this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
46 points (92.6% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7212 readers
811 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah I mean, voting data is messy. You're trying very hard to interpret the data in only the way you want to. You're the one who claims 50% picking 1 out of 4 doesn't conform to expectations. I think that's perfectly acceptable. If you look at the Democratic Primary Polling Data again, you'll find that, in practice, RCV, Approval, and Score generally agree on the overall results. You seem to think that voters choosing only some candidates is somehow a failure of the system. How many do you want them to pick before it's an acceptable number?
I made sure not to make claims about the sources unless they were true. It would be ridiculous to do otherwise. You're taking claims I made elsewhere and applying them to things I didn't point to. I have read and understood the entirety of every link I shared. I'm not going to be posting things I can't explain. Different sources have different purposes, to dive into to details if each (which do not always agree with each other) would be further complicating an already nitpicky argument. You asked for more variation in sources, I provided more variation in sources. What would have been an acceptable but not excessive number?
You claimed you easily created nonsensical models, but have failed to produce your examples. You're the one who has to provide proof of your claims, because just like you said, I can't prove a negative. I already provided a graphical example of RCV misbehaving. Can you provide an example of the others?
You keep claiming we have plenty of data on RCV but then don't reference any of it. Typically election officials don't release the ballots, so it's impossible to actually say what kind of election happened under RCV. The spoiler rate estimates for RCV elections are all over the place.
You've got the definition of a spoiler wrong. Spoiler candidates are a losing candidate that changes the winner of the race without a change in voter preferences. If you let voter opinions change, anything you try to say about the voting system is virtually meaningless.
Anyway dude, you're clearly not interested in having a productive conversation. The only reason I'm replying is to make sure at least some of your assumptions and wrong claims are publicly countered, but at this point I really am going to say goodbye. I get the feeling that you'd somehow argue I didn't address half your points but also gave a wall of text.
Say what you want, I'm done. I again wish you and the RCV crowd well (it's not a terrible system) and hope we have some epic national stage showdown in the future.
Lmao. Actual data is messy, let's use simplified data instead. No dude. That's not how science works. Actual data from actual observations is better than experimental conditions. Specifically because of the human factor.
And you can't make claims like "approval voting means you can vote for several candidates safely!" And then call single candidate ballots a success. They voted tactically. The politicians told them to vote tactically.
And elections offices won't release the ballots but they absolutely release the anonymized data about what votes went where. Which is why I'm astounded you just claimed we don't have data on RCV voting. There's 62 jurisdictions in the US using it. It's been used internationally as far back as 1893. Australia has been using it heavily for 80+ years. Your data is out there. Go find it. I'm not going to attempt to prove a negative because that's impossible. And continuing to ask me to do so is incredibly bad faith.
And if a spoiler causes a change in the winner, then obviously people preferred that candidate over the runner up candidate. You know what would solve that? RCV.
Edit - lol I totally forgot to talk about your source work. I'll leave it with a hearty lol though. You can say you read it all and it was super meticulous if you want but it obviously wasn't.
You're putting words in my mouth both by extending things I said into areas I didn't go, and straight-up misremembering a claim I did make to the point where your quote isn't even a factual statement independent of the fact that I didn't say it. Furthermore, it is clear you don't fully understand how RCV actually works, which is messing with quite a bit of your logic and messing with your interpretations of statements I've made.
Cheers mate, I wish you didn't see me as an adversary.
I wish you weren't so clearly using troll tactics, debunked criticisms, and trying to gaslight everyone.