ZooChat Cup Match #27: Hannover vs Moscow

[LaughingDove]

One of my other obsessions is psephology, so get me started on the perfidies of first past the post at your own risk. Australia has gifted the world the gold standard in single member constituency ballot systems: if only David Cameron had bungled the preferential voting referendum instead of the Brexit one you guys would be doubly better off.

Hmm... do you really think it's the gold standard? As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, there's a minimum number that voters have to rank up to? And I'm aware that there were some changes to this recently, but surely people should just be allowed to number as many or as few people or parties as they want to? Does anyone really have more than their top five-or-so choices in an election?

Possibly the most significant perfidy of first past the post is the name itself which makes it sound much fairer than it really is. Just calling it plurality voting is probably considerably less misleading.

 

[CGSwans]

Hmm... do you really think it's the gold standard? As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, there's a minimum number that voters have to rank up to? And I'm aware that there were some changes to this recently, but surely people should just be allowed to number as many or as few people or parties as they want to? Does anyone really have more than their top five-or-so choices in an election?

Possibly the most significant perfidy of first past the post is the name itself which makes it sound much fairer than it really is. Just calling it plurality voting is probably considerably less misleading.

We’re getting well off topic now but I started it, so never mind.

Optional preferential is used in NSW and until recently in Qld. It’s also now used nationally for Seate votes, where the minimum number of six boxes comes in, but that is not a single member system. Except it’s not *really* a minimum because there’s a ‘savings provision’ that ensures votes with fewer than six choices are still counted: parties just aren’t allowed to advocate for voting for less than six.

I will say though that I believe compulsory preferential voting is better. This whole diversion started as me having a dig at Funky’s expense for choosing not to vote between two alternatives he finds distasteful, whereas I am firmly of the core that there is *always* a preferred option, even if that is because one is merely the lesser of two evils. I referenced Jill Stein because one hopes the voters whose values were too sacrosanct to vote for Hillary Clinton have since had cause to recognise the importance of voting for the lesser evil.

Compulsory preferential also ensures that all voters’ preferences remain in play until the final run-off, which achieves the broadest possible inclusiveness in a single member constituency. Whether single member constituencies are themselves desirable is, of course, a different matter.

 

[LaughingDove]

We’re getting well off topic now but I started it, so never mind.

Optional preferential is used in NSW and until recently in Qld. It’s also now used nationally for Seate votes, where the minimum number of six boxes comes in, but that is not a single member system. Except it’s not *really* a minimum because there’s a ‘savings provision’ that ensures votes with fewer than six choices are still counted: parties just aren’t allowed to advocate for voting for less than six.

I will say though that I believe compulsory preferential voting is better. This whole diversion started as me having a dig at Funky’s expense for choosing not to vote between two alternatives he finds distasteful, whereas I am firmly of the core that there is *always* a preferred option, even if that is because one is merely the lesser of two evils. I referenced Jill Stein because one hopes the voters whose values were too sacrosanct to vote for Hillary Clinton have since had cause to recognise the importance of voting for the lesser evil.

Compulsory preferential also ensures that all voters’ preferences remain in play until the final run-off, which achieves the broadest possible inclusiveness in a single member constituency. Whether single member constituencies are themselves desirable is, of course, a different matter.

But do you really think that the majority of people are able to make an informed decision about differentiating between people or parties beyond four or five at most? There may well always be a preferred option, but I don't think it's realistic to expect people who are only voting because they have to to keep track of that many people and parties.

 

[agnmeln]

If you're talking this competition, I'll let it go -them's the rules and ultimately opinions differ (even if I think they're wrong)

If you're talking life in general I could give umpteen examples where going with a majority was not a right decision and has ended quite badly. Unfortunately people (myself included) are flawed, do not have perfect information, may not even be interested in good, unbiased, information to make a decision on and do not always act logically or even if self-interest. It's amazing how many people vote for a political party (on whatever side) because that's what they've always done, that's what their parents have always done -without ever really thinking about matters too much.

Although, to play devil’s advocate, what’s to say that the alternative decision would not have also ‘ended quite badly’ or perhaps even worse? We’ll simply never know, because it never had the chance to happen. I don’t really think that is a good determination of what is right and what is wrong - comparing one situation that has happened with one that never will. What’s right and what’s wrong in any case is massively subjective, anyway - people who are disadvantaged will always say it’s wrong, people who benefit will always say it’s right. But once those votes are cast, there’s no going back either way, and what’s going to happen is going to happen. People just have to accept and deal with the result - you can’t go back and rewrite history, anyhow.

 

[BeakerUK]

I think a result is quite clearly wrong when people have been deliberately lied to or even actively fed misinformation and manipulated to think and vote a certain way. Assuming we are talking life in general. I am assuming that the votes on this series are not subject to such nefarious activities!

 

[agnmeln]

I think a result is quite clearly wrong when people have been deliberately lied to or even actively fed misinformation and manipulated to think and vote a certain way. Assuming we are talking life in general. I am assuming that the votes on this series are not subject to such nefarious activities!

In some people’s view, that will still be the right result when it’s the one that they so desperately wanted and worked so hard to achieve by their actions!

 

[BeakerUK]

In which case you can argue that people who cheat in games and take drugs to enhance their performance are right because they so desperately want to win and work so hard to achieve that by their actions.

 

[agnmeln]

In which case you can argue that people who cheat in games and take drugs to enhance their performance are right because they so desperately want to win and work so hard to achieve that by their actions.

They must believe they are, or else if they strongly believed that they were wrong and wouldn’t do it if they felt so strongly against it.

 

[BeakerUK]

I don't believe people believe it is right to cheat, I believe people cheat because they are desperate to win regardless of the cost.

 

[Shorts]

This, whilst interesting, is getting way off track but....

In some people’s view, that will still be the right result when it’s the one that they so desperately wanted and worked so hard to achieve by their actions!

Absolutely, but that doesn't necessarily make it the right result -most despots are supported/accepted, initially, by a majority of people (some who've worked hard for it) -doesn't usually end well.

People just have to accept and deal with the result - you can’t go back and rewrite history, anyhow.

No, you can't rewrite history but you can learn from it -and history tells us majorities can be wrong. A majority on a jury can wrongly convict an innocent person (who may be executed in some countries). Yes, we "have to accept and deal with the result" -I'd deal with it by concluding majorities (and authorities) can be wrong.

 

[agnmeln]

I don't believe people believe it is right to cheat, I believe people cheat because they are desperate to win regardless of the cost.

You might be surprised! As I’ve said before elsewhere on this forum, I used to be heavily involved in competitive dancing on an international scale, which truly is just the most corrupt, political, incestuous, egotistical, money-hungry industry. I can’t even begin to describe some of the things I’ve experienced and some of the stories I’ve heard.

 

[Shorts]

In some people’s view, that will still be the right result when it’s the one that they so desperately wanted and worked so hard to achieve by their actions!

They must believe they are, or else they wouldn’t do it.

So are you saying if someone believe's they're right and win then they must be right regardless of how they achieved victory?

 

[BeakerUK]

I have been involved in more than my fair share of competitivity (is that even a word? I am inventing it if it is not!) and have seen the lengths people will go to in the full knowledge that what they are doing is wrong.

However, if even one person thinks something is right, that does not make it right. I hope we can all agree that serial killers are wrong in what they do even if they think they are right.

 

[BeakerUK]

(Incidentally this is a very interesting discussion!)

 

[agnmeln]

Absolutely, but that doesn't necessarily make it the right result -most despots are supported/accepted, initially, by a majority of people (some who've worked hard for it) -doesn't usually end well.

Absolutely, it won’t be to some people, and it will be to others.

No, you can't rewrite history but you can learn from it -and history tells us majorities can be wrong. A majority on a jury can wrongly convict an innocent person (who may be executed in some countries). Yes, we "have to accept and deal with the result" -I'd deal with it by concluding majorities (and authorities) can be wrong.

It often depends a lot on how much people want to learn from it !

 

[agnmeln]

So are you saying if someone believe's they're right and win then they must be right regardless of how they achieved victory?

No, I am not saying that, just to confirm. I’m saying that right and wrong is a subjective view and depends entirely on who you ask and what their interest in the situation is.

 

[Shorts]

However, if even one person thinks something is right, that does not make it right. I hope we can all agree that serial killers are wrong in what they do even if they think they are right.

That's where I was going with.....

So are you saying if someone believe's they're right and win then they must be right regardless of how they achieved victory?

 

[agnmeln]

However, if even one person thinks something is right, that does not make it right.

In their opinion, though, it does.

 

[Shorts]

In their opinion, though, it does.

But what if it's provable or, more interestingly, strongly arguable that they're wrong?

e.g. man says he's taller than his brother. Measurements say otherwise. Man insists he is taller. He is wrong regardless of his opinion. Similarly majorities can be wrong when they say/think they're right. Additionally, and thankfully, individuals can be right when a majority think they're wrong (e.g. Copernicus)

 

[agnmeln]

But what if it's provable or, more interestingly, strongly arguable that they're wrong?

e.g. man says he's taller than his brother. Measurements say otherwise. Man insists he is taller. He is wrong regardless of his opinion. Similarly majorities can be wrong when they say/think they're right. Additionally, and thankfully, individuals can be right when a majority think they're wrong (e.g. Copernicus)

Then it would be a matter of fact and not opinion.

However this isn't the case for, say, the Scottish independence referendum, the United Kingdom EU referendum, the general election. You can’t tangibly measure them with a metre stick !