• davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Our current attempt at democracy—the methods we’re using to elect our leaders—are fundamentally irrational.

      They are rational, and they work as intended, it’s just that they’re not popular democracies, they’re bourgeois democracies, designed by & for the capitalist class and against the working class. They’re not meant to represent us.

      Take the US, which has has been ruled by the bourgeoisie since the 1776 bourgeois revolution. The wealthy, white, male land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers intentionally constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority.” It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (who aren’t disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

    • zzx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ah yes my favorite authoritative source on the mathematics of democracy: a YouTube video.

      Fuck off

      • Groggeroo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Veritasium is legit, they cite their sources and explain concepts exceptionally well.

        However, I don’t think the conclusion of the video is “Democracy is mathematically impossible”, but rather “perfect representation in a democracy” is mathematically impossible (but can still be much much better than FPTP).

        The video basically goes through all the top voting systems and explains their pros and cons and the history of the mathematicians who invented the systems.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          but rather “perfect representation in a democracy” is mathematically impossible (but can still be much much better than FPTP).

          It’s not even that. The more accurate title would be “Ranked voting types cannot mathematically meet all of the requirements of democracy this one guy made”

          The whole video I wanted to yell out “so switch to approval voting”.

      • save_the_humans@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        The dude makes some pretty legit videos. He has a PhD in physics education research. Using YouTube is just a sign of the time we live in. Imagine if your professor quit their job to become a YouTuber because they thought it’d be a more effective medium for education than a whiteboard.

        Mathematics is, in a sense, about abstraction and generalization, and the video covers an ideal, or set of axioms, you’d want from a voting system. This perfect system was proven to be impossible and the researcher was granted the Nobel prize in economics. In short, there can be no perfect voting system, and we must accept a compromise (much like an engineer). You can also say mathematics is about proofs, and, no matter how unintuitive something might seem, it leaves no room for doubt. It doesn’t hardly matter if the source comes from a YouTube video.

        Edit: I don’t agree with the context the video was posted, but I was bothered by this response to it.