1064
Reminder... (lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago

If you vote for your third-party candidate, it’s equivalent to not having voted at all, if they have no chance of winning.

this is election misinformation. my vote is still counted for the candidate, even if they don't win, just as trump votes were counted in 2020.

[-] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

If you lived somewhere with a decent preferential voting system, you'd be right.

You don't though, and it's not misinformation to say that under a first part the post system, voting for a third candidate that is not going to win is a waste of the influence you have. CGPGrey explains it well

[-] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

your YouTube video is based on duverger 's "law" which is not a natural law at all but a useless tautology

[-] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

🤦‍♂️ It's a "law" in the mathematical/scientific sense. It is a model that explains something.

You're just spouting smart sounding words without actually proving anything.

Please, please, do explain how the spoiler effect is wrong.

Tell me how when you have first past the post and a two party system, voting for a third candidate who won't win isn't just making it more likely the candidate you'd like less to win.

Please, would love to hear you well reasoned and sound argument.

[-] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

it's not a law. it's an empty tautology.

it argues that a certain type of election system tends to lead to a two-party system. however, from a critical perspective, this theory might be untestable. why? because someone could argue that any outcome can be explained by the theory. for instance, if there are more than two parties, it could be said that the system still favors two but this is just a temporary exception. this kind of reasoning makes it very difficult to disprove the theory, turning it more into a statement that's true by definition than an actual hypothesis based on evidence. similar arguments have been made about economic theories that rely on assuming everything else stays the same. to be more than just a statement, this theory would need a way to be tested with evidence and potentially proven wrong. that way, it could be a useful theory for understanding political systems instead of just an unfalsifiable claim.

[-] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

The evidence is all of the first past the post systems that trend toward two dominant parties. There are 1000s of example elections, and the elections which don't conform to this are just as bad, because the winner will win with even FEWER votes than 50%. If you have 5 candidates and people are voting fairly evenly between them, you can win with just over 20% of the vote. I hope you can believe that, that's just the mathematical reality (that I'm really hoping we don't have to debate over, it's a fairly simple mathematical problem).

The myth is that what you have can actually provide voters with a meaningful choice. That's the media narrative, that first past the post is meaningful and gives the president a mandate because people voted for them, but it most certainly doesn't.

[-] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

it seems that you are already trying to explain away exceptions rather than accepting that this myth lacks predictive power and may not, in fact, accurately explain any past elections at all.

[-] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Lets just focus on this particular election then.

Do you think anyone other than Biden or Trump will win? If you do, then your choice is clear, and as much as you question the existence of the spoiler effect (which is not being spread much by the media in the US, it's being spread by detractors of the current voting system), it doesn't really matter. People will vote towards those two candidates (hope we can agree that this is the likely outcome).

If that's the case, voting for a third candidate is as good as not voting because if your candidate doesn't win, and you COULD have voted for your next choice (why ranked voting is so much better, and it's the voting system letting you down), then the candidate you most don't want (assuming 3 candidates) has a better chance of winning (since you didn't vote for your second choice).

You say this isn't provable because it's about people's beliefs and it can't be tested, but sorry, elections are about human choices, beliefs are at play. I don't think it's a coincidence that democracies with ranked choice voting have more first preference votes to smaller parties, and that it's overwhelmingly so.

You can't really escape the fact that even if people just voted for their favourite candidate in first past the post, people would win with less than 50% of the vote (unless you're saying that the votes don't add up to 100% then I dunno what to say)

[-] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

you're missing the crux of why it's not provable: there is no test for it. it's not that it's "about beliefs" is that you can't conduct an experiment to determine the validity

[-] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

ask yourself: what test can we make that would disprove the theory?

maybe i'm just not smart enough to come up with one, but i can't conceive of one. an untestable, that is, an undisprovable hypothesis, is an empty tautology. or, at least modern epistemologists and critical rationalists have treated them this way.

maybe disprovability isn't a necessary facet of sound scientific theories. i tend to agree with popper, though.

[-] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Okay, the test would be that we have first past the post (single winner elections, like for president, or local electorates with single candidates elected, not proportional voting, which is better), produce elections with a spread of votes across many candidates, and don't consistently trend towards two.

This is definitely testable and disprovable, it's just that the outcome is overwhelmingly the case I have described, the spoiler effect leading to two dominant parties. There may be outliers and times where a third candidate does win, but these are the overwhelmingly rare exceptions.

[-] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

we need to define terms like "consistently" and "trend". but even once you do that we still have the problem that you're already explaining away exceptions. this theory is not disprovable because there is no outcome that you would say actually disproves it. you would say we just need more data.

[-] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I'm not explaining away exceptions, they're called outliers. In any set of data there will be deviations. When I want to plot some viscosity data and get a few random points on my chart that don't line up with the rest of the curve, I'm still very confident that my curve is close to being accurate, as long as I have enough data points.

We have enough data points on first past the post elections.

For it to be disproven you would show first past the post elections don't have to two party systems in the vast majority of cases (which isn't the reality).

Now, you can try and handwave this away by saying, "oh but that's what people were TOLD TO BELIEVE, so you can't prove it". That's why we have not just the correlation to rely on, we have maths.

And you can't (I hope you don't) really disagree that you either have many candidates, who then win with less than a majority, or two parties, which then necessarily means the third smaller candidates can't win, and so people then vote for one of the larger parties so their vote counts. That's the binary state of affairs, there are no other options, the reality of maths doesn't allow for anything else, the votes add up to 100% ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[-] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

being confident doesn't make a natural law.

[-] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

you can try and handwave this away by saying, “oh but that’s what people were TOLD TO BELIEVE, so you can’t prove it”.

this is a strawman. you're not dealing with what I actually said.

[-] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I'm not saying we need more data though, we have the data, plurality voting overwhelming results in two party systems. This is disprovable and I'm totally happy to change my mind based on the evidence and data.

I'm not straw-manning, you said before with regards to looking up the spoiler effect "I have. it's not a natural phenomenon, it's a story that the media tells."

Apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying there.

[-] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I’m not straw-manning, you said before with regards to looking up the spoiler effect “I have. it’s not a natural phenomenon, it’s a story that the media tells.”

in that context, the fact that the media says it and academics say it is a reason some people might believe it. i'm saying even if you do believe it, it's an undisprovable claim. it has little explanatory power, and ultimately, yes, is a myth.

this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
1064 points (88.8% liked)

Lefty Memes

4531 readers
423 users here now

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

Serious posts, news, and discussion go in c/Socialism.

If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.

Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, updooting good contributions and downdooting those of low-quality!

Rules

Version without spoilers

0. Only post socialist memes


That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme)


1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here


Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.


2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such


That means condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.


3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.


That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).


4. No Bigotry.


The only dangerous minority is the rich.


5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.


We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.

(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)


6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.


Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.



  1. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS