3 ms·

Multiple proportional systems don't require lists and provide the best outcome. Comparing FPTP to a worse system and decided FTPT is awesome while ignoring its

Multiple proportional systems don't require lists and provide the best outcome. Comparing FPTP to a worse system and decided FTPT is awesome while ignoring its known and widely discussed flaws surprises me. Its not really open for debate these days although people love to reject reality.

FredPret 2y ago
“Someone disagrees with me” = “they’re rejecting reality” Do you realize how alienating this shit is to a centrist?
- hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
  I am a centrist. There have been a ton of studies on various sides of the spectrum highlighting issues with FPTP as a system. Its not they disagree with _me_, they disagree with the overall state of political science and its years of research into the outcomes of systems, not just what people "want"
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> Its not really open for debate these days although people love to reject reality. Whenever I see something is not open for debate, I view it with a lot more skepticism. Almost always, this type of framing, to make an idea untouchable, leads to abuse. We saw this in a lot of the “trust authorities” type messaging in the pandemic.
- hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
  Gravity's existence isn't open for debate, that doesn't mean there isn't more to learn about it. The studied and understood outcomes of FPTP systems in the real world have all shown similar issues trending towards 2 party systems, being susceptible to vote splitting on one side of the spectrum and leading to 'strategic' instead of 'idealistic' voting. There are worse systems by far, and better systems. Ignoring the bad because you can think of a single worse system is ignoring reality.
  - freedomben 2y ago
    > Gravity's existence isn't open for debate What? Of course it is! There are physicists looking for the unified theory who hypothesize that there may be a unified way of understanding all the forces. IANA physicist by any stretch so maybe I've misunderstood the Great Courses and books I've read, but gravity is actually quite poorly understood to us currently. But the broader point about things not being open for debate is dangerous, and I think you unintentionally demonstrated a real-life reason why. If we stop questioning gravity and trying to understand it's cause better (which IMHO primiarly happens through reasoned, intelligent debate) then we stagnate, and stagnation can be dangerous as from there it's a short hop and a skip to regression. If you want to make the argument though that some things aren't open for debate, I think there are stronger cases, like the Cartesian "I think therefore I am" is hard (though not impossible) to argue against because it forces the thinker to make arguments for their own non-existence, which is a tall order for a person who by definition must exist in order to do so.
    - hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
      Gravity isn't understood, but it exists as a force regardless. We know it does, no one debates it does, but whatever we _call_ it might change, and how we understand it will inevitably change. That was my point. Gravity as a force exists, but the understanding of that force is still being developed. We might even change the name, but there is no doubt the force exists. I should have worded it better. Extrapolating from that is probably not achieving much.
      - freedomben 2y ago
        Ah fair, I do see your point on a difference between existence and understanding. Though, some of the theories I've heard basically posit that gravity doesn't really "exist" in any sense that we have of it now, but is rather just an exposed slice of some higher dimensional reality that we can't experience entirely. But, to your point, something obviously exists there because it's measurable, repeatable, etc, so from that perspective nobody is questioning it's existence. Also what came to mind was picturing Einstein doing his thought experiment where he was in an elevator at various levels of acceleration, and his observation that there was no way to tell the difference between the force felt from gravity vs. the acceleration. That to me feels a lot like quesitoning the "existence" of gravity! But I don't think we're really disagreeing, more were just operating with different definitions in mind of "existence." Appreciate the discussion!
- Tiktaalik 2y ago
  One of the outcomes of the 2015 election was that we had an electoral reform committee that evaluated various electoral systems to see what best fixed Canada's problems. 88% of the experts that spoke to committee said that Proportional Representation was the best system for a country like Canada. Maybe this issue is technically open for debate, but the enormously strong consensus from experts in the field weighs to one side of the issue.

FredPret 2y ago

“Someone disagrees with me” = “they’re rejecting reality” Do you realize how alienating this shit is to a centrist?

hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
I am a centrist. There have been a ton of studies on various sides of the spectrum highlighting issues with FPTP as a system. Its not they disagree with _me_, they disagree with the overall state of political science and its years of research into the outcomes of systems, not just what people "want"

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

> Its not really open for debate these days although people love to reject reality. Whenever I see something is not open for debate, I view it with a lot more skepticism. Almost always, this type of framing, to make an idea untouchable, leads to abuse. We saw this in a lot of the “trust authorities” type messaging in the pandemic.

hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
Gravity's existence isn't open for debate, that doesn't mean there isn't more to learn about it. The studied and understood outcomes of FPTP systems in the real world have all shown similar issues trending towards 2 party systems, being susceptible to vote splitting on one side of the spectrum and leading to 'strategic' instead of 'idealistic' voting. There are worse systems by far, and better systems. Ignoring the bad because you can think of a single worse system is ignoring reality.
- freedomben 2y ago
  > Gravity's existence isn't open for debate What? Of course it is! There are physicists looking for the unified theory who hypothesize that there may be a unified way of understanding all the forces. IANA physicist by any stretch so maybe I've misunderstood the Great Courses and books I've read, but gravity is actually quite poorly understood to us currently. But the broader point about things not being open for debate is dangerous, and I think you unintentionally demonstrated a real-life reason why. If we stop questioning gravity and trying to understand it's cause better (which IMHO primiarly happens through reasoned, intelligent debate) then we stagnate, and stagnation can be dangerous as from there it's a short hop and a skip to regression. If you want to make the argument though that some things aren't open for debate, I think there are stronger cases, like the Cartesian "I think therefore I am" is hard (though not impossible) to argue against because it forces the thinker to make arguments for their own non-existence, which is a tall order for a person who by definition must exist in order to do so.
  - hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
    Gravity isn't understood, but it exists as a force regardless. We know it does, no one debates it does, but whatever we _call_ it might change, and how we understand it will inevitably change. That was my point. Gravity as a force exists, but the understanding of that force is still being developed. We might even change the name, but there is no doubt the force exists. I should have worded it better. Extrapolating from that is probably not achieving much.
    - freedomben 2y ago
      Ah fair, I do see your point on a difference between existence and understanding. Though, some of the theories I've heard basically posit that gravity doesn't really "exist" in any sense that we have of it now, but is rather just an exposed slice of some higher dimensional reality that we can't experience entirely. But, to your point, something obviously exists there because it's measurable, repeatable, etc, so from that perspective nobody is questioning it's existence. Also what came to mind was picturing Einstein doing his thought experiment where he was in an elevator at various levels of acceleration, and his observation that there was no way to tell the difference between the force felt from gravity vs. the acceleration. That to me feels a lot like quesitoning the "existence" of gravity! But I don't think we're really disagreeing, more were just operating with different definitions in mind of "existence." Appreciate the discussion!
Tiktaalik 2y ago
One of the outcomes of the 2015 election was that we had an electoral reform committee that evaluated various electoral systems to see what best fixed Canada's problems. 88% of the experts that spoke to committee said that Proportional Representation was the best system for a country like Canada. Maybe this issue is technically open for debate, but the enormously strong consensus from experts in the field weighs to one side of the issue.