Borda count just sounds better in every way to me.

This is a good video, but there's one problem I have with it, which is the title. Nothing in the video proves that democracy is mathematically impossible. All it shows is that different voting systems are incompatible with each other. A democracy doesn't need to use every possible voting system at once in order to be democratic. All it needs to do is use one voting system. So the fact that different systems give different results isn't a problem. Ideally, each democracy's citizens will choose a voting system they like, and use that one. If a different system gives a different winner that's okay, because the people have decided that other system was inferior anyway. Sure, it's weird that multiple systems that all seem correct give different results. But that doesn't mean that there's no correct answer. All it means is that some of the systems that seem like good ideas actually weren't, and it's up to us to determine which one is actually best. The only problems that would arise are the fact that the Condorcet method can sometimes produce a paradox, and the fact that some democracies use voting systems that their citizens don't like, such as first-past-the-post. In the first case, this can be fixed by adding a "tiebreaker" rule that chooses a winner in the case that the Condorcet method can't determine a winner. This will make the voting system a little more complex, but that doesn't make it invalid. In the second case, hopefully the country's citizens can get their leaders to switch to a system they do like. ON THE OTHER HAND, I have read an article that claims that no voting system can have every quality you would want in such a system. It's called “Voting Research - Voting Theory” on the Princeton website, by “Paul Cuff - Sanjeev Kulkarni - Mark Wang - John Sturm.” It claims that, in any voting system, there will be the possibility that: 1. A candidate dropping out will change the winner, even if the candidate that drops out wasn’t going to win anyway. That’s not ideal, since we would want the best candidate to win regardless of what other candidates are running. 2. Voters will be incentivised to change their vote, from what they really believe to something else, in order to get a result they prefer, aka “strategic voting.” That’s not ideal since the voting system should reflect the genuine desires of the voters. So, in a certain sense, a perfect voting system is in fact mathematically impossible. And the video does have some examples of these issues. An example of issue 1 is shown at 4:08 in this video, and the situation at 4:44 shows the second issue, since the bottom two voters in the second case would be incentivised to change their votes to match the first case so that "a" wins instead of "c." However, the video never actually says these problems exist in all voting systems, it just shows examples from a couple specific voting systems. So the claim that it makes all of of democracy impossible seems to come out of nowhere. Besides, according to the Princeton article, results like these are rare when using the Condorcet method. Condorcet FTW! So a voting system that is perfect may be mathematically impossible, but based on my understanding we can still create one that is very good. So maybe “perfect democracy with flawless voting systems is mathematically impossible” is true, but “democracy is mathematically possible” is a big leap. Just because a democracy has some small flaws doesn’t mean it’s not democracy. IN CONCLUSION, As I said, I liked the video. It’s a good exploration of flaws in certain voting systems. However, I think the title reaches too far, and what’s in the video doesn’t support it.

@oskargrube3661

9 ай бұрын

Well spoken.

@quidest5

8 ай бұрын

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

@rorschachanti-sex950

Ай бұрын

No, democracy is fail.

Arrows theorem.

I wonder how did people impose the use democracy the first time ? Did they put it to a vote ? :)

this channel is Libertarian and i can prove:

@mzg147

3 жыл бұрын

No you cannot

@viniciusteixeira9803

3 жыл бұрын

@@mzg147 it was a joke, man

@simongross3122

Жыл бұрын

@@viniciusteixeira9803 Quite a good joke, actually

I guess we should choose that counting method where 'literally' every vote matters not just so to say

@simongross3122

Жыл бұрын

Two party preferred method does this. Votes are not extinguished by their candidate being eliminated. The vote gets counted in their second preference and so on until it finally vests in one of two surviving candidates.

I thought that that was going to be a piss take ... I am totally stunned!

@tonydai782

3 жыл бұрын

Why would you think that? This channel has never been political and has always explained the math as it is, it would make absolutely no sense for it to be a piss take.

@alphalunamare

3 жыл бұрын

@@tonydai782 Don't take insult when none is intended.

@ZXLegend1

3 жыл бұрын

@@tonydai782 Just cause we agree with it doesn't mean it's not political. In the US for example, there are plenty of people with interest in keeping votes suppressed, using tactics like gerrymandering, and making sure no one changes our first past the post voting system in favor of a fairer democratic method.

Underrated video.

I knew you`re a bold mind

I have no idea how i am subscribed to this channel and why notifications are set to all. but ok youtube

Views:2501 Sub:7.37k I'll come again a year later and see your growth. I hope it's exponential...😊

@heroesinhoodies1210

Жыл бұрын

It’s been a year, maybe more

How do you make such animation videos? Nice explanation btw❤️

@MetaMaths

3 жыл бұрын

I use manim, final cut and a secret ingredient- love for math !

@quickyummy8120

3 жыл бұрын

@@MetaMaths 😀👍 keep it up

Great video. I just feel like these issues only arise when using a small number of people (like 17).

@ckq

Жыл бұрын

Nah it's very possible when some candidates are polarizing

@dudono1744

Жыл бұрын

just multiply all numbers by n

@ninjaqade879

10 ай бұрын

@@ckq they are groomed/conditioned into their positions to be polarizing characters, hence why celebrity politicians are becoming more common

You are good why do you have so low views. Maybe a soothing music and some style like 3blue1brown

What about 2 party preferred method? Preferences are allocated in order. Losers cede their preference to the next preferred on their list until there are only two candidates left.

@MetaMaths

Жыл бұрын

For what scenario are you proving this example ?

@simongross3122

Жыл бұрын

I am not proving anything. Just questioning the limited number of voting systems that you "tested". Australia has a so-called "two party preferred" mechanism where votes are not exhausted at the first failure, but are counted in order of preference until there are only two candidates left. The other quirk of this system is that voting is compulsory so that nobody's vote is excluded. I don't believe this is a voting system that you have considered before saying that "Democracy is mathematically impossible"

You assule the existence and unicity of a winner tho

do you use manim

@MetaMaths

3 жыл бұрын

Yes

You did not prove that democracy is mathematically impossible. You just showed that three versions of it don't completely work. Your proof fails to acknowledge the possibility of a fourth way to run a democracy. That is like me saying, "It is impossible to have an odd square number because 3, 5, and 7 are not square numbers". Since 9 is a square number my argument that no odd square numbers exist has been proven wrong. QED

@alexandertownsend3291

3 жыл бұрын

Other than that, this was a good video.

@MetaMaths

3 жыл бұрын

I guess my point was that there is no single way to define the "will of majority" and thus the core principle of democracy becomes vague.

@alexandertownsend3291

3 жыл бұрын

@@MetaMaths i agree with you there. Good point.

@drdca8263

3 жыл бұрын

@@MetaMaths I recently heard about some paper(s) that use linear logic as a means of aggregating collective judgements, and claims that this results in a consistent system (which is surprising). Like, the paradoxes that generally come from "the majority believes A, and the majority believes B, but the majority believes not(A and B)" end up being resolved by using multiple different senses of "and", one of them the "additive and" and one of them the "multiplicative and", both from (intuitionistic) linear logic. I haven't read the paper(s), and I may be getting parts of this somewhat wrong, but if it is as meaningful as it sounds like it might be, I think it might make the concept of "the will of the majority" much more coherent than I have previously thought. On the other hand, that still can't change the fact that the only "straightforwards" game forms, are the probabilistic combinations of "players vote between 2 options", "a particular player chooses any of the options" (By Gibbard's 1978 theorem), so *even if it is* possible to define a coherent "will of the majority" using linear logic, that still wouldn't mean it would be possible to *implement* it, because, outside of when there are exactly 2 options, or there is additional known information about the forms of players'/voters' preferences, there would still be cases where players' best strategy depends on how others vote, and so simply "voting your honest preferences" can't be guaranteed to be dominant strategy. (I might be using slightly the term "dominant strategy" slightly wrong, as apparently for something to be even weakly dominant, there has to be at least some other combination of moves other players could make, such that this move is better for the player than another move, whereas what I mean, is just that "this move will always be at least as good as all other available moves, no matter how the other players play")

@quidest5

8 ай бұрын

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

huh

The solution is to simply narrow down the options to 2 candidates 👍 or 1😬 or 0💀

There are some problems mathematically, but it's the best system we have. So of course we use the best one.

Conclusion of this video : Reject democracy, return to Monarchy.

@drdca8263

3 жыл бұрын

as far as avoiding succession crises go, compared to monarchies, democracy (by which I mean, the thing that actually exists with elections and such, not "rule by the people collectively", which is probably ill defined) is basically magic, is my understanding.

@fragileomniscience7647

2 жыл бұрын

Never focus power on a few persons.

@schechter01

2 жыл бұрын

Nahhh. Reject democracy, set up a meritocracy. In democracy all votes are equal; in meritocracy votes are weighted by intellect, or level of contribution to the system, or by some other objective metric.

@simongross3122

Жыл бұрын

@@schechter01 Problem there is that you have to have some way of agreeing what "merit" is. That just becomes another political shitfight.

@dudono1744

Жыл бұрын

@@schechter01 Basically USA with merit = money. It has been shown statistically that only the opinion of the wealthiest 10% matters

c l i c k b a i t

if the video title was accurate, it would be: "Democracy is mathematically impossible, in some cherry-picked ultra-rare scenarios, and is still mathematically possible almost always." some people will be hit by lightning today, and I could be one of them, but I'm still going outside, and I'm not worried about it :)

@MetaMaths

3 жыл бұрын

Mathematical structures require 100% certainty, so with that respect the discussed voting systems are flawed. This gives opportunities for manipulating the election process, I tried to make this the main point of the video.

@quidest5

8 ай бұрын

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

Democracy is impossible because the majority of people in a country will always vote, based on what MSM platforms tell them. And MSM is run by corporate interests. Democracy is simply oligarchy with extra steps. Great video, nontheless!