Oh cool bfb prof

@@realprotonn ya mean pfp?

@@t3p564 bfb PROF. prof is profile for short

OMG it's a gelatin pfp account!!!! 😍😍😍😍😍

@@carykh Bruh why are you here

My life is a lie!!!

Prey have side facing eyes to look out for predators but the blobs ave no natural predators so it would make sense that they have front facing eyes to detect fruit.

They prey on slobbin blob knobs

@@ohhxcake5434 In a world where a creature has no predators and is not a predator themself, there would be no reason to even have two eyes. They would most likely evolve to have only one eye in the middle.

@@ForAnAngel The reason most creatures have at least 2 eyes is not due to running from, or being a predator themselves. The reason most creatures have at least 2 eyes is because that's the minimum required for depth perception.

They should probably have been included in the simulation by voting for the closest to their position.

@@derrickthewhite1 or become new candidates that cover.

You'll see many more candidates and parties overall with ranked choice. Candidates will pop up to fill those vacuums.

@@dogchaser520 Candidates will pop up inside occupied areas as well.

@@OtherDAS Yes, which is just fine. More candidates means closer representation for larger numbers of people. Does mean more homework, though.

That theorem doesn’t include approval voting, though

fortunately, AI will soon do away with all forms of government that we currently know of

@@orang1921i hope

So what if you used a version of the instant runoff system, but you tallied up the number of times a candidate was the last pick and eliminated the candidate with the most last picks? Doesn't that solve the spoiler effect?

​@@nickcunningham6344I think this fails when people strategically last pick then? If purple knows orange will beat them 1v1 and knows that they'll beat green in a head to head, then they have an incentive to knock orange out But I'm not sure if I'm following your model exactly, Im picturing a ranked choice runoff thing

Glad these blobs have their priorities straight

Mango old gang (this doesn't correlate to my beliefs on the polcomp.) Oh and also political models create political illiteracy.

If you like apples and spooky houses you are a god demn commie

@@herscher1297 😂

If you prefer apples and spooky houses you are a moral degenerate and I shun you😤

mango houses

Yeah, and although politics are much more complex than this, you only have two choices. So the system is pretty shitty...

Proud to support the apples! Fuck mangos!

@@gming8225 mangos are a superior fruit. All unterfruits are to be composted!

@@gming8225 This is decleration of War. MangoGang Assemble!

For the Senate, it might look like a purality, but it's not. It's based on winning a "quota". The single-member division of the House of Reps also has a quota, although it's not called that. The quota is 100% / (number_to_be_elected + 1). For a normal Senate election, the quota for a state is 100%/(6+1), or a little over 14% of the vote (which looks like a plurality). In full-Senate elections, each state has 100%/(12+1) , or about 7.7% of the vote. In the House of Reps, its 100%/(1+1), or 50%, or a majority. All of these quotas mean it's almost possible to elect more than one extra candiate, but not quite. This allows for voting papers to be useful early, but to the exhaust if not enough boxes are numbered. The other reason that neither of these houses is "plurality" is that a candidate can not be elected without a quota, even if they have more votes that any other candidate. (The exception is when there are only enough remaining candidates for the unfilled seats, in which case the candidates are "declared" elected.) If there is only one senate seat remaining unfilled, and three candates with 11%, 7%, and 5% remain, plurality says the 11% candidate would get the seat. But in Australia, the 5% candidate would be eliminated, and those voted redistributed. It's possible all 5% could go to the 7% candiate (which is quite likely if they're both the same party), making the new counts 11% and 12%. Neither yet has a quota, so the lowest candidate would be eliminated., the one with 11%. This leaves only one candidate remaining to fill the last vacant seat, and the 12% candidate is declarted to be elected. So, this last seat looks like a plurality vote, but that's not how the seat is allocated. Note: the actual quota is calculated slightly differently, but is in effect 100%/(N+1), drop fractions, and add 1. This applies to Senate quotas, not the House of Reps, where it really is just a plain 50% majority. The quota for the territories with Senators is always 100%/(2+1), drop fractions, add 1. This is because both territory Senator seats are always vacated at every Senate election. Here are the results for the 2016 Senate election for Queensland. The top twelve first preference candidates (i,e, the best twelve plurality scoreres) were: LNP, ALP, One Nation, Green, Liberal Democrats, Nick Xenophon Team, Family First, Katter's Australian Party, Glenn Lazarus Team, Animal Justice, Shooters-Fishers-Farmers, Liberty Alliance. The elected twelve senators were from these parties: LNP, ALP, One Nation, LNP, ALP, LNP, ALP, LNP, Green, LNP, ALP, One Nation (LNP 5, ALP 4, ON 2, Green 1). In the first preferences, LNP won 4.5 quotas; ALP 3.4; One Nation 1.2; Green 0.89. Next were Liberal Democrat 0.37; Xenaphon 0.26; Family First 0.25, then every other party with less than a ¼-quota. Only three candidates won a quota on their own (one each from LNP, ALP, One Nation). The other nine relied on preferences. The last-place Senate-seat winner gained only 77 first preference votes, and came 97th out of 122 in the plurality ranking. (This senator was later replaced by someone who gained only 19 first-preference votes, and who came 121/122 in the plurality ranking.

terrifying theyre catching up so fast. what will they do when king blob figures out how to escape a simulation

@@chrisbrindas1559 2020 december

Oh no

LOL! 😶😶😶😶

Well, they have rocket business afterall

0:04

Uh

@PACOMOKA orange man bad

@@tristangoncalves1417 Oh no... U anti Trump?

Why?

Its also literally what happened with Joe Biden, and the inverse of what happened with Canadian Liberal leader Justin Trudeau in his first election cycle (Conservatives didn't love/like Trudeau, but they hated his then-current Conservative leader opponent Stephen Harper even more after 8 years of his BS, so some of them strategically voted Trudeau so the Conservatives would be forced to change leaders)

False

Why would that be a problem? If they weren't going to win, they got a moderate rather than an opposing government - this is a desirable outcome.

@@WalterLiddyBecouse they are upposed to him but they have nothing to show that

​@@WalterLiddyit's only good at face vaule, add the 1000 plus variables then it's easily negative. The biggest one is the force social identity of the masses. You force people to vote this election with no opportunity, when the next election comes people and society will be impact by the last election results and have many undesirable ideas and votes without thinking. There's so many variable leaning negative

Isnt France using this ?

@@vornamenachname906 yep

Brazil uses this!

@@vornamenachname906 how? I couldn't find any source that says it uses star voting system

@@skyiloh7460 how? I couldn't find any source that says Brazil uses this system

I can relate, I live in Israel.

that's the last of our problems, the Constitution was written as to make us ungovernable after WW2 so as to ensure that the Communist party could not take power in regular elections nor could it lose relevance: it is an artifact of the postwar period.

@@lorefox201 that’s pretty interesting

That sounds very individualistic. I like it!

I feel that, I live in Azerbaijan. Not really but yeah Plurality Voting is fucked. We could at least remove the Electoral College in the USA. That would at least be an improvement.

anything orange is not going to get my vote for a while..

Orange blob bad

Orange Blob controls the media. Green Blob speaks the truth, even while big Orange Media Co. tries to suppress him. Vote Green! Never believe big Orange Media!!

@@David.d.d.d Green Blob spreads fake news; don't trust them! Purple Blob will make Blobia great again!

green wants to spend your tax money on asshole stimulants dont vote for green

I hope Approval wins, but I'm not optimistic. RCV has way more marketing behind it.

@@eyescreamcake Idea, use both approval AND instant runoff With approval, there was a chance for them to aggressively throw green into the limelight, but if we had instant runoff, the voting parties would not have cared about making orange or purple loose in that moment, and therefore would not aggressively bring the votes down, causing green to be taken out of the election and then orange and purple to truly go up against each other. This also fixes the spoiler effect from being in range of all three as not voting for your least favorite this time would have no effect on orange and purple, it would just help remove green and then orange and purple would be fair again.

I wish STAR voting got more attention too

ranked is better than approval

I think things are starting to change a bit. During this year's general election we got ranked choice voting. It was one of two options, the other being this weird thing where you vote for as many of the candidates as you like and winner takes all. I do think that with the increasing concentration of the population in urban areas that we will hit a critical mass where enough of the population is already using one of these improved voting systems that entire states will reform their voting methods. Considering that people on both sides of the spectrum feel disenfranchised by the current system, it's mostly corporations that are opposed to fixing it.

By national, I'm pretty sure you mean the usa. While I am not a fan of the American two-party system, other democracies often have the same problem. Britain uses first-past the post and I don't think it is an amazingly good system. these voting systems should be discussed more on an International scale, not just in your country.

Definitely! So, how are we going to vote for the voting system?

@@May-gr8bp Yeah, the Uk definitely has FPTP, and there is a growing movement inside the country to switch to a more proportional system. Unfortunately, I don't think the 2 main parties will go for this, so kinda of stuck. Guess we will see how the next election goes, and see if Labour actually listens to the people (assuming they win)

You cannot, if you try to discuss about the voting system in Brazil, you are sent to jail.

I agree, Duverger's law is the bane of the USA's political system. It forces voters to pick a side and divide themselves from the opposite side which just causes unnecessary drama between people of differing politics. Not to mention people get sucked into agreeing to things they don't believe in just because their political party supports it. It's just a mess that could be fixed so easily

@@Firedag I don't know about easily - every action to make the system more nuanced with several parties would mean the big 2 loose power. Which of course they would have to enact themselves. Which of course they wouldn't do... So it is simple, I agree - but it is unfortunately not easy

and if you pay them off they say both YES to the most horrible stuff.

@stephen sampson Why does the US have a two party system? “Winner takes all electorate system” If the question, and your answer read like a middle school social studies test, you’re probably pulling your knowledge from the same educational pool. There is a definite reason your comment reads as though you just got out of class, and watched a few youtube videos on the subject. Your take is basic, its something someone else told you that you dont even know why you believe it. You look for people to agree with so you don’t have to admit you don’t know and never actually tried to know.

@@Firedag How does having more sides keep one from picking a side, and also keep one from dividing from the others? Have you ever done division? Here ill help 1/2 of 100 is 50 so if im on one side, im against one side of 50 1/3 of 100 is 33.3 so if im on one side, im against two sides of 33.3 totaling 66.6 Your statement leads me to believe that pro abortionist and anti abortionist wouldn’t have any drama if they just had more people to vote for. Do you go outside? Do you interact with humans? How in gods name have you equated number of potential candidates to vote for to people not having drama about disagreements Go Talk To A Human

TRUE

Aw, because of this comment I expected "candidates change their position" to be one of the complicating factors discussed in runoff voting. I came out disappointed.

As any good public servant should, to best represent an evolving demographic/civilization.

@@jdmeesey or just trick them enough that they can head back to their old position when they win the election.

You can rename this video to why Bernie will probably never win despite holding ideas that most Americans agree with.

That's the smart thing to do, but instead people skip voting, thinking it makes little difference which party gets elected since none completely satisfies their demands and then complain about the outcome. I have noticed that only in my country, but i bet it happens everywhere.

​@@TonyShark. In Australia we have mandatory voting, meaning if you don't go vote you get fined. This ends up making around 98-99% of the population vote, bar some people that either just couldn't make during the period, or just didn't want to

@@olsirmonkey I've heard about the Australian election system and I think it should be a role model for other countries, because it's simple but fair and makes sure that everyone takes part like you said. However, some may find it quite difficult to vote (for example the elder) so I wonder if there's an age limit regarding the mandatory voting.

@@TonyShark. Perhaps, but if the candidates are all far enough removed from your opinions, then you need to ask yourself if it’s worth the effort of going all the way out to the voting areas, waiting in line, and dealing with all that mess… just to get absolutely nothing for your efforts. Sometimes, the politicians have so little interest in what you have to say that you need to treat the election less like something to participate in and more like a passing storm: a natural disaster you can’t hope to control

@@spindash64 Let's say that more and more people start believing that it's not worth it to vote, since none of the candidates satisfies their needs. Then we will witness a great absence from elections and as a result, the people who will participate, are going to be in other words a small percentage of people that is deciding for the entire country. This is what's happening in Greece right now, as the youths don't even consider educating themselves about politics and are more likely to skip elections and this leads to elderly people deciding for their future. Doesn't make sense to me.

Lmao

Have you seen India?

@@sebastiancordoba489 seen*

In India probably we have at least 6 parties in each state. Still there are independent candidates. And we have nearly 30 states. So do the math.

@@MasterofBeats tbf the irregular past participle "seen" of the verb "saw" is essentially a pleonasm that adds no real meaning to a statement.

id get real heated in politics

I am both.

*snort* I do that when I laugh

Sounds like something a modern sympathizer would say.

@@bruhsauce644 sounds like something a dirty wackyspookscurvy supporter would say

Putin is stepping down

@@U.Inferno But he'll still get elected with 70% of the vote come the next elections

Dont forget about his 207% approval rate

@@U.Inferno no he isnt they said

@@U.Inferno He's got Parkinson's disease

Actually it is biased, but you sound more like a apple-fanboy making fun of these nice dark houses ;-)

Just like a mango lover to find bias where there is none...

Actually apples are far superior than the mangos and normal houses have proven to be much more efficient cost wise, next time do your research, i bet you’re a green voter.....

@@bouncydachon Can i ask how apples are scientifically superior to mangos aswell as how a 'normal house' would be more cost efficient?

As a mango-normalist, I disagree with your Apple-centric view but respect the cost efficiency of normal houses.

Sounds like something a filthy Spookyhouser would say!

It is political. He is clearly presenting a viewpoint supporting a policy change (Plurality voting is bad) which is by definition political. That isn't to say that it is a bad thing, it's just incorrect to say it isn't political.

Neutrality is not the lack of politics.

Its just math

@@ProfAzimov Math regarding political subjects is political. If I was to present graphs on government spending or on political topics like immigration or some other thing which is subject of political discussion, I would be being "political". Being political is not a bad thing, it is nescisary for people to discuss such topics. I would prefer if more of politics was based on mathematics.

Agreed

of course cary would show up here

Glad to see you on a informative video like this. And I do agree.

Yes. [obligatory hai cary]

Also someone who thinks CGP grays voting videos should be promoted!!! Was very happy to see this

Yes! My family votes through their dislikes whereas I vote strategically for what I like,so I noticed this too. Nicely said.

he's a nicer color???!?!?!?!?!?!? racist...

I'm allergic to mangos. I'm gonna need to search for a political asylum if mangos win :S

@@samuellevac-levey2170 but in a good way

Orange blob bad!

Better vote him off, seems kinda sus

I was waiting for the guy

Completely forgot about this guy. It took me by surprise, and that's so cool!

when the returned needed him most he world. wait a minute...

@@adjmoo t r u e

I forgot i even subscribed to him

No nice house apples is clearly the best option dunderhead green is a dumb

Ehh im an applo-moderate. Im a pink bro

Try being a regular house and mango fan. You'll get rekt by these parties.

Spooky houses are structurally unsound! That's the spooky part! 47% of blobs reported that their spooky houses collapsed! Make way for modern houses!

@@thedeliveryboy1123 Another Modern house extremist. Let me guess - these are the lies that Big Real Estate told you? Wake up! Green Blob is on the right path. We must embrace the Spooky houses, not let the likes of Orange or Purple take control over our home choice! Green2020!!!

Exactly

Voting orange

Voting purple

Voting Green

Voting green

Voting green

The difference between the italian system and the video is that the video is talking about presidential election where plurality is bad. In parliamentary election, as the italian ones, plurality is the best system

Still sounds a lot better than what we have in the US

@@OmikronZeta as a European, we see only what president says. I think you see also what happens in the Senate and in the Chamber of Representatives. We compare our system (with a lot of parties), with your system (2 parties), but the USA and a European nation are different

The Italian political system is too a large topic for a short video. It might be even too large for a thick book. It's basically organized and (barely) functioning chaos. ;-)

We can reasume it with "MAMMA MIA"

if you know that a party similar to yours has much more support you would end up betraying them and giving them minimum to give your party a chnace

@@comment978 The point, is why would you do that? You have a score so your approval for a party can be nuanced. Say there is party A, B and C. You love A, B is similar but not the ideal choice like in your scenario, and you hate C. You vote 5 stars for A, 3 stars for B and 0 stars for C. If A and B are finalists, your vote goes to A cause you love them. If B and C are finalists because they recieved to most support, your vote goes to B because while not your first choice you prefer them to C. No need for betrayal. Your vote is not wasted because you go for the long shot candidate. In fact it is truest to what you actually believe. Even if your candidate had a 1/100 chance, if they lose you still had some sway in the final outcome with your second choice who was a finalist. If they win to be a finalist, congrats your vote will contribute to their final total.

In case B(3*) vs C(0*) you now have the problem that you could have shown more support for your lesser prefferred Party (B) if you preemptively knew that B was a stronger choice than your favorite (A) Party against your hated (C) Party. In a sense you would have the problem of betraying your favorite party in favor of your second favorite party. That‘s complicated.

That's literally just approval voting.

@@lefthanded3446 There is no betraying. You give 5 stars to your favorite party A and 3 stars to your second favorite party B. If your favorite party A has a high star score with every voter, their average score is high, then your vote goes to A if they are one of the final 2 highest-scored candidates. If A wasn't highly scored by everyone and eliminated but B was highly scored then your vote wasn't wasted. B becomes a finalist and your vote goes to them if they are your highest score out of the finalists. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO BETRAYAL. No reason nor strategy to betray.

It's true. My hope is that this small intro makes more people excited to look further into it.

​@@PrimerBlobs E.G. In italy we have a system wich is at least partially proportional, so when an election happens there is not an automatic winner but parties create a coalition and then form the government, so everything is hugely different from your exemples. Anyway thanx for your answer, your channel is great!

@@MartinoMaroso You mean the parties congregate in two large factions? like most of the world does?

@@Martykun36 We have all sinned & fallen short to the glory of God. We have all broken God’s commandments, therefore we deserve hell , we deserve eternal punishment in hell bc of our sins. But bc God is love & merciful He offered a way for sinners to be saved from the eternal punishment we deserve. He died on the cross for the punishment that we deserve so that we can be free from hell. & what we have to do is repent of our sins & turn away from all sin & put faith & trust in the only one who can save us from hell which is Jesus. Will you accept Him in your heart? He’s our Lord & Savior! He changed my life! I’m so much better now I find peace with Him. Without Him Idk where I would be. Salvation is a gift from God we are saved by WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE ALONE FAITH ALONE!❤️❤️❤️❤️ Also be careful what you feed your spirit, feed it the word of God! :)))

@@Martykun36 we will probably get there but at the moment there are three major parties and the coalition between 2 of them is formed after the election happens

Yes

We’re going to the top

XD

KILL THEM WHILE WE ARE STILL AHEAD

100th like

Don't forget STAR Voting!

now let me berate you with reasons why each X candidate is best

please vote if you haven't (and are capable)

Vote for X candidate because x,y,z

for real go vote if you can because there's a question about ranked choice voting on some of the state ballots

Certainly seems to be the decision the politicians make.

*of typical himan interaction ftfy

Why betray eachother, when why just not vot the one your closer to, when you prefer that person better, while your inside multiple rings. Thoese people who are not inside any ring at all are propably the sleeping voters who say voting system sucks and so their not into voting anybody, when say there is no good candidate to vote for.

@@LeonardoMastrogiovanni Lmfao you wish. Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Brazilian politics*

@@LeonardoMastrogiovanni There are two types of modern politics. The shit kind, and the shitter kind.

I'm not fun at parties: They're not voting cause if you draw a circle around them, no candidate falls within that circle. In less abstract terms, it means they're not satisfied with the solutions proposed by any of the candidates, so they choose not to vote (i.e. the blobs in the top right corner want mangoes AND nice houses, but the candidates are offering either apples and nice houses OR mangoes and squiggly houses and the blobs don't like either of those options). In real life this would be less likely since if there's no proposed solutions favorable to you, you might "compromise" and expand your circle in order to find the "least worst" option, at the very least.

@@tailez606 the "least worst" option, huh? Sounds familiar and highly relevant.

@@tailez606 I feel like a more real-world analog might've been to say anyone that's not in any circle will give a single vote to the candidate nearest them. It's POSSIBLE that people may legitimately go in for a "none of these candidates" or just not vote, but I think the higher the office is, the less likely people are to do that.

@@wrpen99 Difference is that this situation requires that no candidate are within your range, which should be rather rare seeing as the system should allow any number of parties to be started. And if you find yourself in the least worst position you can just start your own party to cater to your fringe need, forgoing the whole least worst option.

Imagine not voting for president irl because you aren't in a 5 feet range of them.

Based

Kim jong un: is for me?

it's 1 vote for 1 person wdym..

@@spongmongler6760 comment above assumes that your favorite candidate isn’t one of the 2 most popular ones. If you vote for them, they don’t win and the popular candidate that you like more has a lower chance of winning. Effectively making your vote wasted. If you vote for the popular candidate that you agree with more, your favorite candidate doesn’t get a vote, and support for them is low, which is will lower their chance of winning in the next election since last election they didn’t do well, so people won’t vote for them next election. Either way, you can’t vote how you want without feeling somewhat bad. If your favorite candidate happens to already be one of the popular ones, then his comment doesn’t apply.

I don't get why people won't vote multiple candidates, if some are almost as good. Give your favorite an A, and the others a B or C. In fact it's equally reasonable that someone would give their two favorites a B instead of an A.

@@TY-df7fg could you just not find an unattractive candidate as your favourite then. just thought.

@@steijnvanb4634 haha

I'm from Texas, I remember when we decided our Governor by seeing who was able to beat down a random firing gun turret mounted longhorn with their bare fists and drag its body up an oil rig the fastest, now that was a REAL runoff election!!!!!!!!!!

wouldn't mind having The Rock as president

But what would you vote for? I'm personally a centerist who leans towards spooky slightly

@@laterbot fucking moderate...................... I NEEED MODERN HOMES AND THE APPLE INDUSTRY HAS BEEN SIDELINED LONG ENOUGH!! YOU PEOPLE ARE THE ONES RUINING OUR NATION OF BLOBS..........

Go spooky houses!

i’m a spooky extremist. HAIL SPOOKY HOUSES

am voting purple - spooky houses will scare the young blob citizens away

Well you cannot say compare popular vote at electoral college, as there were many people who didn't vote for their candidate as they didn't believe to win. In 2016 there was no campaign in California from Republicans while Hillary did(kinda stupid, considering the result), and California has the highest number of Conservatives by state(even beating Texas). And if there was a popular vote election it is hard to say how the results would turn out

It's almost as if the people who designed the electoral college didn't want just the popular vote....

@@TheOwenMajor what... no way... it is certainly a surprise

@@TheOwenMajor well the electoral college was designed so that people who live in smaller states would have a slightly higher voting power. This was to encourage politicians to campaign at the smaller states instead of just the bigger ones. If everyone had the same voting power, politicians would just campaign at big states to reach out to more people, which would cause people who live in a smaller state to never have the chance to join rallies, meet the candidates, etc

@@timothywong3990 1 that’s not why it was made 2 even if that was why it was made it still wouldn’t do that, just google where rallys are held it’s never in small states

people would vote strategically and give their preferred party maximum and the opposition minimum, basically the same as approval.

@@comment978 that's true, but it's not the same as basic approval. In the basic approval voting, centrists have disproportionate power because all the candidates overlap with them so they get to pick and choose. In this system, the only people inclined to strategically vote are people who are more passionate about politics, which means this system gives more power to people that are more politically passionate/involved. That's a much more fair award system than basic approval voting which just gives a flat out award to centrists.

@@comment978 the runoff stage disincentivizes this because it gives an incentive to express preference order. if you express a preference order, even if neither of your candidates make it to the runoff, you still have a say in the runoff.

Bernie Sanders is purple blob

Isn't that honestly pink

@@mpetkovic26 nah. Bernie is a dem. The purple one is Jo. Fitting as on the actual political compass she is in the purple quadrant.

@@alexmilchev5395 Yeah.She not even shown on CNN's vote counts.

Its the libertarians

oh so you want to live in spooky weird house?

We should seize the means of Apple production and destroy Mangoisie as class.

Mango preferers want to kill your babies!

@@Henrix1998, and spookytarians are blobphiles!

Pro Spooky house voters want to take away our protections

i mean you clicked so you’ve got your priorities straight LOL

And the answer is obviously yes

And the answer was yes.Good Job.

Yes, I'd love to learn about blob politics instead of sleeping

bruh, i just copied this comment without noticing

@@Switz14 U wot

The title changed as I was watching the video. It scared me :P

@@nathanishungryanimations7206 he did... click his icon

@@ethanweller3013 Oh my…

Video would get too much controversy and be flooded with self proclaimed experts if real views were used.

You mean he shouldn't have real issues of apple dominance and spooky curvy house underrepresentation?

@@zunlise2341 I think that the superior table tops are more of an issue. (wink)

You sound like a mango voter

You’re obviously a grape lover. How many times do we have to tell you that grapes sounds good in theory but it will never work nor sustainable, that’s why it’s never considered in the first place

A few years ago we would have called the virus video exactly that :x

The blobpocalypse if you will

In 2021, you want to say?

Objectively, a disadvantage of this system is that a centre party can totally become king-makers.

oh thanks, I was starring at their shadow on the ground and was like "wtf is that weird pattern"

i honestly disliked that :(

Not hard at all, in fact it would be more effort to *not* do that.

That's crazy that when you tick the option to render shadows in your rendering software, it actually renders shadows! Insane!

Tfw basic blender video making

Cgp grey did a video on that

...this sounds like a cheesy school assignment.

Just do 3-position score voting with your thumbs: Thumb up = +1, thumb down = -1, thumb sideways = 0. Count up the points for each option and highest number wins. "Tacos has 3 in favor and 1 against = 2, pizza has 3 in favor and 0 against = 3, pizza wins"

@@eyescreamcake This! Why are people not talking about this more. We need score voting. It's obvious dang it... Though please edit and correct your message. You wrote 3-1=1 when you likely meant 3-1=2

AKA CGP Grey's "Quick and Easy Voting for Normal People "

IRV (Preferential in Oz) still maintains two party stranglehood. Its results are no different from one choice plurality, except IRV allows a symbolic gesture once in a while. Consider: 2 voters rank: Favorite > Lesser 1 voter ranks: Lesser > Evil 2 voters rank: Evil > Favorite The above will elect Evil. Your better strategy is to betray your Favorite for the "Lesser evil": 1: Favorite > Lesser 2: Lesser > Evil 2: Evil > Favorite In four candidate RCV (IRV) races, support can hurt and lack of support can help. Consider the following election; after Boring then Evil lose, your Favorite would win: 6: Favorite > Lesser 5: Evil > Favorite 4: Lesser > Evil 2: Boring > Lesser However, fearing a close race, suppose you convince most Boring supporters to rank Favorite highest. But insanely enough, instead of Favorite winning, this causes Evil to win: 6: Favorite > Lesser 5: Evil > Favorite 4: Lesser > Evil 2: Favorite > whatever There are numerous convoluted scenarios and unexpected results under RCV and it only gets worse and crazier with more candidates. Unless you are certain that your Favorite will be dead last early or has a good chance of winning early, you must betray your Favorite for the most popular Lesser Evil... the same situation with the old "one choice plurality" (FPTP), but at least plurality makes sense. "Approval Voting" is simply better.

@@vegahimsa3057 Man nobody read your essay, I just skimmed over it and left

@@m2heavyindustries378 which is why people opt for any other bad system cuz they have no patience to learn whether it's just as bad. RCV doesn't accomplish what is claimed.

Australia still has two evil parties, yet Australians think, "it works pretty good". It's the same shit. Australians just get to waste their vote on a dinky little party before transferring their vote to either Labor or Lib/Nat in every election for over a hundred years.

@@m2heavyindustries378 That's why we can't have nice things.

You should pin this

I’m an Australian and even I didn’t know this lol

I got confused for a second but this sorted it out.

@@sockscav strongly recommend you learn about our government system

Don't worry, we've got much bigger problems, don't you agree uncle Rupert? No?! Everything's going fine you say. I don't have to worry about the ever increasing transfer of wealth from poor to rich, the outflow of jobs, the botched covid response, the suspicious reluctance to introduce a federal anti-corruption commission, the fires, the floods. Ok uncle Rupert, Mr former smart money man, Mr Stokes, the collection of oligarch owners of 10, the compromised federal broadcaster, I'll just drink my beer, watch ball kick (or ball throw), and continue to vote for the "party of good economic managers". Let's hope this next election is better. - Totally not a statement in support of the ALP, the party of subpar advertisements.

But don't forget: bigger army diplomacy

Flaw: beheaded

@@eekpanggang regicide is less bloody than democide at least.

Flaw: overlooking easier, more logical and more convenient solutions because of personal preference of the monarch (alias: most are still screwed if he is a dick) 2nd Flaw: shaky as fuck ruling justifications, *especially* when the ruling party is corrupt and incompetent (but that’s a flaw that every ruling system has, the only difference here is that everyone else has to live with it till the monarch dies, and additionally monarchs can damn well ignore most societal problems if they don’t affect them directly and they wish so)

@@somerandomgal3915 hey hey, that's what regicide is for.

True

Month* lmao

You mean **Laughs in despotic nepotistic necrocracy**

It's like those 30 years in which the US replaced with dictatorships any government in Latin America that didn't align with their economic objectives. "You think having one party is bad? Try having none".

Belgium laughs in 7 major parties and 7 governments made up from a mix of the 7 parties

Do you mean *Laughs in "Democratic Republic" of North Korea*

Honestly, one-party states aren't all that different from two party states. One party states, like China, tend to have an 'opposition' within the party itself, effectively a second option, so the only real difference is that in two party states the opposition party is openly not the same party and have *a little* more freedom to set their own policy openly. In practice though, issues get boiled down to option A or B either way, on the level of the voter.

@Valchap equality is more likely yes, but it can happen in all systems (like plurality vote we could get a sharp 50/50 even if that's unlikely) ... On the other hand we could use plurality vote as a tie-breaker !

Exactly what I was thinking.

Yeah, I’ve always supported that system. There are flaws, but it’s never strategic to vote any way other than honestly.

@@lukeneale9967 The wikipedia article states that there is still strategic voting with the condorcet method.

Condorcet is typically used as more of a voting system metric. There are plenty of voting methods that choose the Condorcet winner, and using pure head-to-heads can get cumbersome if you have more than a few candidates

magenta

violet

just like real politics!

Let me explain: Violet is cold and very dark; more blue. Magenta is the colour showed on the screen, well actually that is light magenta, the normal one is little bit darker. Purple is magenta, but the leading color is red, and it's the color that people use when they draw space or the Milky Way. Light red is very light red, that people usually call pink... ...even though pink is way darker. I would say it's also quite 'neon'. I think thease are the colours that you meant, but there are far more in my language, so I don't know if they mean the same in english? I personally think that the colour on screen is something bewteen cold rosa, cold light magenta and warm violet.

"orange" yellow, too. edit: I prefer hearing the word "purple" over "pink," because "pink" is a tinny word.

*anything with more than 3 options has to be put into 4 Dimensional Space, which will be very hard to understand*

@@Ro_Gaming Hard doesn’t mean imposible

.. what about r*pe? that cannot be simulated with colourful blobs

@@spongmongler6760 If you were creative enough, I'm sure you could simulate things so much worse than r*pe with colorful blobs.

@@deargodwhy9718 there's only 1 thing worse than r*pe and that, too, involves r*pe...