16
Why Democracy Is Mathematically Impossible
(odysee.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
16 points (72.2% liked)
videos
22631 readers
58 users here now
Breadtube if it didn't suck.
Post videos you genuinely enjoy and want to share, duh. Celebrate the diversity of interests shared by chapochatters by posting a deep dive into Venetian kelp farming, I dunno. Also media criticism, bite-sized versions of left-wing theory, all the stuff you expected. But I am curious about that kelp farming thing now that you mentioned it.
Low effort / spam videos might be removed, especially weeb content.
There is a cytube that you can paste videos into and watch with whoever happens to be around. It's open submission unless there's something important to commandeer it with at the time.
A weekly watch party happens every Saturday (Sunday down under), with video nominations Saturday-Monday, voting Monday-Thursday. See the pin for whatever stage it's currently in.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
what the fuck would this even mean, I'm not watching this video it's blatant clickbait
I'm gonna assume it's about Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which is about social game-theory, sort of. There are some weird paradoxes when you get into the mathematics of voting systems. Arrow's Theorem makes a few reasonable assumptions about a ranked-choice voting system, and shows that a third candidate will always spoil the results between the other two. In other words, adding in Jill Stein would change how Kamala and Trump are ranked in relation to each other (in a ranked-choice voting system).
Probably one of the top ten misused bits of math in the world. It relies on some questionable assumptions about voting behavior, several voting systems do not apply, and even if this was 100% true, getting to 99.99% confidence accuracy in your voting system would still be possible. None of that is mentioned in any of the pop science clickbait videos about it however.
it astounds me how many people will base their lives around math and not realize that the point of basing your life around math is to allow yourself and others to actually utilize math and not to jack off endlessly about weird shit
If the issue is about people having high voter prediction accuracy, which leads to them voting differently, than you could just ban using machine learning dark magic or publicly distributing the results of calculations when it comes to elections
But how does this make democracy "impossible"? As far as I can tell this would be a good thing IRL. Republicans would become powerless if someone installed an actual ranked vote electoral process overnight, because Democrats would suddenly get a significant flood of second or third place voters for them and general voter disillusionment would plummet. This would inevitably result in the Democrats becoming irrelevant too, because they need the big scary Republican threat to get any votes.
So democracy only seems "impossible" if you want to literally blackmail your voter base. Otherwise what kind of bullshit math wizardry are they pulling out of their ass to argue that the exact ranking of each individual candidate is what makes something "more democratic" rather than whether a system produces what's wanted by popular demand?
If you're voting in an election with ten candidates, but you only like two of them and equally despise the other eight, the "maths impossibility" arises because you'll have to put a candidate you hate third
Couldn't you just not write a third? This makes no sense to me unless you strictly enforce having a third choice being necessary, which seems random and needless. If someone can just not have a third candidate, or not have a second candidate, I see no reason why that would negatively affect the system. Their vote is just lost if neither of their candidates win with their votes, same as if they didn't go to vote in the first place.
Yes, in Australian Senate elections you only need to rank at least 6 parties above the line or at least 12 individual candidates below the line on the long ballot paper
In practice you might rank all ~100 candidates to try and avoid a couple candidates you hate the most
I usually just go with the party and stop at 6 or the first major party (that kinda acts like a big wall)
I mean, you're making a political argument, and one I don't disagree with. But the point of the theorem is about an idealized voting mechanism, absent ideology. There's absolutely arguments to be made about the usefulness of studying things like pure math, and I'm sympathetic to some of them, but even so, I think it's important to know how the system we use to implement democracy actually functions.
I think also the title is just pure clickbait, never take a youtuber at their word.
Apparently there's a Wikipedia article about rated voting and how it's effectively spoiler proof. It doesn't seem very "impossible"
The video mentions this as a solution to the problems presented by Arrow's theorems.
Ugggh I hate clickbait
Good assumption, it is about that