough, instead of Favorite winning, this causes Evil to win: 6: Favorite > Lesser 5: Evil > Favorite 4: Lesser > Evil 2: Favorite > whatever There are numerous convoluted scenarios and unexpected results under RCV and it only gets worse and crazier with more candidates. Unless you are certain that your Favorite will be dead last early or has a good chance of winning early, you must betray your Favorite for the most popular Lesser Evil... the same situation with the old "one choice plurality" (FPTP), but at least plurality makes sense. "Approval Voting" is simply better.

[@m2heavyindustries378]

@@vegahimsa3057 Man nobody read your essay, I just skimmed over it and left

[@vegahimsa3057]

@@m2heavyindustries378 which is why people opt for any other bad system cuz they have no patience to learn whether it's just as bad. RCV doesn't accomplish what is claimed.

[@vegahimsa3057]

Australia still has two evil parties, yet Australians think, "it works pretty good". It's the same shit. Australians just get to waste their vote on a dinky little party before transferring their vote to either Labor or Lib/Nat in every election for over a hundred years.

[@theuglykwan]

@@m2heavyindustries378 That's why we can't have nice things.

[@thecyuber558]

I feel so bad for the purple blob in the plurality simulator. He's just so heartbroken that he'll never have a chance to be recognized.

[@mpetkovic26]

Bernie Sanders is purple blob

[@skan5728]

Isn't that honestly pink

[@alexmilchev5395]

@@mpetkovic26 nah. Bernie is a dem. The purple one is Jo. Fitting as on the actual political compass she is in the purple quadrant.

[@PrivateMcPrivate]

@@alexmilchev5395 Yeah.She not even shown on CNN's vote counts.

[@orionbenziger1483]

Its the libertarians

[@dickybear]

as a Chinese i have to say u forgot our system where you don't get to vote.

[@enraikow6109]

no no, they just look into your everyday life and your deepest thoughts to know what you really wanna vote for (it's the ccp btw).

[@danielpotapczuk2155]

It is not mentioned because the video is from a voter's perspective, not a government's perspective, so if the voter cannot do anything everybody knows the outcome anyway, no matter if you agree or not.

[@michaelreardon303]

That’s Funny & Sad at the same time.

[@BloxdFun-jf2yo]

@@michaelreardon303yea ik right

[@BloxdFun-jf2yo]

How do you watch KZbin in china?

[@ZachStarAttack]

When the world needed him most. He returned!!!!

[@joshreddy4278]

I was waiting for the guy

[@Lee-jt4hz]

Completely forgot about this guy. It took me by surprise, and that's so cool!

[@adjmoo]

when the returned needed him most he world. wait a minute...

[@IndieIndite]

@@adjmoo t r u e

[@penguinkirb3759]

I forgot i even subscribed to him

[@kozlowskinator6056]

Me at 2am: about to go to sleep Primer: would you like to learn about blob politics?!?!

[@maddiedraws146]

i mean you clicked so you’ve got your priorities straight LOL

[@mcmonkey26]

And the answer is obviously yes

[@jeansamuelnyembo616]

And the answer was yes.Good Job.

[@sealbunnygem]

Yes, I'd love to learn about blob politics instead of sleeping

[@qqvisam]

can we all just take a second to apreciate the fact that even the checkmarks have proper shadows

[@robinlinh]

oh thanks, I was starring at their shadow on the ground and was like "wtf is that weird pattern"

[@eadbert1935]

i honestly disliked that :(

[@Fantastic_Mr_Fox]

Not hard at all, in fact it would be more effort to *not* do that.

[@myosotis4507]

That's crazy that when you tick the option to render shadows in your rendering software, it actually renders shadows! Insane!

[@necromax13]

Tfw basic blender video making

[@Zephyr-lg5ne]

I wish modern politicians cared more about mangoes and spooky houses

[@kieranh5183]

I quite like how these systems are shown with visualizations! CGP Grey has some old videos that also cover different types of voting systems, so it's nice to see Primer create this video with some better looking graphics, to say in the least.

[@AlessandroRodriguez]

The Silver-back Gorilla Alliance *dislikes* that...

[@sevret313]

Now I'm just waiting for Primer to visualize the race around Staten Island.

[@AlessandroRodriguez]

@@sevret313 that will have some very sad blobs indeed....

[@casparvoncampenhausen5249]

He also has some new videos I believe

[@cnilssonak555]

Primer: First things first, we need to create the strangest political compass ever

[@Legenderrydanny]

Video would get too much controversy and be flooded with self proclaimed experts if real views were used.

[@zunlise2341]

You mean he shouldn't have real issues of apple dominance and spooky curvy house underrepresentation?

[@cnilssonak555]

@@zunlise2341 I think that the superior table tops are more of an issue. (wink)

[@DunningofKruger]

You sound like a mango voter

[@umazajacker8182]

You’re obviously a grape lover. How many times do we have to tell you that grapes sounds good in theory but it will never work nor sustainable, that’s why it’s never considered in the first place

[@MisterJasro]

I'm from the Netherlands so you can imagine I'm really looking forward to the video on multiple winners. It adds a complete new level of depth to the game as political parties will have to shuffle their policies to form a majority coalition to form government. This formation isn't always an easy process as our southern neighbours in Belgium might attest to. :p

[@flipthebird1262]

Yes, parliaments full of parties who have to form ad-hoc coalitions to enact legislation are a shambles. It is not possible for voters to have any idea, before they vote, what they are going to get after the votes are counted. There is no possibility of any coherent or integrated long-term program for government being presented by ANYBODY. The benefit of a two-party system, or something resembling that, is that voters can be presented with a genuine set of alternative plans for government, and they have a reasonable expectation that the winning side should have the opportunity of implement it's offering -- as advertised before the election.

[@elleanorelumiere1713]

@@flipthebird1262 we have 9 parties now in our parliament in my country. It is not impossible. Few parties are in coalition and others in opposition. I prefer it against two parties system a lot

[@flipthebird1262]

@@elleanorelumiere1713 If you have two relatively stable coalitions in opposition, then that is effectively a two-party system, or "something resembling that", as I said. There are always factions within parties. But if the redeeming feature of your 9 party system, is that it resembles a two-party system, then it doesn't support the argument that a multi-party system is better. If, on the other hand, there is a scramble after every election to form a governing coalition, then it is not possible, for the voting public to know before the election what they are going to get after the election because they do not know the composition of their future government, or what deals will be done in forming the coalition, regardless of how many votes individual parties might get, or what their stated policies might have been before the election. This is not informed democracy.

[@elleanorelumiere1713]

@@flipthebird1262 We do not have stable coalitions. They are formed after the election. However, parties announce possible coalitions beforehand. Also, inform about the "price" for a coalition with each party. So each party just support the cabinet in exchange for their top priority matters. Sometimes for their priority ministry seat etc. One distinct point in the multiparty system is about people what you are voting for. In the two-party system, your prefer guy can be low on the candidate, and he will be never elected in my country. However, in the multiparty, he has better chances. And the final important point. In the multiparty system, you can see what people really want and what is a distribution of that. If you have only, for example, left-liberal party and right-conservative party. You do not know how many people are left-conservative, in the middle etc. Btw I'm from Czech republic, you can check it how it looks in my country on the wiki.

[@duckyduck1944]

As someone from Suriname. Can you ask you government to stop interfering in our politics and to stop supporting santhoki since he is literally terrorizing us

[@danielskrivan6921]

Big props to you for making this political discussion apolitical.

[@eyescreamcake]

Sounds like something a filthy Spookyhouser would say!

[@hivegaming661]

It is political. He is clearly presenting a viewpoint supporting a policy change (Plurality voting is bad) which is by definition political. That isn't to say that it is a bad thing, it's just incorrect to say it isn't political.

[@nikisubi]

Neutrality is not the lack of politics.

[@ProfAzimov]

Its just math

[@hivegaming661]

@@ProfAzimov Math regarding political subjects is political. If I was to present graphs on government spending or on political topics like immigration or some other thing which is subject of political discussion, I would be being "political". Being political is not a bad thing, it is nescisary for people to discuss such topics. I would prefer if more of politics was based on mathematics.

[@nathanadler4024]

Primer in 2100: Simulating different solutions to the blob apocalypse.

[@draconariousthegamer1444]

A few years ago we would have called the virus video exactly that :x

[@schnoz2372]

The blobpocalypse if you will

[@MaryJane-ky4oq]

In 2021, you want to say?

[@nathanishungryanimations7206]

Original Title: “Democracy” Hi, Primer!!!

[@Switz14]

bruh, i just copied this comment without noticing

[@nathanishungryanimations7206]

@@Switz14 U wot

[@ethanweller3013]

The title changed as I was watching the video. It scared me :P

[@GambinoTheGoat]

@@nathanishungryanimations7206 he did... click his icon

[@nathanishungryanimations7206]

@@ethanweller3013 Oh my…

[@faycalborsali5591]

There is an interesting voting system, the "Condorset method" and it's kind of an improvement of the run-off system.

[@faycalborsali5591]

@Valchap equality is more likely yes, but it can happen in all systems (like plurality vote we could get a sharp 50/50 even if that's unlikely) ... On the other hand we could use plurality vote as a tie-breaker !

[@Deathlupus]

Exactly what I was thinking.

[@lukeneale9967]

Yeah, I’ve always supported that system. There are flaws, but it’s never strategic to vote any way other than honestly.

[@Currywurst4444]

@@lukeneale9967 The wikipedia article states that there is still strategic voting with the condorcet method.

[@UCwlPfzTAtK_-Ig4IufJYEEQ]

Condorcet is typically used as more of a voting system metric. There are plenty of voting methods that choose the Condorcet winner, and using pure head-to-heads can get cumbersome if you have more than a few candidates

[@TheAurgelmir]

Norway has Approval voting baked deep into it's system. I say deep into the system, because it's not something I think people actually cares much about. We have a Parliamentary proportional system which works as follows: - Within a voting region the electorate picks one party they want to vote into parliament. -On the ballot for that party is a list of candidates who are pre-ranked by the party. -You can change the order, or even strike candidates from that ballot. (Approval system) - Each voting region has a number of seats in Parliament based on both geographical size and population of the district. - Seats are filled using a modified version of Sainte-Laguë method. This is where ranking comes in, the candidate in a party who got the most personal votes get's the first seat allocated to his or her party, and so on. -There's a further 19 seats in parliament which are there to even out any disparieties between a party's overall national votes, and how many seats they got total. This means people's votes in a region where the party is small might not be wasted, because they might get additional seats. The "issue" with this system is that a party can only get these additional seats if their overall total nation wide was more than X% (As of writing it's 4%). This ensures you don't get a lot of fractional small parties in Parliament, but it also means parties who are big in only one region can get seats without many votes at all nation wide, but a party with a similar total spread out across the country are out of luck. This effect is further unfair because once a party who has a national presence get's into parliament with one or two seats, they get recognized more, and thus a chance to grow. Where as smaller parties never get's this chance.

[@SuperM789]

this seems more complicated than the electoral college

[@frocco7125]

This reminds me of the article "To Build A Better Ballot" by Nicky Case. She talked about just this a few years back. EDIT: I just found the article in the sources lmao.

[@Magic_Ice]

When Primer Uploads “Master Primer, you have awakened once more”

[@kindlin]

0:40 It's called _first past the post,_ because if you knew the total number of votes that were cast, like you knew the total count but not yet which way each vote went, you would know the exact number of votes you need to beat out the other guy, and the count can basically stop once that number is reached.

[@d_all_in]

It tells you how many mail in ballots you need to come up with on election night

[@kindlin]

@@d_all_in If by "come up with" you mean "count and identify legally cast votes until an advantage towards one candidate is identified", them yeah, exactly! Good job.

[@OtherDAS]

@@kindlin No, he means fraudulently produce because so many of them are NOT legally cast. Get a clue.

[@kindlin]

@@OtherDAS Ah, the irony.

[@d_all_in]

@kindlin do you realize there is no way to authenticate a mailed in ballot? I could mail in my wife's ballot, and you wouldn't know any better. The system is broken.

[@zacharydavis4398]

0:00 - 12:24 - 12:27… Thanks for spending the time to create and share this content awareness ❤️🤙🏾

[@septillion.]

"Two-party system" North Korea: **Laughs in one candidate**

[@theatheistpaladin]

You mean **Laughs in despotic nepotistic necrocracy**

[@riley8385]

It's like those 30 years in which the US replaced with dictatorships any government in Latin America that didn't align with their economic objectives. "You think having one party is bad? Try having none".

[@fienbaeyens5962]

Belgium laughs in 7 major parties and 7 governments made up from a mix of the 7 parties

[@louisduong2090]

Do you mean *Laughs in "Democratic Republic" of North Korea*

[@Quetzietse]

Honestly, one-party states aren't all that different from two party states. One party states, like China, tend to have an 'opposition' within the party itself, effectively a second option, so the only real difference is that in two party states the opposition party is openly not the same party and have *a little* more freedom to set their own policy openly. In practice though, issues get boiled down to option A or B either way, on the level of the voter.

[@krimz8139]

“Let’s add a purple candidate” Pink: “calls self purple* Everyone: “understandable”

[@lilpink6192]

magenta

[@izuix5629]

violet

[@gearandalthefirst7027]

just like real politics!

[@miumau7885]

Let me explain: Violet is cold and very dark; more blue. Magenta is the colour showed on the screen, well actually that is light magenta, the normal one is little bit darker. Purple is magenta, but the leading color is red, and it's the color that people use when they draw space or the Milky Way. Light red is very light red, that people usually call pink... ...even though pink is way darker. I would say it's also quite 'neon'. I think thease are the colours that you meant, but there are far more in my language, so I don't know if they mean the same in english? I personally think that the colour on screen is something bewteen cold rosa, cold light magenta and warm violet.

[@SpaceMissile]

"orange" yellow, too. edit: I prefer hearing the word "purple" over "pink," because "pink" is a tinny word.

[@theaflemsater5942]

I live in Sweden, and I’m not sure how to categorize our voting into these categories. You vote for the party you like the best, but even though your favorite party may not win, as long as it had more than 4% of the total votes it gets some seats in the gouvernement. And based on what percentage of the votes each party gets, that’s how many seats it will get. So even though your favorite party doesn’t win, it’s good to vote on them because the more votes they get in total, the more seats they get, and the more influence they have when the gouvernement makes decisions. I think that’s a good system, because it makes me feel like my vote actually matters.

[@rathemis2927]

Is it called proportional representation?

[@clakoclakson]

same in Spain

[@PolskiAnglik]

Pretty much the same in Poland

[@facuigua12]

It is like that in many countries. The problem is that the winner gets to be president, so even though you might like to vote for your party, you may end up voting one of the favourite runners so that the one you hate doesnt win. Which ends up making the results look only like most people only like 2 candidates.

[@larcondos909]

Facu has it accurate, this would be for a vote that is one winner. Therefore this only applies to situations where 1 person can be the winner.

[@danjunk3029]

there is a new voting system called STAR, which stands for score then automatic runoff, it combines approval and RCV. It actually works pretty well.

[@DepZHEDU]

You dont talk about the main goal of a multy party system : Each candidate must focus on few topics and propose something special. We talk about them because during the election day, we will see theirs names on the paper for voting. So, every election, we have a talk about them and about their specific program. In low democratic system with just one or two party, the talk are often very low quality. The candidate try to be nice with half of population, and because you cannot propose something specific and please half, you must propose something with no clear goal. Democracy is not only about voting, it is also about talk and propose something for improve or fix the system.

[@rukakoaye5368]

true

[@a11aaa11a]

Yeah similarly, ranked choice voting incentivizes candidates to be passionate and not sit in the middle, which I think leads to more thorough discussion instead of "let's just stagnate", though still with some checks from the opposing views.

[@Jadae]

@@a11aaa11a Nah. What eventually happens is that secondary parties are simply variations of the primary parties, who in turn organize with the secondary parties to rig toward their favor. Unlike these simulations, people organize with deception -- not simply strategy.

[@aliennug]

1:44 “everything on a 1D spectrum” *makes it 3D to flex*

[@Rakned]

I feel like your assessment is missing one key potential metric: people voting because they wish to vote *against* a specific candidate, rather than because they want one candidate in particular to meet success. This is done by voting for literally every candidate *except* those you find offensive. In practice, voting strategies like this one might help to counterbalance the kinds of strategic voting covered in the video, but it's definitely too hard to say for sure without practical evidence.

[@Rakned]

​@@xsalience4487 Not really, since it means voters technically outside a candidate's "approval radius" (like the people in the plot's upper-left corner) would have a reason to vote for them. Basically, even though they wouldn't be inclined to support either of the closer two candidates in a vacuum, the difference in stance between their two less-favored candidates and their least-favored purple candidate is large enough that they may be motivated to vote, simply out of fear of the worst potential outcome. Basically, when two candidates express different views, it makes distant voters along the line the candidates define more likely to artificially decrease their criteria for support, in order to favor a result closer to their actual beliefs. Ultimately, it's up to each voter to decide if they're willing to accept the risk of failing to support their second choice. There's actually a fairly simple way to model the decision-making process I described, as it applies to any given voter: First, the voter makes a list of every candidate, giving them a "score" equal to the distance between the candidate's policy location and their own, with lower scores being better and higher scores being worse. Then, the voter will use this data to make another list, containing information on the ratios between their distance from each candidate, ordered from highest difference to lowest difference. Finally, the voter proceeds down the list, on each pair deciding to vote for the "closer" candidate and not to vote for the "farther" one, as long as they haven't already decided that they will vote differently because of an earlier point of comparison. Voter apathy can also be modeled, by simply setting a ratio below which the voter won't genuinely care about the result, and discarding all elements of the second list where the ratio is below that line. Sorry if that explanation is hard to follow with a verbal description alone... Edit: you can also model voters specifically to identify tactical voting against second-choices in favor of first ones by also setting a floor value at the point where they consider it's still enough of a difference in opinion to consider voting against a candidate they had previously decided to vote in favor of; as long as that point isn't substantially near the point of complete apathy for the average voter, the only people who would vote tactically in this manner would likely be located in a roughly teardrop-shaped area, with its more pointed, narrow tip near their first choice, and the teardrop's wider base directed away from the second-choice one. Compared to the number of people who are simply choosing to vote for or against both politicians as a single unit, I expect you would regularly find the number of voters projected to vote tactically in this specific scenario to be quite small!

[@Rakned]

@@xsalience4487 I guess my opinion is that voting for everyone except the ones you disagree with the most isn't bad at all, just that it's effective counterplay against voters who vote "strategically" based on the stratagems provided in the video. In most examples of strategic voting, especially with First-Past-The-Post, the only way to counter a strategic voter is through strategic voting for their opposition. However, with approval voting, if someone wishes to actively work against a candidate's victory (for instance, if that candidate's strategy involves building a base of exclusive, strategic loyalty, whose platform seems harmful to the voter's future, and who seems to have a reasonable chance of winning) they can do so through means that are not just "vote strategically, but for their single opponent lol" Basically, I think that the number of people who vote for their strategic first choice and fail to support any lesser favorites will ultimately be balanced out by the number of people who vote against their least favorites by voting for everyone else, minimizing the impact of strategic voting on election results as a whole. It lets people prescribe their own weights on how close a candidate's views must be to their own to receive a vote, and lets everyone feel that their vote holds weight - even if it's just a vote for or against one specific candidacy. I think we might actually be in agreement on that... (To be fair, my first reply would likely be better suited trying to be a math thesis paper than a youtube comment... Sorry it was confusing! I hope this attempt is a bit easier to parse.) PS: re: personal origins, I'm from the States, and I can definitely see the benefits from a proportional-representation system like Denmark's. Unfortunately, it does have weaknesses, most prominently that it only works when you're voting for members of a collection of representatives, rather than for just one specific individual. It's definitely something that I hope might someday make its way into our House elections (or, much less likely, our Senate ones), but it's probably not something we can use for single-candidate offices like the President.

[@awesomekidkyle]

In this case you'd approve of everyone who isn't the said repulsive candidate.

[@jesarablack1661]

I want Ranked voting but able to give Null beyond a certain line of my choice... like say 5 candidates and I can rank candidates 1-3 but candidates 4 and 5 are so disgusting to me I cannot justify voting for either of them under any circumstances.

[@markb2526]

@@Rakned To that end is why the Electoral College even exists "The President" is meant to be Isolated from the Legislature - as apposed to the way a Parliament chooses a "Prime Minister" for "the chief executive" the original intention was to create a body for choosing the chief executive made of Representatives from every State. The Electors would then review the candidates qualifications and y"how they stand on policies and issues then choose a President and Vice President. The States and tier citizens were not Vigilant in that regard and managed to let the "Democratic Republican Party" provide a template for the current "All or None "rubber stamp" system" we have presently - as well as the more recent "National Popular Vote compact" which is more disastrous

[@fgcp2964]

The example you used for Australia was the Senate, which doesn't have single member electorates so that adds a whole other dimension to it. Each state gets an equal number of senators (with smaller numbers for Territories) so - while they do have preferential voting - they are also elected with a plurality based on preferences, rather than a majority. A better illustration of your point would be the House of Reps.

[@mrewan6221]

For the Senate, it might look like a purality, but it's not. It's based on winning a "quota". The single-member division of the House of Reps also has a quota, although it's not called that. The quota is 100% / (number_to_be_elected + 1). For a normal Senate election, the quota for a state is 100%/(6+1), or a little over 14% of the vote (which looks like a plurality). In full-Senate elections, each state has 100%/(12+1) , or about 7.7% of the vote. In the House of Reps, its 100%/(1+1), or 50%, or a majority. All of these quotas mean it's almost possible to elect more than one extra candiate, but not quite. This allows for voting papers to be useful early, but to the exhaust if not enough boxes are numbered. The other reason that neither of these houses is "plurality" is that a candidate can not be elected without a quota, even if they have more votes that any other candidate. (The exception is when there are only enough remaining candidates for the unfilled seats, in which case the candidates are "declared" elected.) If there is only one senate seat remaining unfilled, and three candates with 11%, 7%, and 5% remain, plurality says the 11% candidate would get the seat. But in Australia, the 5% candidate would be eliminated, and those voted redistributed. It's possible all 5% could go to the 7% candiate (which is quite likely if they're both the same party), making the new counts 11% and 12%. Neither yet has a quota, so the lowest candidate would be eliminated., the one with 11%. This leaves only one candidate remaining to fill the last vacant seat, and the 12% candidate is declarted to be elected. So, this last seat looks like a plurality vote, but that's not how the seat is allocated. Note: the actual quota is calculated slightly differently, but is in effect 100%/(N+1), drop fractions, and add 1. This applies to Senate quotas, not the House of Reps, where it really is just a plain 50% majority. The quota for the territories with Senators is always 100%/(2+1), drop fractions, add 1. This is because both territory Senator seats are always vacated at every Senate election. Here are the results for the 2016 Senate election for Queensland. The top twelve first preference candidates (i,e, the best twelve plurality scoreres) were: LNP, ALP, One Nation, Green, Liberal Democrats, Nick Xenophon Team, Family First, Katter's Australian Party, Glenn Lazarus Team, Animal Justice, Shooters-Fishers-Farmers, Liberty Alliance. The elected twelve senators were from these parties: LNP, ALP, One Nation, LNP, ALP, LNP, ALP, LNP, Green, LNP, ALP, One Nation (LNP 5, ALP 4, ON 2, Green 1). In the first preferences, LNP won 4.5 quotas; ALP 3.4; One Nation 1.2; Green 0.89. Next were Liberal Democrat 0.37; Xenaphon 0.26; Family First 0.25, then every other party with less than a ¼-quota. Only three candidates won a quota on their own (one each from LNP, ALP, One Nation). The other nine relied on preferences. The last-place Senate-seat winner gained only 77 first preference votes, and came 97th out of 122 in the plurality ranking. (This senator was later replaced by someone who gained only 19 first-preference votes, and who came 121/122 in the plurality ranking.

[@funbucket09]

@@mrewan6221 Honestly, that makes it all seem worse to me. In 'First past the post' it looks like a very diverse set of candidates get seats. All of a sudden you add preference voting and the two major parties win most of the seats. The other problem; people don't fill out/understand the voting paper properly. It is crazy huge and you have the 'Above line' and 'Below line' options. Aussies are lazy, they will just vote above the line (I am not saying this is EVERYONE but lets just be realistic here and think about how educated the 'Average Aussie' is both in a general sense and on how the election actually works). Nice and easy. But they don't understand what they have done (I am not even considering ballots that are NULL and VOID here because they aren't filled out properly, I am sure in reality that is a lot of them). The candidate they voted for was never on the ballot to win the seat. It was put there to rig the preferences. When you vote above the line, it counts as if you have preferenced according to your chosen candidate. People see the marijuana party and think 'Hey, I like weed!' and vote for them, not realising they just voted for ALP who they hate (just example no idea if true) thanks to that candidates chosen preferences. The senate system is totally rigged.

[@mrewan6221]

@@funbucket09 Australia doesn't have a direct way to elect parties, so we do it with preferences. Even though it looks like Queensland wanted a wide variety of candidates in 2016, look at the totals for the parties: LNP 4.5 quotas; ALP 3.4; One Nation 1.2; Green 0.89. That's 10 of the 12 seats just in those four parties. For the parties, no-one liked their parties enough to elect someone, but instead enough preferred one of these parties so that seats were filled by just these four parties. The leading candidate (Brandis, LNP) gained 4.54 quotas just on his own. When the excess over 1 quota was distributed, Canavan, McGrath, and Macdonald were all elected - each of whom only got 0.01 quotas on first preferences. The ALP gained 3.38 quotas with their leadind candidate (Watt), and the distrubution of excess meant Chisholm and Moore were elected even though they only has 0.01 and 0.02 quotas respectively. If the election has been held as FTPT, you can bet the LNP would have tried to get the voters more evenly spread. Hanson got 1.19 quotas, and it wasn't until the 12th that another One Nation candidate was elected. Roberts gained only 77 first preference votes, but very early distibution of Hanson's excess (at count 4 of 841) bumped him up to almost 40 thousand, which kept him in the running while 110 other candidates were eliminated. Null/Void ballots is surprisingly low. About 1 to 2%. Below the line voting is about 10%, except in Tasmania, where it's about 25%. This is because Tansmania has had multi-member state elections since 1909, and Tasmanians are used to a large number of choices. Yes, Above The Line was rigged, by minor parties and "preference whisperers". ATL was invented by NSW for their upper house elections, which had to elect 21 candidates from literally hundreds of candidates. It is a single-state-wide electorate. The single "1" above the line meant that the candidates were in control of your preferences, using "Group Voting Tickes", which almost no-one read. That's how your votes went to a candidate you didn't like. Most places in Australia that have multi-member elections now have ranked numbers above the line, where "1" only means "all of the candidates in this column", "2" means "then all of the candidates in this column", and so on. There is no Group Voting Ticket, and no preference whispering. Your vote never goes to someone whose column you didn't number. I believe Victoria is the last place to have GVTs and preference whispering. It was definitely in place for the November 2022 election. This has been reviewed by the Victorian Parliament, and a review is due to be tabled in Parliament in May 2024 (this month).

[@funbucket09]

@@mrewan6221 "The single "1" above the line meant that the candidates were in control of your preferences, using "Group Voting Tickes", which almost no-one read. That's how your votes went to a candidate you didn't like." This is exactly what I was trying to say and I 100% agree. I probably didn't word it very well though so apologies for that.

[@deargodwhy9718]

I love how everything can be simulated with colorful blobs

[@Ro_Gaming]

*anything with more than 3 options has to be put into 4 Dimensional Space, which will be very hard to understand*

[@diegonals]

@@Ro_Gaming Hard doesn’t mean imposible

[@spongmongler6760]

.. what about r*pe? that cannot be simulated with colourful blobs

[@deargodwhy9718]

@@spongmongler6760 If you were creative enough, I'm sure you could simulate things so much worse than r*pe with colorful blobs.

[@spongmongler6760]

@@deargodwhy9718 there's only 1 thing worse than r*pe and that, too, involves r*pe...

[@an2qzavok]

Monarchy: --- Summary: eldest son of the king becomes next king Flaw: genetic illnesses* Strategy: marry the king *can be fixed with modern science

[@feynstein1004]

But don't forget: bigger army diplomacy

[@eekpanggang]

Flaw: beheaded

[@an2qzavok]

@@eekpanggang regicide is less bloody than democide at least.

[@somerandomgal3915]

Flaw: overlooking easier, more logical and more convenient solutions because of personal preference of the monarch (alias: most are still screwed if he is a dick) 2nd Flaw: shaky as fuck ruling justifications, *especially* when the ruling party is corrupt and incompetent (but that’s a flaw that every ruling system has, the only difference here is that everyone else has to live with it till the monarch dies, and additionally monarchs can damn well ignore most societal problems if they don’t affect them directly and they wish so)

[@an2qzavok]

@@somerandomgal3915 hey hey, that's what regicide is for.

[@kdolo1887]

"Nation of Blobs" Accurate.

[@tumamizoa]

Great video. In Australia we just refer to it as preferential voting. Would recommend over plurality, for sure.

[@CorpCoCEO]

I'd imagine it's called "First Past the Post" because the winner is the first candidate to "pass" the "post" of a majority vote

[@dragondompyd7171]

Coming from Germany i find the "winner takes it all" Method disturbing even though it is used in so many countries ...

[@dragondompyd7171]

@@user-zj9rr6yc4u Yes but since the Zweitstimmen is pretty close to a system where there is multiple winners due to them beeing proportional every vote is actually represented But with the "simple" plurality half of the votes (in worst case) are not represented at all ...

[@Quetzietse]

It is generally only used in Anglo political systems and political systems that adopted the Anglo system due to colonialism etc.

[@ch9062]

Yeah! I like that our winning party normally has to form coalitions. Compromises are a good thing for political systems.

[@MoDa87]

@@ch9062 the German System is by far the best system in the world. If there is one better I would like to learn about it. Directly voting for the head of state is stupid.

[@oliverwilson11]

@@ch9062 In New Zealand we have the German system but our government doesn't have to compromise because they won more than half the votes. That is very unusual though and wouldn't have happened without the pandemic

[@sarahmesser3359]

"just look how complacent they are" [Zooms in] Damn, I'm falling apart over here

[@rainynight02]

I liked this video. Wasn't just "this is what is great about this system!" as all the other videos I've watched trying to understand these different voting systems do. Gave the good and the bad and not trying to push one over the other. I like that. Thanks. So far I'm thinking approval may be the best option.

[@redcoat4348]

I would agree, though I wonder whether range/score voting (where you rank a candidate from 1-10) might be even better. This would of course make the ballot more complicated and you would need new voting machines to handle these ballots, but they let you express your choice much more specifically. I wonder if voters might find the system too complicated though. But everyone understands how scoring (voting) happens in the Olympics, so maybe not.

[@tylergaming101]

He said, "Orange is in danger of being squeezed out." We might get some orange juice later.

[@technic1285]

Pulp or no pulp? This is a divisive issue.

[@tylergaming101]

@@technic1285 I honestly don't know... That is a good question tho.

[@holypluto9627]

@@technic1285 I’m going third party instead. No orange juice.

[@sillygoosetaur]

@@holypluto9627 same here, no orange juice

[@usernametaken017]

@@technic1285 3d bloblitical compass in formation

[@dojelnotmyrealname4018]

Note: In the way he's expressing his opinion on these voting systems, *he's using approval voting to praise approval voting and instant runoff*.

[@sofia.eris.bauhaus]

but he's also ranking them 😉. i would score vote voting systems as follows: FPTP: 0 IRV: 2 Borda-count: 2 approval-voting: 3 Schulze-method: 4 score-voting: 5

[@ervindark]

Yeah he's a bit biased.

[@coemcoem7070]

@@sofia.eris.bauhaus what are those last ones

[@aphrodites-son-eros]

He's doing both, really. He's ranking them AND he's picking the two he likes best. Which would honestly probably be a pretty good voting system in and of itself, though it'd potentially be a bit complicated.

[@leogon7]

At least we can vote on what we think using the system

[@undercomposition]

Me: we should have a scoring system. Also me: gives everyone a zero anyway.

[@TaiFerret]

@Oliver DANCKERT Why wouldn't you give the highest score to your favourite? Unless you really don't have a favourite of course, but I think it's still best to give your highest score to whomever you want to win.

[@fangere]

@Oliver DANCKERT It would be fairly atypical to have a 1-10 voting system, which for the most part fixes that problem. If there are say 3 major parties, and 2 minor parties, the government would likely have a 0-3 voting system or something similar. That way, there isn't a serious difference between the moderate vote of 2, and the extreme vote of 3.

[@YellowToad]

and i give myself 179UCe votes (2^1024)

[@dominicgunderson]

@@TaiFerret The problem with star voting is that the scores are entirely subjective. Everybody's vote is weighed differently depending on how much they like a candidate, which undermines the integrity of the election.

[@PhilCW10]

With all the talk of ranked voting popping up, this is a good refresher.

[@Leo-tq9ei]

The bigger problem in the US is this "the winner takes it all" system.

[@maximiliankomar2288]

Which is called first-past-the-post in other countries stating that it is just a different name for plurality voting is incorrect

[@rdizzy1]

Maybe they could increase the total amount of electoral votes and award them based on counties won rather than states. Would still be winner take all but on a smaller county level.

[@Lillith.]

@@rdizzy1 why though? Shouldn't every vote count as one vote? Edit: result would be the same as popular vote.

[@rdizzy1]

@@Lillith. Yeah, ideally we would have no electoral college system, but if we kept the system, breaking it down to a smaller level would result in it being more close to the popular vote than what we have now. (Like last election where Trump lost by 3 million votes but still won)

[@thefrontier2288]

@@Lillith. ideally that be suicidal as 5 state would determine the election and the other 45 could suck a egg. The electoral college gives smaller state with a fighting chance at being heard

[@steazy0001]

If you prefer mangoes over apples then you’ve got my vote.

[@vunga8195]

oh so you want to live in spooky weird house?

[@hrzmann]

We should seize the means of Apple production and destroy Mangoisie as class.

[@Henrix1998]

Mango preferers want to kill your babies!

[@hrzmann]

@@Henrix1998, and spookytarians are blobphiles!

[@abylon9641]

Pro Spooky house voters want to take away our protections

[@gavinhobbs6325]

A potential fix for the "Chicken Dilemma" is to also enforce a minimum winning score....say 50%. Then there is a reason to vote for your second choice: your first choice might not be straight up popular enough to pass the overall bar.

[@user-garnet]

But then what would happen if all members don’t reach the threshold?

[@Zman6258]

@@ng3898 But that doesn't actually solve anything, because then people would just stick with their original votes and the threshold would gradually be lowered until the already-leading candidate wins anyways.

[@garrettgrisso8180]

@@user-garnet try again, with the same candidates if the percentages are v close to the minimum, or new ones if you can all of the candidates are shite. the former is easier if you have a lot more candidates, and is pretty easy to apply: get rid of primaries and caucuses. also voting should be mandatory, but that’s a side note

[@Death-iy9kv]

That's similar to to how it works here in the uk , you need majority ( over 50% ) to fully win. If no one does the parties have to team up with other parties enough to get over 50% ,which means discussions take place for basically every decision if no one gets over 50%

[@michaelbowman6684]

How about making it to where you HAVE to give each candidate a score. For example, if there were 3 candidates, you'd have to categorize all 3 of them, in your preferred order of "Favorite, 2nd Choice, Least Preferred." You couldn't only vote for your favorite, you'd also have to vote for your 2nd and 3rd choice, and this _wouldn't_ be optional. These are just arbitrary numbers for the sake of example, but Favorite gets 3 points, 2nd choice gets 2 points, and Least Preferred gets 1 point. The votes would be tallied by counting how many points each candidate received. Once the points are counted, the candidate with the most amount of points wins the election.

[@AdaDenali]

This is a great explanation, I'd love to see you throw in a ranked Condorcet method (any candidate that would win every head to head election wins the total election) too, like minimax. It's hard for me to wrap my head around the weakness of condorcet systems

[@juicebox9465]

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos." -Homer Simpson

[@mango9940]

Haha

[@JimCullen]

Probably worth noting that at 7:45 you referenced the Australian _Senate_ , which uses the multi-winner Single Transferable Vote system, rather than Instant Runoff Voting. We actually only have 3 parties with national representatives in the House of Representatives, plus a handful of independents. And one of those 3 parties has just a single Member, making them effectively an independent.

[@jackvos8047]

He doesn't mention the senate at all and what he described covers general elections for lower house including the one that picks the prime minister.

[@JimCullen]

​@@jackvos8047 He doesn't _mention_ the Senate by name, but at 7:45, he puts on the screen the number of *Senators* each party has. He uses this to support the statement "several parties that manage to have some national representation". The problem is that those "several parties" have representation in the Senate, using STV, and *not* in the Reps, which uses IRV. The Reps doesn't have this. It's overwhelmingly dominated by just two parties, thanks to the centre-squeeze phenomenon he had described.

[@santaclaws1501]

There are more than 3 parties in the house. there's katter australia party, centre alliance, as well as the independents.

[@Phantom_Deluxe7]

He has now commented about the mistake now

[@Gnagniel]

It's like the old adage goes: "our system is the best, after all the others"

[@iivostroamichevolegmdiquar6859]

It actually comes from a quote that is kind like this: "Democracy is the worst possible system, not counting all other systems"

[@fakebunny1272]

@@iivostroamichevolegmdiquar6859 i would pick anything over democracy and capitalism all systems rot and become corrupt with time but those 2 are the best are making the largest number of people both dependent on then and complicit with then so they are so fucking hard to remove that once there corruption is not getting out short of a massive war or cataclysmic event that i why i hate those 2 with passion I hate then more than anything in this would i would rather live in a world ruled by monarchs at least kings can be killed while democapitalism is a hydra that keep growing more corrupt oligarchic heads the more you cut and now that its global every country in the world assures that if one gets out of line and dares to thread into virtue they will put it back in the path of corruption even fi by force like the coup usa did on bolivia

[@MT-lc3lt]

@@iivostroamichevolegmdiquar6859 i think its by winston churchill

[@puppy3908]

@@fakebunny1272 Capitalism makes you dependent on yourself to make money --> its direct counter part socialism makes you depended on other people and socialism end line communism makes you dependent on your government as you have no money to call your own you have not property to leverage into a better life your skills and effort don't matter doctor and janitor receive the same benefits. Democracy(popularity contest) sure i can agree with but you need to show people an example better than communism/socialism if you don't like being paid for a job (Capitalism)

[@fakebunny1272]

@@puppy3908 hypocrite liar most if not all rich people in capitalisms have other do all the work and rob then of the value being rich on virtue of owning thing and inheriting then you are filthy liar and a propagandist go to hell

[@danejohannescaldwell7999]

I would be interested in your take on STAR voting - It's a 2-round system that is essentially score voting to select the top 2 candidates in the first round, and then those same scores are used to select the winner from between them. To my knowledge, it has all the benefits of Approval, but is somewhat more resilient against strategery.

[@vornamenachname906]

Isnt France using this ?

[@altar_]

@@vornamenachname906 yep

[@skyiloh7460]

Brazil uses this!

[@user-tt3lb1yy6i]

@@vornamenachname906 how? I couldn't find any source that says it uses star voting system

[@user-tt3lb1yy6i]

@@skyiloh7460 how? I couldn't find any source that says Brazil uses this system

[@maskedupman5806]

"we would have to remake the government which i guess is pretty hard..." bro i straight up think hes boutta recreate the entire american legal system in a simulatoin and not even tell the president.

[@gamerguy6495]

simulation. feel free to call me a grammar nazi.

[@gamerguy6495]

@@bigyeet18 ok well now I feel stupid

[@randomuser5443]

You got my primary vote

[@lugoorstar]

69 likes

[@johnyoung9649]

"...orange is in danger of being squeezed..." I see what you did there.

[@smiles9882]

Ba Dum TSSSS

[@heimskr2881]

When you explained instant runoff was a ranking system, I assumed that their first pick would get 3 points, 2nd pick would get two, and 3rd (if any) would get one. Whichever candidate has the most points, wins. this avoids the "center squeeze" effect, because everyone's second vote gets counted. the "center squeeze" effect is caused due to only a portion of voters getting their second vote to actually mean anything. I also think you should've included a variable that represents how happy a voter is about the outcome. This way the voting systems can by ranked by their success in satisfying voters.

[@brunofant3562]

That was my thought as well, and it's a big part of multifactorial ranking strategies in other paradigms!

[@connergibson5930]

In the end this whole video is "if people want to mess up a vote count then they will find a way" Edit: I do agree with your points system being the solution that many places do use

[@AgainstMyBetterJudgement]

I think this ends up suffering from the chicken dilemma, though.

[@formicidaeinc.8075]

That would run into the same issues as approval voting, people might only vote for one party, because giving half a vote to their second favorite will make it less likely for their favorite party to win

[@heimskr2881]

@@formicidaeinc.8075 Its better than inflating the loser's voting power. The problem with doing runoff is that only certain people get their 2nd vote counted. And to avoid having people vote for one party, that could potentially be fixed by requiring a minimum of two votes. Idk about the implications of that though, making that a requirement.

[@Fireball006]

I really don’t know much about horse racing or voting my guess on the “first past the post” name is when gambling, or voting, on horses there are different types. Like you can vote for more than just who is winning first place but sometimes you only vote on who gets in first, which is the first horse past the post, post being the finish line. I’m sure a quick google could prove me right or wrong but sometimes it’s just fun to figure things out on your own.

[@Exachad]

These systems will never be implemented because the two parties wouldn't want to reduce their probability of maintaining power. People would have to vote tor replace the plurality voting system somehow, but they can't do that because of the plurality voting system. Such beautiful irony.

[@MinecraftMasterNo1]

Having more parties sound nice on paper...until a failed Austrian artist comes around and use voting blocks to turn the system on its head and take proportional representation to its logical conclusion

[@freedomofmotion]

Not just that but citizens are complacent. In the UK we had a vote for proportionate representation and no one voted

[@MinecraftMasterNo1]

@@freedomofmotion And it can't possibly because they didn't want it? Obviously if they understand that not voting at all means the motion does not pass and therefore is roughly the same as voting no then why would they take all the trouble of showing up just to say no? Besides, I'd expect no less from people who experienced the rise of the failed Austrian artist almost right next door. Proportional representation is a disaster waiting to happen.

[@7own878]

I can tell you from watching my countries history that you can indeed change your constitution. Especially when it is outdated like in the case of the US. That constitution wasn't written for a modern country. You should obey the fundamental principles of the rule of law. (Which is a international therm and not stated in the law of most countries) That includes: -The seperation of powers (There are three powers: Executive Legislative Judiciary) These therms describe: the part of the government which decides about the execution of the law and the police/military/secret services, the part of the government which writes new laws/constitution and the courts which are not political (so not members of any party) who decide only based on evidence and law and not own estimate -The principle of the executive being limited by the boarders of the law; that means that everyone in the executive (that includes everyone from the cop in the countryside of Texas to the president) has to obey the rules of the law and can be dismissed and pursued in case of criminal action -Obeying the human rights stated in the Geneva Declaration (I have no time to put that here too. It's quite long and informative. You should for sure check it out) -Giving everyone the right to be taken to court and assisted by and lawyer before any verdict is called -courts have to be clear of political intentions and have to be based on the law (as already stated above) Another interesting point I can make is the direct representative democratic election system which is superior to a indirect system like in the USA; There are principles too: -You vote directly (No districts or people in between you and the final election) (That means that the outcome matches perfectly what was voted. That's something you don't have when you par example merge a lot of votes to one bigger vote which then has no consistent worth across the country) -You have a free choice between parties (That means more than one and even more than two; a healthy democracy contains up to 10 parties in the parliament alone) -Furthermore this makes being forced to vote something illegal. -You vote anonymous -You don't have to vote, you can decide to not vote The parliament then gets created out of the biggest parties. (Most democracies have a minimum of something like 5% for the amount of votes you need to have to get into the parliament) The party with the most votes gets to choose partners to join them in the government. They need to represent more than 50% of the people.

[@raffaeledivora9517]

The beauty of autoperpetuating power and law. Fortunately there is the process called revolution, else technically according to law kings should still rule the earth "by law and right" (of course, having usurped those rights a long time before!)

[@Quantum-yz9fc]

The center-squeeze effect can be eliminated by using a condorcet counting system with instant runoff instead of just eliminating the least popular candidate each time.

[@jeremymercer5655]

I have also seen this called Virtual Round Robin voting. I agree it looks like the best option by far. There are some cases where you cannot declare a winner, but there are still ways to do tie breaks in that case (for example candidate A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A is possible in this method).

[@Knightmessenger]

Is there a video that explains this? Or a place where this is used?

[@jadegrace1312]

I think even with the center squeeze effect, RCV is still better than approval, because the chicken effect becomes a much bigger problem in practice. Plus, the way RCV weights your votes is usually more accurate than approval voting.

[@Quantum-yz9fc]

@Marcus Caleb Chiong It chooses the candidate that would beat all the others in a 1v1 election. That could very well be the guy everyone doesn't like but is ok with, but for single-winner districts that's the best option.

[@benwilliams5457]

In my opinion.. The Centre-Squeeze is not really a problem, because political parties will adjust their positions bit-by-bit to follow the preferences of unaligned voters. The "centre-right" and "centre-left" parties are certain to be popular because the opinions of voters follows a bell curve. In principle a "dead centre" party should always win but their vote share is eroded away by the two mainstream parties to either side shifting their policies towards the centre. Neither will get exactly to the centre because there will be a constant spawning of challengers to the far-right and far-left, so they must lean just far enough to their partisan side to keep a majority there (if they don't they become the dead-centre party and get eaten away by the other mainstream party of the other 'side' and the growing partisan party which rapidly moves itself to a centrist position - and the status-quo is re-established) Since the two mainstream parties are courting the largest plurality of voters at the peak of the bell curve neither is likely t be terribly objectionable to a large majority of the voting population, while those with more extreme views can at least be heard,

[@ArceusMElemental]

A deeper subject would be going into the various impossibility theorems in voting theory Such as Arrow's Impossibility Theorem which shows that all ranked choice methods including proportional ranked choice methods have undemocratic issues associated with it, and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem which shows that strategic voting occurs in single winner elections.

[@MinecraftMasterNo1]

I don't see how one would need a "theorem" to see that. When you cast a vote, is the intention not for the candidate you vote for to win? or at the very least for some other candidate(s) to lose? For that reason alone, the most logical choice would be to employ whatever strategy maximizes your chances of winning.

[@ArceusMElemental]

​@@MinecraftMasterNo1 Which one are you speaking of? These theorems talk about how you'll have to vote against your favorite candidate for a suboptimal candidate and that these are mathematically inevitable in ranked voting systems.

[@ArceusMElemental]

@@MinecraftMasterNo1 Specifically for Arrow's theorem you can't have all 4 of these qualities in a rank choice system ( but you do get them in a score/cardinal system ): 1) Non-Dictatorship The social preference should account for multiple voters, and not mimic only a single voter. 2) Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives The social preference of candidate A vs B should not be altered by the introduction candidate C. This includes vote splitting, but it also includes vote cloning. 3) Monotonicity An individual should not be able to hurt an option by ranking it higher. 4) Unanimity If everyone prefers candidate A over B, then the resulting election should have A preferred over B.

[@MinecraftMasterNo1]

@@ArceusMElemental I guess it's good to have a solid mathematical model for it but the point I was trying to make is that none of the conclusions are necessarily that shocking. It seems like this would be pretty common sense, no? Tactical voting will always happen as long as it can happen and there are people who want to win.

[@ArceusMElemental]

@@MinecraftMasterNo1 Specifically for the GS theorem, for any deterministic process of collective decision, at least one of the following three properties must hold: 1) Dictatorship There exists one person how determines the outcome. 2) Two party domination The outcome is limited to two choices 3) The process is open to strategic voting, such as favorite betrayal.

[@alessandrobuffa123]

I'd be interested to see a system with 2 positive votes and 1 negative vote per person