Trivial, and non applicable to real world politics or capitalism, many of which are multidimensional
@limeslyx-z945311 ай бұрын
For more information, watch the mathematical dangers of democratic voting by spanning tree
@michaelnelson12702 жыл бұрын
In a very polarized society (example USA 2022), the assumption of single peaked normal distribution of voters is an unrealistic assumption. American society currently is rather like the old saying "a moderate is someone who can be shot at by both sides".
@Bcase012 жыл бұрын
Hello QUT students....
@andrewborg70092 жыл бұрын
This video uses Malta as an example of this theory in practice: kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZWusudBrkca5hMY.html
@ridwanulhasantanvir64562 жыл бұрын
3:22 middle of block
@gabbar51ngh2 жыл бұрын
One thing it ignores is that Overton window shifts left. Thus the centre is constantly shifting left culturally.
@dominiquedeveaux361 Жыл бұрын
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the overton window shifts left over time? And where? Do you mean globally? If so, evidence please
@ozymandias85232 жыл бұрын
3:58
@garimaa53113 жыл бұрын
Very nice explaination 👏👏
@ObeySilence3 жыл бұрын
Why do Americans call leftists liberals?
@AlloAnder4 жыл бұрын
I dont buy it. Especially in countries with more than 2 parties, this theory is too simplified. And the assumption of a normal distribution is way too generalised
@JT-hg7mj3 жыл бұрын
yet in almost every western nation, there are two major parties. A centre right and a centre left. Even if they have a multiparty system. EG Germany, UK There have been exceptions in the recent years, but they are still exceptions. France, Italy and Greece followed this paradigm until recently.
@electr0de4 жыл бұрын
thank you, very cool
@ItsOnlyShift4 жыл бұрын
Can someone help me please? I need to know has there been any past elections where the “median voter theorem” has helped a candidate win
@groinBlaster314 жыл бұрын
Both Bernie Sanders Primary losses. Both Clinton (2016) and Biden (2020) were closer to the median of the party's preferences and both won.
@JT-hg7mj3 жыл бұрын
Check germany and UK. Both of them have a centre left and centre right party. Also france until 2017. Greece is a great example. It was almost a two party system, with two major parties alternating in power until the economy crisis. The crisis demolished the centre left party. A Left party rose up and took the government. When the country stabilized the left party lost, because the centre right party dominated the centrist voters. The left party now being second, is trying to rebrand itself into a centre left party. If they succeed they might reclaim the government next elections.
@Veneficus19965 жыл бұрын
Beautiful!
@senithsteradian78165 жыл бұрын
Great video but am i the only one who thinks the narrator sounds like Dwight schrute?.
@nomundarigkh54004 жыл бұрын
omg i am not the only one (y)
@mariamberidze20523 жыл бұрын
my man
@LEGlTxGaming6 жыл бұрын
yo ted and joe must be twins
@Delicoms6 жыл бұрын
great demonstration
@P4DDYW4CK7 жыл бұрын
How is the median defined? For instance, if we have a set of policies and we live in a majoritarian democracy, wouldn't the more popular and favorable policies win out within this model? That doesn't happen. I'm not saying the theorem is incorrect -- it sounds very logical -- but I don't believe that's how American governance works. There are checks and balances put on majoritarian democracy. I believe the Investment Theory is more accurate in describing how party competition works.
@nicolefernandez56883 жыл бұрын
M lol iikioo
@brucewayne54887 жыл бұрын
fantastic explanation
@SItgix7 жыл бұрын
fuck ted
@Wurstkopp2310 жыл бұрын
I felt a hunger for ice cream.
@mgearvideos11 жыл бұрын
It's a mathematically proven theorem, so there's nothing to be critical about, really. :Now as for how well the assumptions match reality and how the theorem is applied to analysis of the real world, that's a different story. :)
@ryanhi61997 жыл бұрын
mgearvideos everything proven during this years election
@gabbar51ngh Жыл бұрын
In USA it's clearly true.
@aiby0nznvnwbmss537 Жыл бұрын
@@gabbar51ngh how so? Aren't the two parties more distant to eachother nowadays? Contrary to what the theorem suggests?
@atelier197511 жыл бұрын
Good. But I felt a hunger at the end for a critical view of the theorem.
@kiki84245811 жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@af182011 жыл бұрын
haha same here
@NBASmacktalk11 жыл бұрын
Professor Anagnoson brought me here.
@brunohanover12 жыл бұрын
Understanding these concepts reveals the weaknesses of democracy.
@Veneficus19965 жыл бұрын
How so?
@ravigopinathan28353 жыл бұрын
@@Veneficus1996 well I think because the people at either extreme of the spectrum aren't represented by someone who completely shares their views. One thing that could still fix that though in a democracy is proportional representation. They have this in Germany, at least in one of the houses, where it's a more than 2 party system, and each party gets the number of representatives proportional to their share of the vote. This way people at extremes can be better represented and move the conversation. Another way in our 2 party system is for the people at the extremes to just not vote for the candidate closest to them, who is next to the center, and only vote when a candidate is very near their views. This gives an incentive for the party closer to them but near the center, to come closer to their extreme. Arguably that's already happening in America, where Trump increased turnout on the right, and some progressives like AOC have increased turnout on the left.
@mgearvideos13 жыл бұрын
One of the most powerful things about the Median Voter Theorem is that it works for ANY distribution of voters on a single dimension. You video is great, and I'm going to use it in class, but in showing only uniformly & normally distributed populations of voters, you might lead people to the incorrect conclusion that the equilibrium is always at the "middle" of the line. That is not true in general. The location of the median VOTER determines the EQ, no matter where that voter is on the line.
@iwantcoolname13 жыл бұрын
@nels00 can't really see why, sorry.
@humdah13 жыл бұрын
@iwantcoolname No. This is one dimensional binary response and only two parties. Real politics is multidimensional with multinomial responses and multiple parties. Oh yeah, and it requires EVERYONE to vote. So you couldn't be further from the truth.
@kajakpaddler9213 жыл бұрын
tnx a lot!
@iwantcoolname14 жыл бұрын
in other words, both parties are same s**t, and there's no real choice
Пікірлер
Trivial, and non applicable to real world politics or capitalism, many of which are multidimensional
For more information, watch the mathematical dangers of democratic voting by spanning tree
In a very polarized society (example USA 2022), the assumption of single peaked normal distribution of voters is an unrealistic assumption. American society currently is rather like the old saying "a moderate is someone who can be shot at by both sides".
Hello QUT students....
This video uses Malta as an example of this theory in practice: kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZWusudBrkca5hMY.html
3:22 middle of block
One thing it ignores is that Overton window shifts left. Thus the centre is constantly shifting left culturally.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the overton window shifts left over time? And where? Do you mean globally? If so, evidence please
3:58
Very nice explaination 👏👏
Why do Americans call leftists liberals?
I dont buy it. Especially in countries with more than 2 parties, this theory is too simplified. And the assumption of a normal distribution is way too generalised
yet in almost every western nation, there are two major parties. A centre right and a centre left. Even if they have a multiparty system. EG Germany, UK There have been exceptions in the recent years, but they are still exceptions. France, Italy and Greece followed this paradigm until recently.
thank you, very cool
Can someone help me please? I need to know has there been any past elections where the “median voter theorem” has helped a candidate win
Both Bernie Sanders Primary losses. Both Clinton (2016) and Biden (2020) were closer to the median of the party's preferences and both won.
Check germany and UK. Both of them have a centre left and centre right party. Also france until 2017. Greece is a great example. It was almost a two party system, with two major parties alternating in power until the economy crisis. The crisis demolished the centre left party. A Left party rose up and took the government. When the country stabilized the left party lost, because the centre right party dominated the centrist voters. The left party now being second, is trying to rebrand itself into a centre left party. If they succeed they might reclaim the government next elections.
Beautiful!
Great video but am i the only one who thinks the narrator sounds like Dwight schrute?.
omg i am not the only one (y)
my man
yo ted and joe must be twins
great demonstration
How is the median defined? For instance, if we have a set of policies and we live in a majoritarian democracy, wouldn't the more popular and favorable policies win out within this model? That doesn't happen. I'm not saying the theorem is incorrect -- it sounds very logical -- but I don't believe that's how American governance works. There are checks and balances put on majoritarian democracy. I believe the Investment Theory is more accurate in describing how party competition works.
M lol iikioo
fantastic explanation
fuck ted
I felt a hunger for ice cream.
It's a mathematically proven theorem, so there's nothing to be critical about, really. :Now as for how well the assumptions match reality and how the theorem is applied to analysis of the real world, that's a different story. :)
mgearvideos everything proven during this years election
In USA it's clearly true.
@@gabbar51ngh how so? Aren't the two parties more distant to eachother nowadays? Contrary to what the theorem suggests?
Good. But I felt a hunger at the end for a critical view of the theorem.
Thank you!
haha same here
Professor Anagnoson brought me here.
Understanding these concepts reveals the weaknesses of democracy.
How so?
@@Veneficus1996 well I think because the people at either extreme of the spectrum aren't represented by someone who completely shares their views. One thing that could still fix that though in a democracy is proportional representation. They have this in Germany, at least in one of the houses, where it's a more than 2 party system, and each party gets the number of representatives proportional to their share of the vote. This way people at extremes can be better represented and move the conversation. Another way in our 2 party system is for the people at the extremes to just not vote for the candidate closest to them, who is next to the center, and only vote when a candidate is very near their views. This gives an incentive for the party closer to them but near the center, to come closer to their extreme. Arguably that's already happening in America, where Trump increased turnout on the right, and some progressives like AOC have increased turnout on the left.
One of the most powerful things about the Median Voter Theorem is that it works for ANY distribution of voters on a single dimension. You video is great, and I'm going to use it in class, but in showing only uniformly & normally distributed populations of voters, you might lead people to the incorrect conclusion that the equilibrium is always at the "middle" of the line. That is not true in general. The location of the median VOTER determines the EQ, no matter where that voter is on the line.
@nels00 can't really see why, sorry.
@iwantcoolname No. This is one dimensional binary response and only two parties. Real politics is multidimensional with multinomial responses and multiple parties. Oh yeah, and it requires EVERYONE to vote. So you couldn't be further from the truth.
tnx a lot!
in other words, both parties are same s**t, and there's no real choice