volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
@bobwyman @lauren @TCatInReality
But that doesn't change that it is an indicator of voters looking at candidates as candidates and not parties.
That it is more or less common than some other arbitrary point of time is not particularly relevant. That it exists in a significant amount at all shows that voters look at individuals outside of party.
If you say that ballot splitting is exceedingly rare, then alright, that would say otherwise. But it's not that rare, and it has been significant even in the last election cycle. So that indicates voters looking at individual candidates.
Whether it happened more often or less often in the past doesn't change that it does happen now.
@bobwyman @lauren @TCatInReality
I understand the theory that you're laying out, but I think the best counter argument to it is looking at the number of people who don't bother voting at all.
When the candidate for a party is just not compelling people don't show up to vote, which shows that people really are voting for the candidate and not for the party.
Alternatively we could look at people splitting ballots. Even in the recent election we had parties winning state office but losing federal office, showing that people were voting based on candidate and not party.
Heck, I think people's opinions toward Trump might be another really great example, all of the people who focus on him as a individual candidate, either positive or negative, regardless of party is meaningful.
@lauren @TCatInReality @bobwyman
Well maybe I misunderstand your position, but my immediate reaction is that in the US we don't vote for parties but for individuals, even if the individuals are aligned with parties.
For example, I vote for a particular individual to be my representative in Congress. I vote for a particular individual to be my mayor. And I judge and hold that individual accountable for their performance.
This is different from other countries, especially with parliamentary systems, where you really do vote for the party and not for individuals.
I think this is a fundamental aspect of the US system.
And feel free to correct me and tell me that in your area they do have elections for parties. I'm just not familiar with that!
@lauren @TCatInReality @bobwyman
Well what is unfair about it?
The candidate is on the ballot just like the others, right?
Alright, fine, then even focusing on the major parties, RCV makes it easier to avoid one-party ballots by allowing more competition between major parties.
I suspect hashtag autocompletion not including the caps.
@lauren @TCatInReality @bobwyman
Who is on the ballot is a separate issue from how we count the votes on the ballot.
You can have ranked choice voting on a ballot that's all one party, or on a ballot that has candidates from five different parties. It's a separate matter.
But, ranked choice voting does make it easier for people to vote for minor parties since they can also vote for major parties as a backup.
So RCV helps empower third parties, helps avoid one-party control of ballots.
@TCatInReality @lauren @bobwyman
*shrug* we get the government we vote for.
Probably not.
@GamePlayer@fosstodon.org
Yeah, after the Twitter drama really broke out I saw a lot of people complaining that they were running into issues with activitypub just not being scalable.
And when I looked at the standard it was clearly not scalable.
And that's not even getting into the additional load that Mastodon in particular puts onto things.
But you know, the major feature is getting over critical mass of users, network effects, not enlightened technological design.
@GamePlayer@fosstodon.org
ActivityPub is a mismatch of existing technologies, so I would say no. It's really not that great of a system.
@bobwyman @TCatInReality @lauren
Yep, it is a challenge, but there are some metrics that are more or less objective, that people should probably be able to agree on.
For example, the idea that my vote should count regardless of how my neighbor votes comes up pretty starkly, and I think we can generally agree that it's a good idea.
Different voting systems support this to different degrees.
@TCatInReality @lauren @bobwyman
At that point the issue isn't the elections but rather what government is doing.
@EwanCroft@mastodon.social
That's nice
What specifically are you talking about?
@lauren @TCatInReality @bobwyman
Firstly, yes, I absolutely agree that it confuses people and that is a major problem. Some of the technically better ranked choice methods are very mathematical, and confusing to anybody who doesn't study them, so personally I would write them off right away.
That is a very primary consideration. 100% agree.
But on the other hand, I disagree about ranked choice keeping entrenched parties in power. Ranked choice means that people can risk voting for somebody new with the old standby as a backup. It threatens the entrenched powers.
I appreciate this humorous analysis of the legalities of shooting down balloons.
@TCatInReality @bobwyman @lauren
The deep problem is the first past the post #voting system. Almost any voting system would be better.
The cure is to change to a different voting system, probably one of the many ranked choice systems.
We can argue about which one would be the best of imperfect options, but at the end of the day, they would all be better than what we have now.
(This is even more or less mathematically provable, but that's tricky because it's calculating subjective priorities)
@mmeadway @nadezhda04 @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr @joshtpm
An issue is that a lot of these adjustments just end up kicking the can down the road. They may bend the graph a bit, but it still leads to insolvency at some point on the timeline.
We should be able to talk about major structural changes without accusing each other of trying to kill the system in the process of shifting it to a more sustainable model that won't eventually crash and burn during some future generation.
What in the world are you talking about?
The whole thing about capitalism is that there is a scarcity of resources, so all of the fucking around is constrained by the resources available to fund it.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
