The Otherworldly Circus - The America Thread

[Norm De Guerre]

Remember kids if you want to succeed at school.

Vaccines are bad, but street heroin is ****in' great at boosting your grades!



Theres always a video with these clowns from a time before they red pilled themselves.

So here's another one.

 

[yebach]

Remember kids if you want to succeed at school.

Vaccines are bad, but street heroin is ****in' great at boosting your grades!



Theres always a video with these clowns from a time before they red pilled themselves.

So here's another one.

Footscray was once the Heroin capital of Australia.
Could explain why we've got so many intelligent and eloquent posters on this board.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

To be fair, that's how elections work though. In Aus, if Vic and NSW overwhelmingly voted one party, the rest of the country wouldn't be able to influence the result. In Canada its Quebec and Ontario.
Even our preferential system here is flawed, youve got aome candidates getting a HoR seat, despite getting lower primary votes than other candidates, but get in purely due to preference deals.
The only true and fair system is first past the post.

In the preferential system the majority don’t get who they don’t want.

 

[Arkangel]

It might favour the major parties, but first past the post is literally just 'majority rules'. To me that seems the fairest, but happy to hear/read other perspectives.
It might favour major parties at an operating government level, but there are many seats where minor parties get better vote tallies than the major parties.

As I understand it, first past the post (FPP) is only "majority rules" when there are only two candidates to choose between. In a single-transferrable vote (STV) system like we have, if there are only two options the system becomes FPP by default. Further, if there are more than two candidates but one of them is preferred over all others by a majority of the voters, they would win under both systems. So, in these scenarios there can be no superiority of one approach over the other.

Where the two systems diverge is cases where no candidate receives a majority of the votes. In FPP the winning candidate is then the one with the greatest number of votes, irrespective of how small that number is as a proportion of the total votes. In STV, the winning candidate is basically the one that the majority of voters prefer relative to the remaining options (a bit of a simplification, but basically what it amounts to).

Which system does a better job of electing candidates who reflect voters' preferences? My intuition was that STV would do a better job of this, but since I don't like trusting intuition I ran a simple simulation to try to answer the question. In the simulation, I assumed an electorate of 10000 voters whose political preferences vary across two dimensions according to independent normal distributions (you can think of these as economic and social dimensions, like the political compass, if that helps). This leads to a distribution of voters' preferences that looks like this (where each blue point is a single voter):


I then simulated the positions of some number of political candidates; the figure above shows an example with 3 candidates (the red dots). For each voter, I calculated the straight-line distance between their own preferences and those of the candidates. Under FPP, I assumed that each voter selects the candidate they are closest to in this space, whereas for STV I assumed each voter preferences the candidates in ascending order of distance (i.e., first preference is the closest candidate, second preference is the next-closest, and so on).

I ran this simulation 10000 times for each of FPP and STV, and then calculated the average distance across all voters from the winning candidate's position. The number of "victories" for each electoral system from these 10000 simulations, when varying the number of political candidates, was as follows:

Number of candidates	FPP wins (of 10000)	STV wins (of 10000)
3	4792	5208
4	4530	5470
5	4267	5740
6	3938	6064
7	3724	6285
8	3494	6515
9	3423	6585
10	3141	6870

Note that some rows sum to slightly > 10000 because of ties or NAs in the simulated data (I didn't spent the time to totally iron out all the kinks in the code). In any case, this pretty clearly shows that STV is always superior to FPP by this metric, and that this superiority increases with the number of candidates in the electorate.

My disclaimer here is that I'm not an expert in political science, so I may be missing the knowledge that would allow me to identify important features not captured here (e.g., I don't know if there's research out there about the distribution and dimensionality of voters' preferences, so assuming it's 2-dimensional, independent, and normal may be way off). This was just my simple but systematic way of working through the problem to test my intuition.

If anyone wants to re-run or modify the simulation, the R code for the simulation function is below; it returns a vector of distances of voters' positions from the winning candidate's/party's position under the specified electoral system.

runSim <- function(nVoters, nParties, choiceRule=c("STV", "FPP")){
partyPositions <- data.frame(party=1:nParties,
dim1Pos=rnorm(nParties),
dim2Pos=rnorm(nParties))

allPrefs <- data.frame(voterN=1:nVoters,
dim1Pos=rnorm(nVoters),
dim2Pos=rnorm(nVoters))

for (i in 4:(nParties+3)){
allPrefs[,i] <- sqrt((allPrefs$dim1Pos-partyPositions$dim1Pos[i-3])^2 +
(allPrefs$dim2Pos-partyPositions$dim2Pos[i-3])^2)
}

voterN <- rep(0, nParties)
excluded <- rep(0, nParties-1)

if (choiceRule=="FPP"){
for (i in 1:nParties){
voterN[i] <- sum(ifelse(allPrefs[,i+3]==do.call(pmin, allPrefs[-c(1:3)]), 1, 0))
}
distFromWinner <- allPrefs[,which(voterN==max(voterN))+3]
return(distFromWinner)
} else {

for (i in 1:nParties){
voterN[i] <- sum(ifelse(allPrefs[,i+3]==do.call(pmin, allPrefs[-c(1:3)]), 1, 0))
}

for (i in 1:(nParties-1)){
excluded[i] <- which(voterN==(sort(voterN)[i]))

for (j in 1:nParties){
voterN[j] <- sum(ifelse(allPrefs[,j+3]==do.call(pmin, allPrefs[-c(1:3, excluded+3)]), 1, 0))
}

}

distFromWinner <- allPrefs[,which(voterN==max(voterN))+3]
return(distFromWinner)

}
}

 

[dogwatch]

As I understand it, first past the post (FPP) is only "majority rules" when there are only two candidates to choose between. In a single-transferrable vote (STV) system like we have, if there are only two options the system becomes FPP by default. Further, if there are more than two candidates but one of them is preferred over all others by a majority of the voters, they would win under both systems. So, in these scenarios there can be no superiority of one approach over the other.

Where the two systems diverge is cases where no candidate receives a majority of the votes. In FPP the winning candidate is then the one with the greatest number of votes, irrespective of how small that number is as a proportion of the total votes. In STV, the winning candidate is basically the one that the majority of voters prefer relative to the remaining options (a bit of a simplification, but basically what it amounts to).

Which system does a better job of electing candidates who reflect voters' preferences? My intuition was that STV would do a better job of this, but since I don't like trusting intuition I ran a simple simulation to try to answer the question. In the simulation, I assumed an electorate of 10000 voters whose political preferences vary across two dimensions according to independent normal distributions (you can think of these as economic and social dimensions, like the political compass, if that helps). This leads to a distribution of voters' preferences that looks like this (where each blue point is a single voter):

View attachment 2176139
I then simulated the positions of some number of political candidates; the figure above shows an example with 3 candidates (the red dots). For each voter, I calculated the straight-line distance between their own preferences and those of the candidates. Under FPP, I assumed that each voter selects the candidate they are closest to in this space, whereas for STV I assumed each voter preferences the candidates in ascending order of distance (i.e., first preference is the closest candidate, second preference is the next-closest, and so on).

I ran this simulation 10000 times for each of FPP and STV, and then calculated the average distance across all voters from the winning candidate's position. The number of "victories" for each electoral system from these 10000 simulations, when varying the number of political candidates, was as follows:

Number of candidates	FPP wins (of 10000)	STV wins (of 10000)
3	4792	5208
4	4530	5470
5	4267	5740
6	3938	6064
7	3724	6285
8	3494	6515
9	3423	6585
10	3141	6870

Note that some rows sum to slightly > 10000 because of ties or NAs in the simulated data (I didn't spent the time to totally iron out all the kinks in the code). In any case, this pretty clearly shows that STV is always superior to FPP by this metric, and that this superiority increases with the number of candidates in the electorate.

My disclaimer here is that I'm not an expert in political science, so I may be missing the knowledge that would allow me to identify important features not captured here (e.g., I don't know if there's research out there about the distribution and dimensionality of voters' preferences, so assuming it's 2-dimensional, independent, and normal may be way off). This was just my simple but systematic way of working through the problem to test my intuition.

If anyone wants to re-run or modify the simulation, the R code for the simulation function is below; it returns a vector of distances of voters' positions from the winning candidate's/party's position under the specified electoral system.

runSim <- function(nVoters, nParties, choiceRule=c("STV", "FPP")){
partyPositions <- data.frame(party=1:nParties,
dim1Pos=rnorm(nParties),
dim2Pos=rnorm(nParties))

allPrefs <- data.frame(voterN=1:nVoters,
dim1Pos=rnorm(nVoters),
dim2Pos=rnorm(nVoters))

for (i in 4:(nParties+3)){
allPrefs[,i] <- sqrt((allPrefs$dim1Pos-partyPositions$dim1Pos[i-3])^2 +
(allPrefs$dim2Pos-partyPositions$dim2Pos[i-3])^2)
}

voterN <- rep(0, nParties)
excluded <- rep(0, nParties-1)

if (choiceRule=="FPP"){
for (i in 1:nParties){
voterN[i] <- sum(ifelse(allPrefs[,i+3]==do.call(pmin, allPrefs[-c(1:3)]), 1, 0))
}
distFromWinner <- allPrefs[,which(voterN==max(voterN))+3]
return(distFromWinner)
} else {

for (i in 1:nParties){
voterN[i] <- sum(ifelse(allPrefs[,i+3]==do.call(pmin, allPrefs[-c(1:3)]), 1, 0))
}

for (i in 1:(nParties-1)){
excluded[i] <- which(voterN==(sort(voterN)[i]))

for (j in 1:nParties){
voterN[j] <- sum(ifelse(allPrefs[,j+3]==do.call(pmin, allPrefs[-c(1:3, excluded+3)]), 1, 0))
}

}

distFromWinner <- allPrefs[,which(voterN==max(voterN))+3]
return(distFromWinner)

}
}

This is great. As you warn, it is a simplified model and might not totally reflect reality (I can think of a few examples) but it mounts a compelling starting position for STV being a better system.

It also shows how a FPP system can become less satisfactory the more candidates there are. This in turn suggests how it might be undermined by fielding extra candidates (possibly stooges) who can draw votes away from the presumptive top contender.

That's not to say that STV systems can't be gamed too, but in Australia I think that has only really happened in multi-member electorates. The more members to be elected the easier it is to get a candidate up with a low first preference count. It has occurred once or twice in the Senate where some obscure candidates have got up Bradbury-fashion with a ridiculously low first preference count after using a preference whisperer. I think there have been tweaks in recent times to minimise the chances of that happening again. It doesn't appear to have been an issue in single member electorates which is what we have in the House of Reps.

 

[Ted's Robot]

320k missing children!

 

[Next Waiting]

As I understand it, first past the post (FPP) is only "majority rules" when there are only two candidates to choose between. In a single-transferrable vote (STV) system like we have, if there are only two options the system becomes FPP by default. Further, if there are more than two candidates but one of them is preferred over all others by a majority of the voters, they would win under both systems. So, in these scenarios there can be no superiority of one approach over the other.

Where the two systems diverge is cases where no candidate receives a majority of the votes. In FPP the winning candidate is then the one with the greatest number of votes, irrespective of how small that number is as a proportion of the total votes. In STV, the winning candidate is basically the one that the majority of voters prefer relative to the remaining options (a bit of a simplification, but basically what it amounts to).

Which system does a better job of electing candidates who reflect voters' preferences? My intuition was that STV would do a better job of this, but since I don't like trusting intuition I ran a simple simulation to try to answer the question. In the simulation, I assumed an electorate of 10000 voters whose political preferences vary across two dimensions according to independent normal distributions (you can think of these as economic and social dimensions, like the political compass, if that helps). This leads to a distribution of voters' preferences that looks like this (where each blue point is a single voter):

View attachment 2176139
I then simulated the positions of some number of political candidates; the figure above shows an example with 3 candidates (the red dots). For each voter, I calculated the straight-line distance between their own preferences and those of the candidates. Under FPP, I assumed that each voter selects the candidate they are closest to in this space, whereas for STV I assumed each voter preferences the candidates in ascending order of distance (i.e., first preference is the closest candidate, second preference is the next-closest, and so on).

I ran this simulation 10000 times for each of FPP and STV, and then calculated the average distance across all voters from the winning candidate's position. The number of "victories" for each electoral system from these 10000 simulations, when varying the number of political candidates, was as follows:

Number of candidates	FPP wins (of 10000)	STV wins (of 10000)
3	4792	5208
4	4530	5470
5	4267	5740
6	3938	6064
7	3724	6285
8	3494	6515
9	3423	6585
10	3141	6870

Note that some rows sum to slightly > 10000 because of ties or NAs in the simulated data (I didn't spent the time to totally iron out all the kinks in the code). In any case, this pretty clearly shows that STV is always superior to FPP by this metric, and that this superiority increases with the number of candidates in the electorate.

My disclaimer here is that I'm not an expert in political science, so I may be missing the knowledge that would allow me to identify important features not captured here (e.g., I don't know if there's research out there about the distribution and dimensionality of voters' preferences, so assuming it's 2-dimensional, independent, and normal may be way off). This was just my simple but systematic way of working through the problem to test my intuition.

If anyone wants to re-run or modify the simulation, the R code for the simulation function is below; it returns a vector of distances of voters' positions from the winning candidate's/party's position under the specified electoral system.

runSim <- function(nVoters, nParties, choiceRule=c("STV", "FPP")){
partyPositions <- data.frame(party=1:nParties,
dim1Pos=rnorm(nParties),
dim2Pos=rnorm(nParties))

allPrefs <- data.frame(voterN=1:nVoters,
dim1Pos=rnorm(nVoters),
dim2Pos=rnorm(nVoters))

for (i in 4:(nParties+3)){
allPrefs[,i] <- sqrt((allPrefs$dim1Pos-partyPositions$dim1Pos[i-3])^2 +
(allPrefs$dim2Pos-partyPositions$dim2Pos[i-3])^2)
}

voterN <- rep(0, nParties)
excluded <- rep(0, nParties-1)

if (choiceRule=="FPP"){
for (i in 1:nParties){
voterN[i] <- sum(ifelse(allPrefs[,i+3]==do.call(pmin, allPrefs[-c(1:3)]), 1, 0))
}
distFromWinner <- allPrefs[,which(voterN==max(voterN))+3]
return(distFromWinner)
} else {

for (i in 1:nParties){
voterN[i] <- sum(ifelse(allPrefs[,i+3]==do.call(pmin, allPrefs[-c(1:3)]), 1, 0))
}

for (i in 1:(nParties-1)){
excluded[i] <- which(voterN==(sort(voterN)[i]))

for (j in 1:nParties){
voterN[j] <- sum(ifelse(allPrefs[,j+3]==do.call(pmin, allPrefs[-c(1:3, excluded+3)]), 1, 0))
}

}

distFromWinner <- allPrefs[,which(voterN==max(voterN))+3]
return(distFromWinner)

}
}

I'm torn between which emoji I go for. Is it because the computations are sooo far above my comprehension or is it because I like the analysis.

Mmmmm .... you decide.

 

[Next Waiting]

It's all proportional though. The population of the state dictates how many EC votes it has.

The political appointments thing I definitely agree with. Been abused by both sides.

I'd also introduce term limits tbh. Some of the members have been congress have been members for nearly 50 years..

I don't think FPP is proprtional in any sense. We went through this in NZ. The Nats kept winning because they won on an electoral seat majority. problem was they were winning enough seats electorally to hold the majority but continuously losing the national/popular vote. They'd win enough seats to govern by small majorities, but they'd lose by big majorities in the seats they didn't win.

The net result was that they'd lose the national vote but win government ... regularly.

So we had a referendum with 4 options. Keep FPP ... or STV which is what we have in Aus, MMP which was recommended by the electoral commission and ultimately prevailed .. and another one that I forget. I voted for STV ... MMP got up.

Mixed member proportional representation allows for both electoral seat representation and national vote representation. You have, lets say, 80 electoral seats based on a FPP winner but a majority of say 120 proportional rep seats based on the national vote. 5% of the National vote or 1 electoral seat plus whatever triggers the influx of non-electorate candidates. 3rd parties definitely get a go and it's no longer a 2 party system. Disparate views are on the ballot and compromise is required. king makers are born.

Depends what you want and value. I'd take that over whatever it is that is playing out in the US at the moment.

Their whole system seems fraught to me. And I am in no way convinced that that much power and influence should be invested in one (probably/possibly, unstable/geriatric) individual (the President).

TL/DR: The US has a sh1t system that will kill us all.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

TL/DR: The US has a sh1t system that will kill us all.

There there, you’ll be all right

 

[Ted's Robot]

Not sure what sort of person laughs at a documentary about missing children :-(

 

[4Seasons]

So how’s the other 20% going ? 80% seems a low bar to me ?
I think Harris makes more sense than any of your Trump DEI’s .

No doubt money is being poured into military companies, absolutely nothing new there.
We could do a history lesson on that subject, but I promise that’s what happens during conflict.

Anyhow, how come the war is still going ?
Wasn’t your mate ending it in 24 hrs after being elected ?

But the Trump revolving door of “ all the best people” continues.
If this guys name wasn’t Kennedy do you honestly think we would even be discussing him ?

PS , I am assuming you didn’t listen to the interview?

You do realise Trump isn't in charge of the Ukraine or Russia?
You do realise the election is decided and over?
You're just rage baiting now. You've made countless posts, have been proven wrong. Time to add 500 posts to another topic.

 

[4Seasons]

No way is first past the post a better system.
It heavily favours major parties.
It discourages minority participation at the electorate level and by extension at the national level.
Therefore it makes it very hard to establish constructive change and evolution in parties/ candidates (such as we have seen in Australian politics over at least the last 80 years).
It is conducive to exploitation by vote-splitting strategies.
It is possible for a candidate to be elected even though they are the most disliked by the majority of the electorate. By contrast a preferential system ensures that for a candidate to get elected he/she must be preferred by over 50% of the electorate to whoever else is left.

No system is perfect but preferential is far superior. And it has been enhanced in recent times with things like optional preferential and the Robson rotation.

I'm happy to be educated though if you want to try to convince me otherwise.

Orange man bad.

 

[dogwatch]

Orange man bad.

Seems harmless enough to me.

 

[Bulldog1954]

Orange man bad.

Really solid argument.

 

[King Harold]

Really solid argument.

Got no idea what he is talking about.
But there you go , your brain has to work in mysterious ways to be a Trump fan !

 

[BrisDog]

Got no idea what he is talking about.
But there you go , your brain has to work in mysterious ways to be a Trump fan !

We are fortunate. Keep the monarchy (never thought I would say that) and keep compulsory voting and we, Australia will be okay.

Even Dutton, being one of the further to the right conservatives in Australia, would be a democratic in the US.

 

[H Dolphin]

We are fortunate. Keep the monarchy (never thought I would say that) and keep compulsory voting and we, Australia will be okay.

Even Dutton, being one of the further to the right conservatives in Australia, would be a democratic in the US.

Gobsmacked. "Keep the monarchy" ? Are you moving to the right, Labor to Greens, Brisdog ?

 

[BrisDog]

Gobsmacked. "Keep the monarchy" ? Are you moving to the right, Labor to Greens, Brisdog ?

I have moved to the right slightly which is natural as we age. The monarchy provides a layer overriding autocrats, as a rule (there are exceptions). So God Save the King looking over at the seppo’s current mess.

I am off Albo a bit boys, dictated by the cross bench and standing for bugger all. I am in a bit of a bind.

 

[H Dolphin]

I have moved to the right slightly which is natural as we age. The monarchy provides a layer overriding autocrats, as a rule (there are exceptions). So God Save the King looking over at the seppo’s current mess.

I am off Albo a bit boys, dictated by the cross bench and standing for bugger all. I am in a bit of a bind.

As we age we see what's worked and what hasn't, what's worth keeping and what's to be discarded. You aren't moving right, you are wanting to conserve what works, becoming more conservative. Conservative = conserve.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I have moved to the right slightly which is natural as we age. The monarchy provides a layer overriding autocrats, as a rule (there are exceptions). So God Save the King looking over at the seppo’s current mess.

I am off Albo a bit boys, dictated by the cross bench and standing for bugger all. I am in a bit of a bind.

It’s only the beginning, but there’s hope for you yet

 

[Charlie Bucket]

As we age we see what's worked and what hasn't, what's worth keeping and what's to be discarded. You aren't moving right, you are wanting to conserve what works, becoming more conservative. Conservative = conserve.

It actually means reluctant for change.

Which is spot on considering the majority of conservative voters are above 60 and progressiveness makes them uncomfortable.

The ones younger are either rusted on through parental influence, feel like they’re in a position of entitlement or lack the capacity to feel empathy for others. Generally it’s a mixture of both.

 

[dogwatch]

I have moved to the right slightly which is natural as we age. The monarchy provides a layer overriding autocrats, as a rule (there are exceptions). So God Save the King looking over at the seppo’s current mess.

I am off Albo a bit boys, dictated by the cross bench and standing for bugger all. I am in a bit of a bind.

You aren't alone. He's been a disappointment.

I went to listen to George Megalogenis and Nikki Savva discussing the current Australian political scene a few days ago. George was launching his Quarterly Essay on the topic (which I am currently reading) and the debate assumed that there will be a likely Labor or LNP minority government after the next election.

Interesting discussion. The prevailing thinking is that Albo has not told the people what he stands for or where he is taking the country. Like you, nobody seems to know. Too risk averse. Overthinking it perhaps. Not selling his achievements and intentions.

Instead he is allowing Dutton to dictate the agenda and Dutts is loving it. Albo has been too cautious and has blown an opportunity to make effective use of the mandate he had after the 2022 election. Meanwhile Dutton and the Liberal Party who were a train wreck in 2022 have come back from the dead and now lead in some opinion polls.

Anyway, bugger this becoming a conservative in our later years. Maintain the rage!
We need to take care of all of our people, not just the rich and influential. If we hold a steady-as-she-goes line we are all fkd.

I'll be looking for enlightened competent independents at the next election. I hope some will be standing in my electorate.

 

[King Harold]

We are fortunate. Keep the monarchy (never thought I would say that) and keep compulsory voting and we, Australia will be okay.

Even Dutton, being one of the further to the right conservatives in Australia, would be a democratic in the US.

I am all for proper left v right debate on policy issues, but the US have gone way beyond bread and butter issues.
There is no Republican Party left now, it’s all about cultural wars and grievance.
My hope is we are nowhere near their level of toxic discourse, but I am not holding my breath.

 

[Gold Coast Doggies]

We are fortunate. Keep the monarchy (never thought I would say that) and keep compulsory voting and we, Australia will be okay.

Even Dutton, being one of the further to the right conservatives in Australia, would be a democratic in the US.

Agree mate, that’s why he will get his ass kicked come the next election, we need a true Conservative Party and current Liberals sure ain’t it.

 

[BrisDog]

You aren't alone. He's been a disappointment.

I went to listen to George Megalogenis and Nikki Savva discussing the current Australian political scene a few days ago. George was launching his Quarterly Essay on the topic (which I am currently reading) and the debate assumed that there will be a likely Labor or LNP minority government after the next election.

Interesting discussion. The prevailing thinking is that Albo has not told the people what he stands for or where he is taking the country. Like you, nobody seems to know. Too risk averse. Overthinking it perhaps. Not selling his achievements and intentions.

Instead he is allowing Dutton to dictate the agenda and Dutts is loving it. Albo has been too cautious and has blown an opportunity to make effective use of the mandate he had after the 2022 election. Meanwhile Dutton and the Liberal Party who were a train wreck in 2022 have come back from the dead and now lead in some opinion polls.

Anyway, bugger this becoming a conservative in our later years. Maintain the rage!
We need to take care of all of our people, not just the rich and influential. If we hold a steady-as-she-goes line we are all fkd.

I'll be looking for enlightened competent independents at the next election. I hope some will be standing in my electorate.

Send me the link dogwatch. Savva is a good writer but has never rated Dutton. I would enjoy the listen .