Simple answer: Democracy is not practiced in the majority of countries around the world. Non-democratic countries are more than 60% of the entire world.
@janostoth4315 Says:
My idea for voting is this.
Every voter gets 3 Votes. "A" for his primary choice. "B" for his secondary choice (only comes in effect, if choice A was not the winner). "C" for his third best choice (only comes in effect, if choice A AND B was not the winner).
Choice A (favorite) is worth 5 "electoral points".
Choice B (second best) is worth 3 "electoral points".
Choice C (third best) is worth 1 "electoral points".
I dont see clearly all the consequences of this method (and there is probably no perfect way for voting), but this could be helpful to make sure, there is 1 winner and the other parties get also a part of the "seats" on a way, that reflects the wishes of the voters.
@netherphantom6805 Says:
Philosophically choosing the perfect one is impossible. What you can do it choose them all and then cut them off as you go. This is still not enough to work consistently, but it's atleast the worse of the best.
@Sir1Rab Says:
Approval voting would easily be gamed.
@ArabiTahmid Says:
আমরা একটি পরস্পরবিরোধী ফলাফল পাব
@Mikołaj-g9b Says:
Its not who votes that counts its who counts that votes - Stalin
@omyiscool Says:
I believe and will always believe it doesn't matter if a country is democratic or not. What matters is countries being ruled by good leaders.
@AceTylercholine Says:
I don't see the problem with the 2nd RCV situation. You gave the situation where Bohr became less popular, but all that matters is people's opinions at the time of voting. Curie was the least popular candidate, so she gets eliminated, then Bohr is the most popular candidate in the 2nd round; that's democracy, that's exactly how it should work, why is that bad?
@dudermcdudeface3674 Says:
LOL! Not even going to dignify another one of these "right and wrong aren't real, and death means life is pointless" emo trips. Democracy isn't a result, it's a basic expression of decency and self-respect that simply asserts human rights, no more and no less. The fact that it ever happens anywhere, and the concept even exists in human consciousness, means tyranny already failed.
@lofothelofer Says:
what about a lottery to select the candidate.
@herusmonteiromelo3410 Says:
Best type of government its a monarch where the king cares for his people
@robertsprafke9376 Says:
In my city / county elections the voters have been diametrically split into two camps for about ten years. The state of Arkansas voters voted to allow four city’s to have casinos just in four specific city’s. Our city was chosen but we were unposed the casino , by a city vote. And then buy a county vote. But the powers to be kept challenged the vote every time. Our city and county was known as dry no alcohol sales period, after ten years of voting tricks the city has almost every restaurant selling beer and the voters are either called do good Baptist or gambling sinners. The city council has been voted out twice and the church going Baptist are shunned by society as non progressive. The casinos are still flooding money into the area to sway newcomers and young voters. The subject stays on the lips of everyone because of the all the tax revenue and give aways the city is missing. At this time the city is trying to break the budget with projects that they never will be able to pay off or maintain just to force the casinos approval.
@HOOOPER Says:
The title should be: why representave democracy working perfectly exactly 100% of the time is impossible.
@HOOOPER Says:
7:55 this is assuming that curie voters aren't also affected by the terrible change that bohr made and vote Einstein instead.
@The-True-Doi Says:
Hexagons ARE the bestagons.
@princesorathiya7009 Says:
15:52 how c can below b, there are many flaws in this video but this particular i didn't find in comment section so highlighting, This guy only have interest in knowing but the logic
@dannywelbz3650 Says:
South Africa has the system where you vote for one candidate . There's 400 seats in parliament and you get seats dependent on the amount of votes but for decions to be made you need 67 percent of the votes in parliament so unless a party gets 67 they have to convince the other parties to vote for them so smaller parties can have an impact by giving their votes to get something that's in the interest of their voters. ( The system seems like a good one if it wasn't run by greedy people without brains )
@havable Says:
What the world needs is less authoritarianism propaganda. Unliking this one.
@Snk_Gorro Says:
I have a big problem with your example at 7:45. If his speeches were bad enough that some of his voters chose to vote for Einstein (the opposite) and lost him 6% then the voters of Marie Skwodovska Curie wouldn't have split 50-50 either. And even in the case it happens it would be one in a million, people tend to change to the closest candidate instead of going for the opposite. Marie Skwodovska Curie would have obtained some of the votes and Einstein the rest of the 6%. Einstein would have been eliminated and Skwodovska Curie would have obtained his votes like the previous example. What's more the objective of the "Ranking vote" isn't to elect the single most popular representative but the one which aligns best with the population so Skwodovska Curie winning makes actual sense. I feel like the amount of research put into this video is lacking.
Later in the video you talk about approval rating voting which is functionally the same as giving a preference rank to the candidates. Check the maths with some examples and you will see they work in the same way.
What's more with the example of the pivotal voter it just works, if 5 people rank B > A > C, 5 people rank C > A > B and one person ranks A > B > C or A > C > B then A should be the winner. This is the result with approval voting or ranking.
@hymy1974 Says:
What about representational fractional voting?
1 Person, 1 ballot, 100% choice -> You can choose 70% for X, 20% for Y and 10% for Z
No thwarting "first through the gate".
No perverting "electoral college".
Restoring representation instead of coercing voters into vote-capture feudalism...
...
@zorrowcg Says:
(D) Propaganda, Lies, & Disinformation
@AndyMyron Says:
Nobody would like Bohr winning over Einstein. 😁
@dirkcampbell5847 Says:
7:00 Bohr starts off most popular, then he goofs so he loses some of his support to Einstein. That eliminates Curie, so then Bohr ends up most popular again. I don't see the problem. Great video by the way. And yes, *true* democracy is mathematically impossible but that doesn't invalidate democracy. It's inefficient, it's unfair, it's laborious, it's time-consuming, it's open to corruption but it's still better than other systems of government when you stack up all the pros and cons.
@alexanderhorner Says:
I wish this video would also mention something like parliamentary democracy.
@MoltenKarbon Says:
Democracy is not only mathematically impossible, but the notion of there being a concept of democracy as "a political system where people elect there own representatives" is invalid, as all of the people would have to vote for the same candidate (so that it proves that all of the people agree in that one candidate's views, and none think of it as the majority opposing their views.), but this is not practically possible. That, or every So, any person who voted for a candidate who did not get elected is basically living under a dictatorship in their perspective. Any so-called democracy thus is just a dictatorship where the majority wins and rules, elections are a civil war, where instead of fighting physically, only the numerical strength of an army (the voters) is taken into consideration. It more so happens that a singular party cannot achieve a total victory in the elections, and instead has to make coalitions with other parties (in most countries), even if there is a majority, say 60%, the rest 40% are still living under oppression.
@EvanEttore-j5h Says:
15:58 sorry if I'm being a bit stupid here, but can someone please explain to me why C>B>A doesn't work?
@michaelotto8696 Says:
Democracy IS impossible. Since clueless people far out number people that actually know what they're doing, eventually they eventually take over the county and everything winds up in the toilet. No math necessary.
@johnatkin1096 Says:
Why not vote on the issues, leaving candidates and parties out of it and tell the civil service to act accordingly ?
@Otavio-v4o Says:
I think this is my favourite youtube video of all time
@joaopaulol.189 Says:
Legit just have multiple contests eliminating candidates every turn until only 2 remain, like a tournament. If someone wants to vote for a politician that has no chance of winning, they can yet when the round is over and that candidate is eliminated, that same someone needs to vote again for any of the other candidates.
@_xBrokenxDreamsx_ Says:
Capitalism is market democracy, and prices are the mathematical mechanism that makes it work.
Market Democracy: Voting with Your Wallet
In a political democracy, individuals express preferences by casting votes on ballots. Majority rules (with various checks), and elected officials then allocate resources.
In market democracy (capitalism/free enterprise), individuals express preferences by spending money. Every purchase is a vote:
Buying a product = "I prefer this over the alternatives."
Not buying = "This is not worth it to me at this price."
Buying more when price drops or quality rises = stronger approval.
These "votes" are continuous, highly granular, and intensely personal. You don't vote once every few years for a bundle of policies; you vote thousands of times per year on specific trade-offs.
Producers (businesses) must compete for these dollar-votes. The ones that best satisfy consumer preferences win more revenue, expand, hire more people, and attract more capital. The ones that don't lose money and shrink or die. This is consumer sovereignty — the customer is ultimately in charge.
This system is democratic in a deeper sense than politics because:
Everyone participates proportionally to the value they create for others (your "voting power" comes from producing things people want).
Minorities have voice — niche products survive if enough people value them, unlike political majoritarianism that can ignore 49%.
Exit power is strong — you can switch brands instantly without needing to win an election.
Decentralized knowledge — millions of people making local decisions using their own information beats any central authority.
Prices: The Math That Computes It All
Prices are the critical calculation layer that turns individual votes into coordinated action across the entire economy.
1. Prices Aggregate Dispersed Information
No single person knows the full picture: what resources are scarce, what technologies are improving, what millions of people value at the margin. Prices summarize all of this into a single number.
If a resource becomes scarcer (drought hits coffee crops), its price rises → signals everyone to use less and producers to find alternatives.
If new technology lowers costs (fracking for natural gas), prices fall → signals massive expansion of use.
If consumers suddenly want more of something (electric vehicles), prices and profits rise in that sector → capital and talent flow there automatically.
This is what Friedrich Hayek called the price system as a communication network. It transmits knowledge that no central planner could ever possess.
2. Prices Perform Economic Calculation
Ludwig von Mises emphasized this: rational resource allocation requires economic calculation.
Prices of inputs + expected output prices → expected profit/loss.
Positive profit = "Society values the outputs more than the inputs used."
Loss = "You're destroying value — resources would be better used elsewhere."
Without market prices for capital goods and factors of production, central planners face the calculation problem. They can measure physical quantities (tons of steel, kilowatts of power), but they have no common denominator to compare trade-offs. Is building a bridge worth the steel that could have built tractors? Prices convert everything into a common unit of account.
3. Prices Coordinate Incentives and Feedback
High prices incentivize:
Consumers to economize
Producers to supply more
Innovators to invent substitutes
Low prices signal abundance and tell people to use more freely.
This feedback loop is constant and self-correcting. Contrast this with government price controls (rent control, minimum wage as price floor, etc.), which break the math and create shortages or surpluses.
Simple Example
Imagine the market for smartphones:
Consumers "vote" by buying iPhones, Samsungs, or cheaper Androids.
Prices of chips, rare earths, labor, and energy fluctuate.
Apple sees high profits → invests in better cameras, chips, ecosystems.
Competitors copy or innovate alternatives.
Suppliers of tantalum adjust output based on price signals.
A new material or manufacturing breakthrough drops component prices → better phones at lower prices for everyone.
No central committee decides how many phones, of what quality, using what materials. The price system computes the solution through billions of voluntary transactions.
Key Insight
Capitalism isn't primarily about "greed" or even private property alone. It is a discovery and coordination procedure where:
Property rights create clear decision-makers.
Voluntary exchange reveals true preferences.
Prices do the math — aggregating subjective values into objective signals that guide resource allocation far better than any alternative.
This is why market economies have historically delivered unprecedented improvements in living standards. The "votes" of billions of people, processed through the price mechanism, create an emergent order vastly more sophisticated than any designed system.
@deegee621 Says:
Democracy works pretty well when you dont elect a dictator who has lot of power
@JDNboy12 Says:
3:40 great cameo after coming from grey's video (even if it was 11 years old at this point haha)
@NumberblocksthecreatorAlgodoo Says:
0:05 thx for including wails
@samlebon9884 Says:
I would say, "Democracy is 'algorithmically' possible."
Former U.S. President Thomas Jefferson said, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
What would he say today? Maybe:
"A democracy is nothing more than oligarchic rule, where one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other ninety-nine."
@hopebaumann2119 Says:
5:23 has a eastr egg
@hopebaumann2119 Says:
3:52
@IbrahimZaidSiddiqui Says:
APPROVAL VOTING IS SAME AS NORMAL VOTING
@NETERRO Says:
2026 may 21 11:11 iQOO Z10 5G silchar
Wish :- laut aao ex
@cutty02 Says:
how about we just get rid of the representatives and just vote per issue instead.
@LTDubois Says:
Democracy is chaos and irrational.
@HeyArnoldpåsvenska Says:
Why Democracy Is Mathematically Impossible:
= "Yes, Germany was back then a democracy, before us and we’ve been plundered and squeezed dry. No more. What does democracy or authoritarian state mean for those international hyenas? They don’t care at all! They are only interested in one thing. Are you willing to be plundered? Yes or no? Are you stupid enough to keep quiet in the process? Yes or no? And, when a democracy is stupid enough not to stand up, then it is good! But when an authoritarian state declares “You do not plunder our people any longer”, neither from the inside or outside, then that is bad. In reality, money rules in these countries. They talk about press freedom when in fact these newspapers have one owner and the owner is, in any case, the sponsor. This press then shapes public opinion, these political parties don’t have any differences at all, like before with us. You already know the old political parties. They were all the same. Then people must think that especially in these countries of freedom and wealth, there should exist a very comfortable life for its people, but the opposite is the case. In these countries, in the so-called “Democracies”, the people are by no means the main focus of attention. What really matters is the existence of this group of “Democracy makers”. That is, the existence of a few hundred of giant capitalists who own all the factories and shares and who, ultimately, lead the people. They are not interested at all in the great mass of people, they are the only ones who can be addressed as international elements because they conduct their business everywhere. It is a small, rootless, international clique that is turning the people against each other, that does not want them to have peace. They can suppress us! They can kill us, if you like! But we will not capitulate!" -- Adolf Hitler
"I don’t believe I’ll ever see again a people as happy and content as were the great majority of Germans under Hitler, especially in peacetime. Certainly some minorities suffered: former parliamentary politicians – because they couldn’t play their political games; the Jews – because they lost their power over Germany; the gypsies – because during the war they were required to work; and crooked union bosses – because they lost their parasitical positions. To this day I believe that the happiness of the majority of a people is more important than the well-being of a few spoiled minorities. In school there should be emphasis on promoting the best and the intelligent, as was done in Germany during the Hitler years – a fact that contributed after the war to the rapid German reconstruction. That Hitler was loved by his people, there can be no question. Even a few week’s before the war’s end and his death, he was able to drive to the front and mingle among the combat soldiers with only minimum security. None of the soldiers had to unload their weapons before meeting with the Fuhrer (as was required when President Bush met with American soldiers during the Gulf War)."
Hans Schmidt
@WalkandTalkOffish Says:
The James Cleverly Effect indicates strategic voting in IRV would almost certainly not happen on a meaningful scale. You'd just need strict campaign finance laws alongside it.
@kubola2008 Says:
14:34 she is not Marie Curie, she is Maria Skłodowska-Curie, she is not French, but Polish
@harbhajandosanjh9856 Says:
China and Burka Faso proved the world that no democracy works for the majority. Democracy is the biggest HOAX.
@YuukiMaster888 Says:
I'm curious about what logical role the Pivotal candidate (the dictator one) would be, is that any different from the +1 in the "50%+1"?
@maarten7601 Says:
The entire problem is based on the premise that the party with the most votes rules alone. Let them form a coalition (like in the Netherlands) and the entire problem from this video is gone.
@NoNameIdk1 Says:
When i was a little kid I thought democracy was when everyone chose each choice sepererately instead of just picking someone who has the most similar choices
@prosamuraigaming1972 Says:
That's a good idea. Let's put that to a vote...wait...
@farago_csaba Says:
The elections in North Korea is the most straightforward: being the turnout almost 100% and the ruling pary gets almost 100% of the votes, furthermore those who did not vote or wrongly voted are senteced to lifelong forced labor or death, all the 5 conditions are satisfied.
LATEST COMMENTS