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 :(
@justice-p7f Says:
Kenneth Arrow - the Nobel Price Laureat Winner - drawed a dual proof that democracy is mathematically sound and completeness requirements as well as consistency is fulfilled - not to mention perfect consistency and density-coherence requirements.
@TOTV13 Says:
In the UK there is kick back against our FPTP system every election, the preferred voting system of each objector is the, equally flawed, voting system that gives them the greatest chance of winning, this shouldn't be a surprise. The most popular alternatives, in a two party system with some unelectable outliers, are the systems which encourage voters to make a supplementary vote for a candidate they don't want, the outlier, but perhaps don't want to a degree less than they don't want a third option, the main alternative, which only boosts the apparent popularity of a fringe party. In today's society, with fringe parties becoming more and more radical, this presents a serious problem.
@PaulTeska Says:
Kenneth Arrow did the best type of stealing. He stole from fringe groups, and they had already developed his ideas for hundreds of years. He collected the ideas of other people, and then claimed them as his own. I belong to one of the fringe groups that he stole from.
@fatlip8315 Says:
Democracy is mathematically possible.
We all have to work together -
We collectively decided upon putting up Flags, acrossed the globe. We flag nationa protect the uncontacted tribes, which are allowed and recognized to love the way they do.
Flag nations are democratic. They do work together. Theyre all similar flags. Similar recognition.
Where did these other people come from that want to strip and decieve people?
@erweber1 Says:
Remove transitivity as a requirement. It's undemocratic.
@YoBoyNeptune Says:
Am I dumb or does 7:43 not make any sense? If Bohr did something bad wouldn't the people changing their vote go for the moderate candidate and moderates be more likely to put Einstein as their second choice? That example seems to ignore its own premise
@ich_q Says:
Russia is so true 1:17
@nathanblair7266 Says:
Alright, then you just have to reject the premise out of the five that says "no one vote should determine the outcome for everyone else", which was incredibly stupid from the moment you bring up a population with an odd number of people.
@moizshaikh9844 Says:
Not a scholar in world history, but is it possible that we have assigned a negative tone to dictatorship? I am pretty sure there have been amazing kings, queens, 'dictators' etc that have been great in governing their people
@shirleyramacey7152 Says:
Martin Michelle Moore Betty Thompson Daniel
@LisaFrankie143 Says:
why are we only talking about European history??...surely examples of this happened all over the world throughout history. it's just weird
@lhommealenvers Says:
The notion of pivotal coter being a dictator seems flawed to me because the voters are considered ordered, while in reality they are not. All voters with the same voting preferences as the pivotal voter could be swapped with them with no difference in the outcome. So they all share that pivotal characteristic.
@mylittledashie7419 Says:
Ah yes, the opposite of a conservative... a liberal. That sounds right to me, I certainly can't think of another word that more accurately describes an ideology opposed to conservativism. One that, instead of trying to conserve the status quo, maybe instead tries to progress it? Nope, liberal's the right word I'm pretty sure.
@ioannis2567 Says:
@Veritasium the title is a little bit misleading, you criticize the voting system of the US and all these maths are applied to this particular voting system or similar voting procedure with the problem of the representation.
The most famous criticism about the lack of democracy in this system came from the swiss Jean Jaque Rousseau and so Switzerland has a more direct democratic system where people engage more frequently and actively to the political decisions with referendums.
@mylittledashie7419 Says:
The example with Bohr, Currie, and Einstein just seems completely silly. Let's drop the pretence and just call them what they're supposed to be. A left candidate, a centre candidate, and a right candidate. So the right candidate makes such a fool of himself that some of his voters skip over the centrist candidate (who's more ideologically in line with them) all the way to the left candidate. Strange enough already, but then to add on to that the idea that the centrist candidate would split evenly between left and right, even though we just said the right wing candidate made a fool of himself, and it just becomes non-sensical.
Not to mention there's no real world practicality to this. There's no world in which a candidate could intentionally do worse, knowing their voters would flip to the other side, but that centrist voters wouldn't have their minds changed at all.
Really all this example boils down to is that, in a situation where the centre candidate is the least popular, an extreme candidate will win... which seems reasonable enough to me, when you consider that then centre voters would still have picked that extreme candidate as their second choice. The point is to end up with a representative that *most* people are reasonably happy with.
@philbowl2000 Says:
i don't get why you specify that "if everyone votes A over B, society's view is also A over B", in my head everyone who votes is the society. they're what makes up the society, or certainly the large majority of it. so what's the difference between society and voters...?
@tjrysanek9019 Says:
Does anyone know why condorcets paradox would at all be an issue with large sample sizes? If the common model of left right and moderate was used it would be extremely unlikely that a stalemate like that would ever occur no? I don't exactly forsee voters choosing their polar opposite choice as #2 and the 3rd party as last right?
@luisaalvares7798 Says:
False premise: DEMOCRACY DOES NOT EQUATE TO ELECTIONS.
@hornz5 Says:
Here's a thought. Maybe we don't need "leaders" anymore. With today's technologies, everyone should be able to vote directly on each issue.
@mynameisgladiator1933 Says:
You don't even know what form of government we have but you're gonna go right ahead and make a video about it.
@Alexa-Raine Says:
Beautiful Humans will always adapt. 🥰
I would consider that an increase in divisiveness and recent unorthodox campaign styles working, are attributable to we in the USA having adapted to the flaws of FPtP voting.
@bradleyweigle7875 Says:
Condition 6: The might makes right.
The most populous country in the world uses that system, China. Russia uses that system and if you look around you would find many other countries using that system. With the right amount of bribery and intimidation you can make most countries become might makes right.
This entire world is run by the might makes right system. However, the might basically remain behind the scenes. If the populations found out the might side may have to murder so many that their luxuries could be curtailed. Might makes right is the only game in town.
@adolinkholin9279 Says:
0:45 She was not Curie, she was SKŁODOWSKA-Curie as she was always calling herself. Skipping her maiden name is disrespectful to her and to Poles
@mtvgamer2479 Says:
I was extremely surprised that you didn’t name Sweden at all in this video. Please look our voting system up.
@kyrilcouda Says:
OMG... now even scientific channels are here to proclaim that Arrow theorem implies democracy being impossible. You should understand, that there are people, who are dumb and will miss the point, where you state that the Arrow theorem is proved for ranked systems. You just don't use ranked system, lol. Just use arithmetic voting system and you are ok.
It is so fcking easy to come up with a voting system for each specific scenario that it is funny people even talk about Arrow's theorem. The biggest problem is to actually educate people to not vote idiotically... that's the problem.
@lMrJackl Says:
Those with the power to change the voting system never will because the current system benefits them.
@zerbinmarques1908 Says:
The option "none of them" would be a great progress, provoking a new election with new candidates.
@dank7141 Says:
The main trick in that if you don't have supporters with big money, no one will hear you.
@TomKeithIreland Says:
Quoting the war criminal and candidate for worst human ever Winston Churchill is never a good thing.
@Hawker91504 Says:
We so need a Condorcet app for deciding what to eat/do in a group !
@brotherpecan1 Says:
Yeah but we don't have first past the post because we have to let these stupid f****** electoral college people instead of just electing the president ourselves which is how it should be done
@xardnaslp3171 Says:
the pivotal voter doesn't make any sense. sure, they exist IN THEORY but in reality it's different. a pivotal voter only exists in reality if the vote is a tie AND if that voter got to vote afterwards, knowing that it's a tie. if the voter doesn't know and has already voted along with everyone else, they're not a dictator and it's not their vote alone that determines the outcome, it's just a small part of a majority. if everyone else had voted differently, the pivotal voter would be someone else or there just wouldn't be a pivotal voter anymore. so the pivotal voter only exists in theory and only exists due to the votes of everyone else, which is exactly what a vote is supposed to do, determine a result based on EVERYONE'S vote collectively.
it's also just way too unlikely to even happen in the first place since it requires a perfect tie, which is very rare given how many voters and parties there are. and again, it's not a dictator because the pivotal voter is just a part of a huge collective and not a single person whose vote matters more than that of anyone else. hell, if it's a perfect tie there is no pivotal voter. and if it isn't a tie, then no one person determined that, it was determined by everyone as a whole.
it's just yet another example of math being far too theoretical to be applicable to the real world, it just doesn't make sense
@JohnDoe-nq4jz Says:
Democracy isn’t doomed. Countries that use FPTP system are - the US, the UK and others with British system
@knudplesner Says:
What is a democracy?
Just because you call something democratic doesn't make it so. as "Democratic Republic of the Congo". In over 95% of the world's countries you have a dictatorship one-party system or a two-party system as "first past the post" because the minority has no say, and therefore not a democracy.
Consensus democracy can be good, but only in small gatherings, because you debate until there is a solution that everyone can agree on. But in the UN it is a bad solution, because if and when a solution is found it is often among the lowest common denominator.
You can only call it democratic if it is representative. Unfortunately, there are only about ten countries in the world that have it. In Switzerland, all citizens vote on almost all proposals. In the Nordic countries, there is a broad representative collaboration, where everyone is heard, and which has greatly deserved the great trust it has.
It is a disgrace to call countries democratic such as: USA, UK, EU and most other religious or English-speaking countries.
@django-unchained Says:
What a bad headline talking about Democracy as a whole while you really talk about Representative Democracy being impossible, yes it is. That's why we must look into Direct Democracy instead.
But stop misleading the blind to hate Democracy overall.
@13gears Says:
How about anarchy? why don't you give that a try
@hafizshafi7280 Says:
وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ ۚ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا ٱلظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا يَخْرُصُونَ ١١٦
˹O Prophet!˺ If you were to obey most of those on earth, they would lead you away from Allah’s Way. They follow nothing but assumptions and do nothing but lie.
Al-An'am verse 116
Allah has said it more than 1400 years ago.
Democracy is a scam.
LATEST COMMENTS