- cross-posted to:
- videos@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- videos@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m leaving this up because it’s funny, dunk to your hearts content
Mathematically proving that enlightened centrism is the only valid choice
Veritasium is an intellectually impoverished ghoul shilling for neoliberalism; no wonder he doesn’t support democracy.
deleted by creator
Democracy is mathematically impossible because the bourgeoisie are compelled by market forces to irreparably destroy all social institutions.
“Democracy” is the wrong term here. They mean electoralism
veritasium
Why my shit and hair are statistically edible.
deleted by creator
I’m gonna assume it’s about Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, which is about social game-theory, sort of. There are some weird paradoxes when you get into the mathematics of voting systems. Arrow’s Theorem makes a few reasonable assumptions about a ranked-choice voting system, and shows that a third candidate will always spoil the results between the other two. In other words, adding in Jill Stein would change how Kamala and Trump are ranked in relation to each other (in a ranked-choice voting system).
Probably one of the top ten misused bits of math in the world. It relies on some questionable assumptions about voting behavior, several voting systems do not apply, and even if this was 100% true, getting to 99.99% confidence accuracy in your voting system would still be possible. None of that is mentioned in any of the pop science clickbait videos about it however.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The video mentions this as a solution to the problems presented by Arrow’s theorems.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
bullshit math wizardry are they pulling out of their ass to argue that the exact ranking of each individual candidate
If you’re voting in an election with ten candidates, but you only like two of them and equally despise the other eight, the “maths impossibility” arises because you’ll have to put a candidate you hate third
deleted by creator
Yes, in Australian Senate elections you only need to rank at least 6 parties above the line or at least 12 individual candidates below the line on the long ballot paper
In practice you might rank all ~100 candidates to try and avoid a couple candidates you hate the most
I usually just go with the party and stop at 6 or the first major party (that kinda acts like a big wall)
I mean, you’re making a political argument, and one I don’t disagree with. But the point of the theorem is about an idealized voting mechanism, absent ideology. There’s absolutely arguments to be made about the usefulness of studying things like pure math, and I’m sympathetic to some of them, but even so, I think it’s important to know how the system we use to implement democracy actually functions.
I think also the title is just pure clickbait, never take a youtuber at their word.
Good assumption, it is about that
Derek needs to stay in his fuckin lane and make cool science nerd videos
Repost to dunk tank
why are you here my guy
Because of
, that’s why…
Democracy might be mathematically impossible – here’s why. Head to https://brilliant.org/veritasium to start your free 30-day trial and get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Fuck this.
You have to subtract the cia but if you do you get valid solutions for for non imaginary sets
I saw this and gave it a watch.
And then I watched him advocate against ranked choice voting… something that would help prevent the shitfest we live in…
Ranked-choice voting probably wouldn’t do much. Australia has ranked-choice voting, and their political landscape isn’t much different from the UK or Canada, with two status quo parties dominating everything (Labour and Liberal+National), only now you have smaller parties and independents they have to deal with sometimes.
Maybe that’s because it still has single-member constituencies, which really hurt electoral diversity. The House uses single-member constituencies, and only 12 percent of seats belong to third parties. Meanwhile the Australian Senate also uses ranked-choice voting, but with the nationwide vote share for seat allocation , and there third parties have 30% of seats, with mainly the Green Party benefitting.
Isn’t it because ranked choice is less accurate than individual notation? Like, with ranked you have to pick a first one while if you go even further you can give the possibility to rate everyone 0 and have the election restarted with a new roster if nobody has the average score
the pivotal voter is therefore a complete dictator
you heard it here first, folks; Mr. Veritasium wants to exterminate the swing states
