Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@ven1483 says : Isn't the title incorrect? Shouldn't it be "Why Majority Vote Makes Democracy Impossible"?>> <<@roteschwert says : Democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all the other systems there is>> <<@fnxph03n1x says : Aye. That's why I am against democracy. The system is broken the way it's used.>> <<@graemesmith5195 says : In fact, the more we think about this Einstein/Curie/Bohr scenario, the more we can see that Bohr definitely does NOT win. When Bohr did his egregious act he burned off some of his supporters. That's bad enough ...to lose voters who liked you enough to give you their first preference and then desert to Einstein is not an easy thing to do. But what about Curie's supporters? They always preferred Curie to Bohr, but some of them were going to at least 2nd preference him. But those 2nd preferences are much easier for Bohr to lose. Curie voters don't really like him anyway so his egregious act will cause even MORE of them to ditch him as their 2nd preference. If he is losing his own first preferences to Einstein he will definitely lose even more of Curie's 2nd preferences to Einstein as well. You can't ignore that and blithely allocate her 30% evenly to Bohr and Einstein. It's quite likely in this scenario you've created that Bohr won't get any of Curie's 2nd preferences.>> <<@kdmq says : Almost makes me think there needs to be a dictator that is simply has such good morals that they do not do anything unethical to their own people whatsoever. I mean, we already have such a dictator in the sky.>> <<@graemesmith5195 says : You have arbitrarily allocated Curie's 2nd Preferences without any mathematical reason. In fact you must assume a similar impact on the voting preferences of Curie's voters as happened to Bohr voters when he did whatever it was that burned everyone off. You just blithely gave Curie's 30% share of the vote as 15% to Einstein and 15% to Bohr, but that's wrong. Bohr's mistake affected Curie's voters too and they switched their 2nd P away from Bohr, so a more likely result is that Curie's 30% was distributed 20% to Einstein and 10% to Bohr. In which case Einstein wins with 51%. And Bohr loses after all. Democracy is only PART mathematics ...it's also driven by human behavior and if you introduce that as a factor (as you did by saying Bohr did something egregious), you have to examine how it affects all voters, not just Bohr's first preferences.>> <<@Tortall2012 says : 6:09 The commentary on the Minneapolis Mayoral election is hilarious as a person who was just a year shy of being allowed to vote, because yes it was kind crazy how the entire thing went down and yes my parents weren’t entirely sure how to explain it to their nearly voting age kids cuz it just isn’t something that happens.>> <<@Ciprian-IonutPanait says : You forgeot the biggest problem: if you have more than 10k people voting one person most have no way of knowing the candidates. So the only elligible ones are the ones that can afford not to work for at least 2 years even if they lose and have enough money to campaign. This means to be elligible you either have to be rich or have a powerful economic entity controlling you. The ellection game is thus rigged.>> <<@jennygriffyn1897 says : I'm surprised you make this video without having a look at the Australian system of preferential voting, it solves these problems>> <<@Ciprian-IonutPanait says : 0:04 for more than 10k people electing 1 person>> <<@graemesmith5195 says : The flaw in your argument is this:... if Bohr did or said something to suddenly turn off some of his 1st Preference voters and cause them to name Einstein as their 1st Preference, then likewise his actions must also have had an effect on the 2nd Preference of some of the Einstein AND Curie voters. They're all citizens and they all heard Bohr's dreadful faux pas so you cannot just say that his 1st Preference voters were the only one's influenced at the last minute to change their vote. Some Einstein AND Curie voters must also have changed their 2nd Preference away from Bohr !! It doesn't make sense to claim that Bohr's 1st Preference voters were the only ones pissed off by him at the last minute. Your assumption that enough of Curie's 2nd Preferences would now flow back to Bohr is just that... an assumption. The same forces and influences that cause some Bohr voters to change their 1st Preference will also cause some Einstein and Curie voters to change their 2nd Preference.>> <<@cate01a says : the game might be croked, so lets adress its problems. we dont need to turn a blind eye and go "oh! thats just how it is! it wont change! dont waste time on that imposssible issue!" changing the voting to a mathematically superior version is stupid simple, and no reason it shouldnt be done core problems like money in politics is also super obvious and straightforward to fix, and it would solve so many problems.>> <<@donaldedward4951 says : Complete democracy is impossible for any group too large to be contained one room. However Representation Democracy is not only possible but desirable for all except the power-hungry who wish to impose a particular belief on a community or who are corruptly self-seeking. Al Owen>> <<@ehess4830 says : Let's say (which is the case in most countries) that a majority of the most entitlement-minded, least common sensed and least sustainable economy-minded people live in hoghly populated towns and all of the most intelligent and experientially economic wisest people are farmers and entrepreneurs who live far from the cities, are spread across the majority of the the physical land but are sparsely populated. In this scenario, the politician which panders to the non-sustainable, entitled-minded majority population of individuals typically wins and therefore the country is destroyed slowly over time through non-sustainable policy implementation. Therefore, the American Democrat party of non-sustainable, ignorance pandering policy almost always wins and the parties such as the Libertarian party, with sustainable future solutions almost never wins. In the end, what does it matter how voting is calculated if the majority of (ignorant & gullible) like minded city dwelling people are always voting for the party who will give them the most free government handouts (other people's money), and have no care for where the actual money comes from (be it from the money printing press or hard-working people) nor concern for the Long-Term sustainability of the implementations?>> <<@DoesntHurtYet says : Remember when 30's Germany was possibly one of the most loved systems of all of human history 🫡 Democracy is never the only solution.>> <<@vredacted3125 says : 16:06 it’s obvious C wins>> <<@ultrasometimes8908 says : AI will solve everything until the right wing zealots zealots decides technology technology is the devil then the machine crusade begins>> <<@meaculpamishegas says : I have the same socks, most of them wore out quicker than most any socks I’ve ever had; sports socks are always crummy>> <<@meaculpamishegas says : This is why elections traditionally gave voters a single “Nay” vote, and why we should revert back to it>> <<@hillelgazit3330 says : Who says that the system has to be fair? IMO "fair" plus random value is better because new ideas have a small chance to win.>> <<@Nightstick24 says : Here in Canada we use first past the post, and it really sucks! I wish we had a different system! Here, there are three major parties, Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP, as well as minor parties like the Green Party and Bloc Québécois, and independents. But, thanks to first past the post, that pretty much always just turns into a two-party race that differs by area. Here in British Columbia, it is and has been for a long time a battle between the NDP and Conservatives. Nobody else gets nearly enough votes. Which leads myself, and everyone I’ve ever talked to, stuck either voting for the NDP because you don’t want the Conservatives or the Conservatives because you don’t want the NDP. Especially so locally where the last election was decided by less than 1,000 votes in three different municipalities. Even if you otherwise agree with a different party more, any vote that isn’t for the NDP or Conservatives is essentially wasted. I think with a different system like ranked choice we could see a lot more diversity and get a much better idea of where people stand.>> <<@shehzadshah4104 says : The candidate at one end doing badly in the campaign, would help the center candidate, why the opposite end??>> <<@marvinzhang3734 says : Democracy is a show in the United States. Cause the country is owned by that we cannot speak of>> <<@ThomasVWorm says : Interesting. But the main error is that the result of the vote is a single candidate winning. A single candidate cannot represent the entire electorate. So having a president is nothing but a stupid idea. You replace the king by democracy and then you use democracy to elect a king. You cannot solve this by a voting system.>> <<@dominicpagano6930 says : What are the downsides to a ranked choice voting system where the placement of candidates gives “points” to the candidate and the candidate with the most points wins? Similar to Heisman award voting in college football lol>> <<@Fattoxthegreat says : Democracy is a scam. Got it.>> <<@brennanheitz6226 says : Friendly reminder that George Washington told us to not do political parties>> <<@cliffhutchison861 says : At least you made an attempt at defining "democracy". That's more than the people who say they're "defending democracy" even think to do. Don't let the ignoramuses drag you down, mate.>> <<@rezababaei1724 says : what if we use normal voting (past post or something ) and eliminate the top vote because its not voted by the majority>> <<@theladynextdoor says : Propaganda that tries to undermine democracy>> <<@MidgetOpposum says : Interestingly, in Quebec, we have two axes for political parties. There is obviously the left/right distinction, as well as the separatist/federalist distinction. This adds complexity to the first past the post system we have, resulting in 4 political parties that have elected candidates. Obviously though, I would love to switch to one of those better systems presented in this video.>> <<@BulentBasaran says : As I replied in a chain: The practical problem of a hierarchical democratic organization of the whole state (federal government at the top, then state governments, then local governments, then companies and large families, i.e., clans) is more interesting than these theoretical musings. let's hope we get another video on this topic. After all, in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.>> <<@hanslepoeter5167 says : All this does not matter much. The reality is that very little people investigate programs and results for what to vote for.If it they do ( not many ) they are still likely to vote in their own interest. In my opinion, people should make a minimum effort, maybe earn a voting certificate, to be able to vote in the first place. Then add a requirement for possession and income, maybe number of children. Then let them vote.>> <<@hanslepoeter5167 says : If they all sing cumbaya, it does not matter much. There are all good candidates in a coherent community.>> <<@poems35 says : I am an engineer, not a mathematician. Let's not make practical the enemy of perfection. We should use the method with the least chance of undesired results. After all, little in life is perfect.>> <<@TeknycMedia says : "First past the post" likely stems from the post at the end of a race.>> <<@sargent4465 says : 03:00 the same thing happend last Election in Turkey. Most of the people voted for the third person instead of Kilicdaroglu and it ended in another Erdogan victory...>> <<@shanmukhaevani4594 says : The hate for einstein was just unreal>> <<@Intrafacial86 says : This just emphasizes the importance multiple layers of representation. But yeah, literally anything is better than FPTP.>> <<@Avgur_Smile says : I don't understand why do you get USA as a model of a democracy? Don't confuse a circus with an election. :-D>> <<@andykerass3695 says : Just a few things... this is about representative democracy, not pure democracy (which i was hoping the vid would be about for some reason 😅). What do they say about a functional democracy... its about compromises. Ecconomists cause enough trouble, why are they poking their noses into things like democracy and coming up with theories like "grabby aliens" (i know thats off topic but my point stands lol. The preferential voting election gave a fair result even though the winner did worse in the second theoretical situation, given the 2 stongest candidates the people made their choice. Third the rating from -10 to +10 approval is clearly going to give more weight to the voters with the strongest +/- ratings; ie. No more one vote one person, some votes will count for more. Possibly leading with a minority that have crazy strong opinions choosing the winner 🤔 i think this is a case of over thinking something to the point of losing perspective. With respect, i enjoy your vids 👍>> <<@ajuk1 says : I am aware of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, that doesn't mean to say elections can't be improved on or that one system isn't fairer than another, I think IRV is still demonstrably fairer than FPtP.>> <<@bhushanshedabal887 says : what is the probability of Condorcet paradox actually occurring in a large sample size of voters?>> <<@StephenMcGregor1986 says : No one defeats Switzerland, no one. Only legit reason I heard it won't work anywhere else? the populations are too idiotic and easily mislead by their media; this came from a self-aware American, well done, at least some of you do know some of the reasons of why you're screwed. "U" SA my ass.>> <<@lukaszrower7612 says : Maybe a madman's dream, but we have nothing better at the moment…>> <<@HarryPujols says : No basic runoff election mentioned here? If no candidate reaches 50% + 1, the two highest choices go against each other for a second round. Simple.>> <<@kumamarru5492 says : I've wanted ranked choice voting for so long. FPTP always leaves me voting for the lesser of two evils because the guy I actually like is "unelectable">> <<@BroudbrunMusicMerge says : "The pivotal voter is a dictator" is one of those sentences that sounds insane, is technically true, but ultimately imo is a moot point, since the order in which each person's vote is counted is entirely arbitrary>> <<@hola25251212 says : Technology allows us to vote as many times as needed, the biggest issue is who puts the options and who is allowed to vote, if we can't put people that will act in the benefit of the many against their personal gain all system's are meant for doom, even a good king is better than a bad president>> <<@bengaltigre53 says : You misspelled unanimity :(>>