Conversation

Notices

1. Hoss Delgado (hoss@shitpost.cloud)'s status on Monday, 15-Jan-2024 06:20:30 JST Hoss Delgado
   America will never have ranked ballots because the average American voter is genuinely too stupid to understand how they work.
   • LS (lain@lain.com)'s status on Monday, 15-Jan-2024 06:20:22 JST LS

     in reply to

     • Terry Hendrix II 🏹
     • kroner :blobcatsanta:
     • Parker Banks
     @thendrix @parker @kroner @Hoss It also doesn't work as well (even in theory) than people think it does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem
     † top dog :pedomustdie: likes this.
   • Terry Hendrix II 🏹 (thendrix@social.hendrixgames.com)'s status on Monday, 15-Jan-2024 06:20:23 JST Terry Hendrix II 🏹

     in reply to

     • kroner :blobcatsanta:
     • Parker Banks

     It’s easy to get bad results in ranked choice with some gamesmanship. This is how someone with 10% support wins an election… Happened a few times now in the US with ranked choice. Basically you want to hear your campaign as “second choice” as an unknown playing both sides. Seems to work at least once, but then you have people calling to remove the system.

     It requires much more political knowledge to vote effectively, and we already have “egirl said to vote for Xi backed candidate” problems.

   • Parker Banks (parker@pl.psion.co)'s status on Monday, 15-Jan-2024 06:20:24 JST Parker Banks

     in reply to

     • kroner :blobcatsanta:
     @kroner @Hoss
     Order all candidates by preference. Way more accurate than single choice.
   • kroner :blobcatsanta: (kroner@seal.cafe)'s status on Monday, 15-Jan-2024 06:20:30 JST kroner :blobcatsanta:

     in reply to
     The fuck is a ranked ballot? (Not that I care really because I'm not voting :blobcatjoy:)
   • LS (lain@lain.com)'s status on Monday, 15-Jan-2024 17:14:36 JST LS

     in reply to

     • Terry Hendrix II 🏹
     • kroner :blobcatsanta:
     • Parker Banks

     @parker @kroner @Hoss @thendrix also an interesting paragraph from a proof linked in that article:

     https://www.math.ucla.edu/~tao/arrow.pdf

     Voting theory has a vast literature. A sample result (due to Gil Kalai): If there are three candidates, we assume all of the above axioms except for voting system rationality, and all voters vote randomly, then a rational outcome can only be ob- tained at most 91.92...% of the time. (By comparison, simple majority vote yields a rational outcome 91.22..% of the time, when the number of voters approaches infinity; this seems to be due to Gulibaud). So it seems that voting paradoxes are not isolated to a pathological set of scenarios of infinitesimal probability, but are a genuine and non-trivial difficulty inherent in voting systems.

     Of course people don't vote 'randomly', but still interesting.

   • Parker Banks (parker@pl.psion.co)'s status on Monday, 15-Jan-2024 17:14:37 JST Parker Banks

     in reply to

     • Terry Hendrix II 🏹
     • LS
     • kroner :blobcatsanta:
     @lain @kroner @Hoss @thendrix
     Thanks, I hadn't read that before.