The only solution is for people to stop seeing criticism of Democrats as endorsement for Republicans
Did you know there are mathematicians who study fairness and bias in voting systems? Well, is possible for you to convince those mathematicians of that fact, but first you’ll have to abolish First Past The Post and replace it with a condorcet method.
Now I’m not using that as a gotcha. I think changing America’s voting system is a great idea. But it’s also really hard. So I’ll support you in trying to do that. But if you want to change people’s understanding of the system without changing the system, I don’t think that’s a serious ask, because these people you’re criticising tend to have a good understanding of the mathematics.
Let me guess, your strategy for changing the voting system is to vote for a lesser evil in the broken system.
“My car broke down” “Well then, just drive it to the mechanic!” what a load of nonsense. A broken tool won’t fix itself.
“Mathematics” my ass. I’m constantly in awe of the fact that most of the ways I disagree with you are that you are too attached to treating human social constructs as objectively real. The whole electoral system was created by humans and is maintained only through faith, if it proves incapable of functioning as is required by the actually real physical constraints of planet earth, then it will change. The gap between what must, necessarily happen, and what this social construct tells us is possible widens every day. One way or another, things the system claims are “impossible” are going to happen, and it can either adapt or it can go down in flames.
The idea that electoral strategy is purely dictated by “mathematics,” that liberalism is somehow an objective, unchangeable facet of reality, is completely absurd.
Did you know there are mathematicians who study fairness and bias in voting systems? Well, is possible for you to convince those mathematicians of that fact, but first you’ll have to abolish First Past The Post and replace it with a condorcet method.
Now I’m not using that as a gotcha. I think changing America’s voting system is a great idea. But it’s also really hard. So I’ll support you in trying to do that. But if you want to change people’s understanding of the system without changing the system, I don’t think that’s a serious ask, because these people you’re criticising tend to have a good understanding of the mathematics.
Let me guess, your strategy for changing the voting system is to vote for a lesser evil in the broken system.
“My car broke down” “Well then, just drive it to the mechanic!” what a load of nonsense. A broken tool won’t fix itself.
“Mathematics” my ass. I’m constantly in awe of the fact that most of the ways I disagree with you are that you are too attached to treating human social constructs as objectively real. The whole electoral system was created by humans and is maintained only through faith, if it proves incapable of functioning as is required by the actually real physical constraints of planet earth, then it will change. The gap between what must, necessarily happen, and what this social construct tells us is possible widens every day. One way or another, things the system claims are “impossible” are going to happen, and it can either adapt or it can go down in flames.
The idea that electoral strategy is purely dictated by “mathematics,” that liberalism is somehow an objective, unchangeable facet of reality, is completely absurd.