Democracy only works in Christian society where everyone has the same values and culture. Otherwise it is just a tool for the people who can brainwash and or coerce the best.
@ElkoJohn Says:
What about the best democracy that big money can buy?
This works about 75% of the time in the US elections.
@rossbooth4635 Says:
If the Oscars (which don't matter) can make ranked voting work, why can't we?
@Musicarchicve Says:
this has become a haven channel for communist rhetoric in the last few years I've noticed
@BouhartsevStudio Says:
What happened to Einstein? Has his party replaced him with Aristotle at some point?
@kyledabearsfan Says:
Id argue everyone holding hands and singing can be just as bad to policy and auccessful governance as it would for all mud slinging 😂
@dwlleletpocket6290 Says:
Very nice topic and also explained very well. From India
@fredvanleeuwen9996 Says:
What about a parliamentary democracy like the Netherlands where people vote for one of many parties and can give a preferential vote to one of the candidates in that party.
Usually the leader of the party that received most votes becomes the prime minister, but not always.
After coalition talks in which parties have agreed to form a government they can agree on another prime minister then the leader of the largest party. Currently the Netherlands has a government that consists of 4 parties that agreed to make a non political government official the prime minister.
@me_4th_42_sonukumar3 Says:
I have an Idea.... If you vote for a Party, that party get's to be YOUR government for next five years.... Parallel government with power in ratio of votes, with their constituencies to work are the voters who chose them....
@anarchyantz1564 Says:
I hear America is soon to replace Democracy with "High Profile Alpha Males"
@MikeRomulus Says:
I'd like to point out that this video is mostly focued on single candidates, and not political party allocations of seats in a parliamentary system. In Germany they as an example, use d'Hondts method of allocation, while in Denmark they use a mixture of d'Hondt and Saint Lagüe. While these systems naturally has flaws as well, specifically they either favor larger parties (d'Hondt) or smaller parties (Saint Lagüe), they do provide a more accurate representation of the populations wishes.
@LonnieYoung-h6h Says:
Time to throw out the electoral college!
@sushrutmokashi1251 Says:
@veritasium This issue might be with selection of single person, But What about Coalitions? And the 2/3rd majority rule? How well do they do in addressing such issues??
@jeyruff429 Says:
21:47 "The game might be crooked, but it's the only game in town."
*THEN FIX IT. It's your game.* How? Simple:
First step: ⭐STAR Voting; but a possibly better first step might be a system to force candidates to answer questions *_under oath_* (real penalties for lying) with prosecutors (no dodging questions) and judges all parties agree to (no crying foul), or face disqualification from any ballot. It _is_ simple...
...but not easy. Tons of people will fool themselves into some lie that it wouldn't benefit The People, knowing it would. If you're in a democracy, then it belongs to you equally, no more and no less than others, by definition -- especially if your constitution or equivalent specifically says so like in the USA. So...
Who's ready to get some Democracy duct tape? ✝️☮️🇺🇲 --J
@KenJessberger Says:
I feel like we're still riding a horse because our spaceship doesn't have a turn signal. Just give us ranked voting & figure out the nuances later!
@PrincessUnicornSprinkles Says:
I dont get why everyone getting a vote and someone winning needs to be this hard. Count votes, pick winner.
@mrteabig9816 Says:
You cannot have a pivotal voter that knows he is a pivotal voter. This means there is no pivotal voter aka democracy is mathematically possible
@atomatopia1 Says:
11:10 - At least the way it’s described in this video - how is Condorcet’s paradox a problem? If there is no clear winner, then there is no clear winner. Sometimes a group of people don’t want one thing clearly more than another. I don’t think it’s wrong in a case like this to choose at random or select one in a particular order, rotating the order each time it occurs.
@atomatopia1 Says:
7:50 - Not only did Bohr have the highest percentage still, even after his bad speech, but he still got all 1/2 of Curie’s voters when Curie got knocked out. If he did so bad in the speech and lost voters, shouldn’t he be represented as losing voters from Curie’s group as well? If he only loses a portion of his “devoted” voters but still has an equal population of “centrist” voters, doesn’t he still earn that portion of the vote? It doesn’t change the cause-effect relationship demonstrated where his bad speech does result in an his election - compared to the “control” run, though. I’m much more a fan of assigning points on ranked choice and just picking the one most in the lead.
@IustinDornescu Says:
But if voting is secret there isn't a dictator / pivotal voter from a pragmatic perspective. So instant runoff seems good enough in practice.
I'd need to read more about tallying approval votes, but either should be better than first past the post.
Still you need to outlaw gerrymandering...
@raidi2505 Says:
Well now that Trump won the election, democracy really is impossible
@matteloht Says:
14:17 just to be clear. There is NO nobel prize in economics.
@TheStoryCycleGulfCoastin-rr2wc Says:
Stop the madness. Please peer review this click bait. Fun stories. Stupid conclusion. Elections are Not Crooked! Stop and think again!
@SpaceBoiProot Says:
"nuclear shenanigans"
@jovelnom Says:
0:02 This part reminds me of Muammar Gaddafi book, The Green Book. Unfortunately, he went to a much peculiar system, it was a great read nonetheless.
@maxwell8758 Says:
FPP is the best option. All the others are flawed and don’t work well. You should only get one vote. Use it. And the two party system is the best way to operate. If there were more parties people would be even more divided.
@flemishgiantrabbitlove2869 Says:
I disagree because every time you're voting based on is their ideological principles not on what they say to sway votes
@jessemitchem3880 Says:
First past the post is by far the best and you can't prove it's not.
Your word salad video was just a bunch of smooth brained commie gobbledeegook.
Bush won because Gore and his policies were weak. Just a beta riding the coattails of a candidate who sold out the American worker to China for a quick economic bump, where his corrupt treasonous commie cadre extolled his treachery while regular folks suffered here in America while the new policies propped up slavery in China. Anti-human slavery loving demoncrats.
Just more blaming everyone else why everyone with critical thinking chooses anything else besides going back to the plantation.
Makes sense considering the source of these videos. Foolish.
@TheRealStevenBritton Says:
Having done lots of research on voting systems myself, if stable, “good” (I use quotes because, until politicians stop acting like politicians, no government will be good government), government is the goal, an adversarial parliamentary with a strong opposition is essential - because the duty of the opposition is to point out everything the government does is wrong, and present alternatives. This prevents “groupthink” and ensures that the government works to produce the absolute best policy it can, or it will end up getting tossed out of office at the next election - like what is about to happen in Canada. This means that, while First-Past-The-Post is not a completely balanced and democratic system, it really is”good enough”.
@TheRealStevenBritton Says:
18:43 the anonymity of the voter and the secrecy of the balloting process counteracts the dictator principle, because it is impossible to know how anyone else has voted. Even if the elect to disclose how they voted, without actually seeing them vote, you can never be completely sure if they’re telling the truth.
Therefore, there is no “dictator” voter.
@95l0uis Says:
I find the system in the country i live (Switzerland) veri interesting.
Im aware that this system cant be implemented very easy in many countries, and we have somewhat of a pribileged position.
We dont have a single President.
We have 7 federal councillors that govern the country and represent the most voted partys.
Here its not a winn or loose in an election, its rather a question how strongly the partys you vote vor are represented.
I always found the 2 Party System in America rather strange.
@szurkee Says:
My idea is sounds like that:
All voiter has doppelt points like canditates. Btw.: If its 10 candidates, them i have 20 points. And i can they so pread out, just i like. If i want, then can i put all of 20 points just for one canditate. Or tile between twoo candidates, like 10-10, or 9-11, or 13-7... Or 3-7-4-6.
Who collect more points, thes is the winner.
@DmitryGoodwin Says:
Nice!
@GurraDesu Says:
First past the post is absolutely the worst of all voting systems, but as much as I like the idea of a preference vote, if a party of demagogues tell their voters to rank every other candidate as the lowest possible value that will also create an issue with that voting system. The issue with voting is less to do with maths - which all these mathematicians like to ignore - and more to do with that voting is a feelings issue and the fact that people think and feel how they are told to think and feel.
Ranked choice is better because the least preferred candidate cannot win, even if the candidate who does win isn't the overwhelmingly preferred candidate. Even with a 3 party run-off the most hated candidate isn't going to win because the most hated candidate will always go to the bottom. Everyone can agree that having a leader that 'most' voters are at least agreeable towards is better than a system where the leader is someone most people just tolerate if not outright hate.
Of course, none of this matter if people don't vote to begin with. Voting should be mandatory, and elections shouldn't be considered eligible for counting unless a minimum voter turn-out threshold has been reached.
@Star17Platinum17 Says:
"Bring back monarchy and make me the king."
_~Dantes_
@sys_49152_sys Says:
the kumbaya thing made me wince
@firebird4909 Says:
This is a very long and conveluted way of saying that, democracy (the rule of the majority) doesn't work if there is no option with a majority. If you say it like that it isn't a suprise at all, it's what we should expect.
Like for example, in the food example there is no option a majority of the voters prefers over another, so it's no suprise we can't get a result for which is the most supported, that is the expected results.
This reminds me of Zeno's paradoxes, which are all really simple if you take out all of the complicated narratives. For example: Achilles and the tortoise have a 100 meter race, Achilles is 10 times faster than the tortoise, but because he thinks he can win, he gives the tortoise a 10 meter head start. When the race starts, Achilles runs 10 meters, but in this time the tortoise has run 1 meter, he runs one meter, but in that time the tortoise has run one tenth of a meter, if we continue this pattern, it seems Achilles never passes the tortoise, what is wrong? The answer is, nothing is wrong, this is exactly what we should expect: we are essentially saying, if we focus on the time before Achilles passes the tortoise, then Achilles never passes the tortoise.
@AlexiosofAle Says:
I believe that if a perfect democracy does or will exist, no one will get what they want. Maybe
@ShrishNavaneethakumar-ji9en Says:
For some f*ckin reason, my man hates einstein so damn bad
@northsoutheastweest8991 Says:
With all the difficulties of figuring out a functional voting system, sometimes I feel likes it would be better to just find ways to make society better without having to depend on elected officials.
@wyattcole5452 Says:
3:24 they 100% had a way, it’s called voting for Bush’s opposition 😂 wtf
@rathpunks Says:
The instant runoff one didnt seem an issue. Bohr was winning round one, and still won round two, it didnt seem like an upset at all
@TelscombeTerror Says:
Kamala got hit so hard by the red wave that FEMA sent her $750
@hrvojesalinovic5883 Says:
.... pseudo-mathematics
@LordQueezle Says:
Well it's a good thing the majority of US citizens decided to elect a dictator wanna be who has said he'll remove the paradox of voting altogether from the US
@MrMaxya Says:
We aren’t supposed to be one, we’re are supposed to be a constitutional republic
@glitch_god7287 Says:
This is why we go for republicans guys. After all, the US was created to be a republic, where the governement works for the people, not the other way around.
LATEST COMMENTS