Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@YurioPlisetski says : 10:36 This is EXACTLY what my family did to choose what color to paint the front door. We couldn’t all agree so we did this voting system (yours truly thought of it) and once we found our winner, no one was actually that disappointed (except the 11 year old that REALLY wanted red lmao)>> <<@sarthaksharma5772 says : Guys, Veritasium is backed by big capitalists (the original creator sold the majority shares), has been sponsered by WEF and consistently gets things wrong about social sciences (idk why science educators think they know social sciences also tbh). Just take everything they say with a heap of salt>> <<@Cherin0000 says : Best example is india rn>> <<@temp9307 says : Hmm, what about ranked choice, but rather than getting rid of the lowest on each iteration, just continue to ADD 2nd, 3rd, and so forth places to the running total of votes a given candidate has until one passes 50%. I think the additive nature of this method, as opposed to a replacemental nature, may solve some issues. Maybe make it so the percentage needed to win is equal to n/n+1 where n is which degree of ranked choice you had to go to. So first round needs 50%, but if you add in people's second choice the total needs to be ≈67%. And if you add in their third choices you instead need at least 75% of people to have chosen that candidate as their first, second or third place choice. I think this might work, but I'm sure someone can help me see a logical flaw here.>> <<@cocoritosss8669 says : But there always be a dictator, in a 50%+1 the plus one is the dictator/pivotal vote. A perfect 50% split would be a tie. The same as a Condorcet loop you get a tie. Even ranked voting you may get a tie. There will always be a possibility of a tie and then a pivotal voter that changes the whole result. In any voting system.>> <<@DRDELLA33 says : About the pivotal voter, maybe i got something wrong but if i didn't: we and he himself don't know who the pivotal voter is. he doesn't know before, he doesn't know while he's voting and he doesn't know after...so is he really a dictator?>> <<@Dktbf says : 7:44 wouldn't Bohrs lost voters rather switch to Curie instead of einstein? This would then lead to Curie winning.>> <<@AndrisBankovskis says : Some implicit confusion about democratic systems and populism.>> <<@thewonderlooptv says : i think i am at college and taking lectures. 🤨>> <<@MichaCzarnowski-kk1bo says : Or we could use a proportional voting system?????>> <<@MuzahidKhanRafi says : 7:34 Bohr is really controversial 😅😅>> <<@ZaiinabBaloch1234 says : I spent years trying to understand manifesting, but it always felt like I was missing something. Eventually, I came across Vera Hart’s archetype quiz and decided to try it. My result was surprisingly accurate and helped me understand which approach actually suits me. Definitely worth trying if you’ve been feeling stuck too. It only takes a few minutes ❤️>> <<@aneezaShahid-kq6bj says : Vera Hart’s archetype quiz is one of those things you open as a joke and then accidentally start taking seriously. I even changed one of my answers because I didn’t like what it said about me lol.>> <<@JuanReza-q3c says : The problem with your Einstein, Curie, Bohr second round is that ranked choice voting is done all at once, so there would be no changing one's mind in a second round. the scenario cannot happen. so don't use run-offs. Also, ranked-choice almost never hits the extreme close combination, so good enough to get improvements movement going until the more exotic approval variants going. Great show!>> <<@justaguy427 says : I prefer a republic.>> <<@paninaroprofessionalita9567 says : Simple solution go vote more than 1 time I mean it's your future u can stop work for like 3 days and not even talking about the possibility to make a vote app using id or social security number>> <<@delusionofillusion473 says : Ranked as well ends at a two party system.>> <<@antoniusnies-komponistpian2172 says : The main false assumption of this video is that democracy is about elections. I would argue that elections are actually aristocratic because they concentrate power among the people you've elected. True democracy imo actually works via sortition. The point is here that you use a random generator so often that eventually everyone gets to take part in politics. Technically you might call this a voting system that violates condition 3, but radically. The problem about condition 3 is that it's inherently aristocratic, because it gatekeeps power to the popular. Political power should be for literally everyone. Vsauce made a good video about this from an epistemological perspective, "The Future of Reason".>> <<@amemimy says : I will try to rewatch it when it isn't 3am>> <<@enrouelibre1312 says : 7:43 it is a bit of a weird situation, realisticaly most bohr voters would go to curie in the first round as bohr and einstein got very opposit views also, if it still happens the wy you describe it, it still means that in second round people still prefer to have bohr over einstein I still think this is pretty close to what we should aim for the probleme of the purely mathematical approach is that it doesn't take into account the social aspect of the candidatesnas if people would put candidate A B C D in random orders the truth is that the dar left would not put a far right in second position as their views are opposit, and when you vote you want to get closer to you'r ideal, and the spectrum of political propositions, is gradual from left to right>> <<@Dutch-Moto-Venture says : Very well done, thank you.>> <<@GamingWithRana-c4q says : Dictatorship is rising.. Thats why we dont able to establish a democratic country...>> <<@priyanshishah5709 says : 7:48 why would curie have equal amount of second preferences both for Einstein & bohr given the fact that bohr gave the terrible speech? Also.. bohr started with more votes hence ended up with the most>> <<@Brad.Lancaster says : Oh boy, he sells his channel, now come the political woke BS ....>> <<@anton_98 says : The main false premise: Democracy is about choosing a SINGLE person>> <<@Dude-Smellmyhelmet says : No system works if the voters are not informed by honest media with integrity>> <<@phoenixfireplusproductions says : So the House of Commons,Westminster,is just for England or in England? They can have it as its a corrupt cesspit.>> <<@georgebushbu says : i dunno, let's vote on it>> <<@driverjay8613 says : You are wrong, and probably paid to say this. It's never been tried before, this was a plutocacy, and boomers never did what they were supposed to do, to move the plutocacy toward a democracy. Then, the country followed by most of the first world began dumbing down in 1991, so at this point the first world especially the U.S. is to dumb to vote toward a democracy. But it's not impossible, that is what you are using analytics to express, but white males talking sports do this to black players expressing why they don't deserve the contracts they have or want.>> <<@Speedy_lulu12 says : 1:20 ethiopia was not a former British colony!!!>> <<@TheSabfil says : 3:54 love the reference to CGP Grey who also deep dived into this election topic <3>> <<@Twny_0wl says : An ad after 2 minutes? 🫪>> <<@StephenCoates-s9r says : Has ant system been considered that allows for the blackballing of candidates one doesn't want?>> <<@alessio_cattivo says : 7:45 it's a really specific case, anyways if Bohr did do really really bad and was a terrible candidate not only he would lose votes but the neutral voters would probably opt for Einstein more, since bohr is so terrible (not to talk about how not every Bohr voter would switch over to Einstein)>> <<@AX0R1S says : 7:52 logically if Bohr's bad campaign speech negatively impacted his own voters willingness to vote for him it would also impact Curie's voters willingness to put him as their second choice. But it's even more likely that because Curie is the more moderate, the voters put off by Bohr's disastrous speech would switch to her, not to Einstein, meaning she would get elected, not wiped out in the first round.>> <<@georgevelok1907 says : This is not democracy.>> <<@fbv81bp says : First Past The Post is what masses of people will ever actually grasp. And if it is applied across multiple small municipalities, each casting 1 parliamentary seat, then people stand a chance to "vote-across" to eachother's favorite parties, and temporarily unelect the ruling party, IFF the majority agrees to disagree. (Details in my GitHub.) This can even be accomplished in a Hungarian setup, where nationwide proportional vote has been combined with FPTP in municipalities in a way, that running nationwide is prohibited for parties not filling a large portion of the localities. Large enough(!) to run against one another in so many municipalities, that actually their only chance of survival are the positions guaranteed by the nationwide list. This way parties cannot agree to split the municipalities, because if only 1 defects and runs in more, than agreed upon, the others loose. In this sense the handling the municipalities is a tragedy of commons game from game theory.>> <<@EugeneGlowmark says : I feel most of the time, the real smart people tell themselves 'politics is a waste of time' and thus naturally, MOST of the contenders arent even the smarties to begin with. just ones with an optimistic dream, or ones who want control. no wonder we arent going anywhere most of time. also, i do think progress would really come if newer govts stopped questioning the previous one's actions, and started doing their own thing for progress. ive seen political leaders point fingers as soon as they take the seat. totally my observation, you might disagree, but thats how ive seen the world so far. needless to say there are always exceptions.>> <<@Fulanki says : 3:14, GOD IS GOOD, PRAISE JESUS.>> <<@learningislife212 says : While analysis is good, the problem with the video is the discrepancy between the proposition in the title and thumbnail and what was presented in the video.. 𝙸𝚝 𝚠𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚍 𝚑𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚋𝚎𝚎𝚗 𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚕𝚕𝚢 𝚑𝚎𝚕𝚙𝚏𝚞𝚕 𝚒𝚏 𝚊𝚝𝚕𝚎𝚊𝚜𝚝 𝚢𝚘𝚞 𝚍𝚎𝚏𝚒𝚗𝚎𝚍 𝚠𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚍𝚎𝚖𝚘𝚌𝚛𝚊𝚌𝚢 𝚒𝚜, 𝚊𝚌𝚌𝚘𝚛𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚝𝚘 𝚢𝚘𝚞.. 𝙸𝚝 𝚓𝚞𝚜𝚝 𝚜𝚎𝚎𝚖𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚊𝚜𝚜𝚞𝚖𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚋𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚏𝚒𝚗𝚎𝚍 𝚘𝚗𝚕𝚢 𝚝𝚘 𝚟𝚘𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚐... 𝙿𝚕𝚞𝚜, 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚕 𝚠𝚘𝚛𝚕𝚍 𝚒𝚜 𝚝𝚘𝚘 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚙𝚕𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚝𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚋𝚎 𝚞𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚝𝚘𝚘𝚍 𝚋𝚢 𝚖𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚖𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚕 𝚖𝚎𝚝𝚑𝚘𝚍 𝚊𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚎, 𝚖𝚞𝚌𝚑 𝚠𝚊𝚝𝚎𝚛 𝚑𝚊𝚜 𝚏𝚕𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝚍𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚃𝚑𝚊𝚖𝚎𝚜 𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚌𝚎 𝙳𝚎𝚜𝚌𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚎𝚜 𝚘𝚛 𝚑𝚊𝚜𝚗'𝚝 𝚒𝚝>> <<@TerryArdoin-z6v2e says : I think voting is like world maps somewhere better than others, but none are superior>> <<@Ekaph1998 says : The video bro sends me after seeing a single pro-Israel meme:>> <<@HarshKumarSingh-g8p3n says : What about MMP? You seem to completely disregard it>> <<@Sledgeh101 says : FWIW Al Gore lost the 2000 election because he couldn't even carry his own state of Tennessee. If he had, the outcome in Florida would not have mattered and only academics would ever know what a hanging chad was.>> <<@Tinyflower1 says : fun fact, democracy through voting like we have it now was called oligarchy in ancient athens, only democracy through sortition (like how jury duty works) was considered true democracy>> <<@RiumEqua says : When you understand really big numbers you know why this can't work.>> <<@earlybird-p7h says : Party politics is mathematicaly impossible. A representative direct democracy is significantly fairer. Government members are appointed based on their qualifications and make independent decisions regarding to day-to-day operations. The people vote on various proposed solutions on relevant issues. Originating from the government or the public. These proposals are assessed beforehand for feasibility and funding. The people can overturn independent government decisions that are poor or flawed.>> <<@IRumburakI says : I hate that opposition is forever trying to destroy the other side. How's that ever work for people.>> <<@eddycorreiasart says : 🤔 Cuz all it takes is one dumb vote, even if 99.99% of the population abstained it would still be democracy...!? 🤣🤣🤣>> <<@PSantos-fp7bo says : What exactly is the d'Hont voting system? We use it for the Parliament elections. Presidential elections are one vote for the preferred candidate. If she or he has 50%+1 of the Votes We have a winner.>>