Oh, just cheese and crackers, America! Palin loses.

[canpakes]

Your’re advocating for the corporate machine on this one, which seems out of character.

It’s completely in character, if it’s his corporate machine.
: D

People are funny like that.

[Binger]

No Res. That is not what I said.

[honorentheos]

Your’re advocating for the corporate machine on this one, which seems out of character.

It’s completely in character, if it’s his corporate machine.
: D

People are funny like that.

I admit I was a little surprised. Then I saw his version of ranked choice and it made sense. The issue being his algorithm is for Operation: Binger, or how the prospective voter that is Culty carries about the functions of voting in this system. If the operation were as he described (Is my first choice in last place? Go to my second choice. Is my second choice in last place? Go to my third choice...) I would argue he's confused the voter with the tallying.

It's a broken way to perform the operation as he described it...as a voter.

What the normal voter does is slightly but meaningfully different.

Divide candidates into those I am ok with winning and those I cannot support. Remove those I cannot support from consideration and evaluate the remaining candidates.

Is there a candidate I want to win on the ballot above any other candidate? They are my first choice.

If they are not selected, is there a next preferred candidate I want to win over the remaining candidates I am ok with if they win? They are my next choice.

Repeat until all candidates I am ok with winning have been ranked.

I suppose a person who might make a different selection mid-process to prevent an undesirable candidate from winning would prefer indefinite runoffs. But that's not voting FOR a preferred candidate. And I really think that's where Culty is at in his thinking.

Now, the operation of tallying votes is different from how a voter chosing their preferred candidates only would act. That operation very much looks like "Is A in last place? Drop A and move to B" regarding the tallying of voters responses. But that's a different operator. The voter whose choices would change dynamically based on how well an undesirable candidate is performing is left wanting.

[canpakes]

Repeat until all candidates I am ok with winning have been ranked.

And no voter must rank all choices. One could conceivably vote for only two, or one of the choices, and leave their ballot at that.

I’m not sure if he’s making a broken argument because he just didn’t realize that it was broken, or if he does realize it but hopes that no-one else will. But, I have an idea which applies here.

[honorentheos]

Repeat until all candidates I am ok with winning have been ranked.

And no voter must rank all choices. One could conceivably vote for only two, or one of the choices, and leave their ballot at that.

I’m not sure if he’s making a broken argument because he just didn’t realize that it was broken, or if he does realize it but hopes that no-one else will. But, I have an idea which applies here.

Good question. I don't think his description was incorrect for how votes are tallied but it is odd to assume the role of vote tallying machine when voting...unless one is not concerned with voting FOR candidates so much as spoiling candidates one is AGAINST...

[Binger]

The algorithm does not apply to how one chooses to rank the candidates. It applies to how the votes are tallied and that is hugely problematic.

I am correct about how they are tallied. And I am correct that it has an effect on the outcome. And I am correct that it weighs some voters choices more than others. And, enjoy voting in that mess. Have a great time, without me. Because what a joke.

Y'all keep writing about me though. That is cute.

[canpakes]

And I am correct that it weighs some voters choices more than others.

Nope. It lets all voters have more choice.

[Binger]

And I am correct that it weighs some voters choices more than others.

Nope. It lets all voters have more choice.

Stick to moderating, leave the math to us.

[honorentheos]

I am correct about how they are tallied. And I am correct that it has an effect on the outcome. And I am correct that it weighs some voters choices more than others.

Sure, you're correct about how the votes are tallied but that isn't different from any other election other than it's one step. It's also really irrelevant to how one would make choices while voting...provided a person is voting FOR their preferred candidates and not focused on people they want to screw over of course.

So the process takes a voter and gets them to the polls. They opt to only vote for two candidates and then leave the rest unranked. Alternatively voters opt to not participate rather than vote for one of two choices they can't support. Their none vote has less weight than the votes of people who did vote. In fact, their non-participation means the votes of those who do vote are weighted a bit higher as a result in terms of the power their wield compared to the non-participant. You seem to support non-participation just fine.

Gad has you nailed, classified, and labeled. Liz Cheney loses and you mock her for being out of touch with the people of Wyoming. Palin loses and you cast shade on the process when voters in Alaska had openly said the same of her. Is being out on a national stage rather than purely focused on local concerns a negative then? Or only when you think they are part of a broken system and the good folks of the world will remember when they rise up on that glorious, glorious day?

[Res Ipsa]

The algorithm does not apply to how one chooses to rank the candidates. It applies to how the votes are tallied and that is hugely problematic.

I am correct about how they are tallied. And I am correct that it has an effect on the outcome. And I am correct that it weighs some voters choices more than others. And, enjoy voting in that mess. Have a great time, without me. Because what a joke.

Y'all keep writing about me though. That is cute.

How is it hugely problematic?
What effect does it have on the outcome?
How does it weigh some voters choices more than others?

Anybody can type words, Binger.