• deaf_fish@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Polling as in “intends to vote for” or polling as in “has a favorable opinion of?”

    We could try “has most favorable opinion of?” or “most ideologically aligned with?”

    I feel like you are hinting at the possibility of not only a leftist majority but a majority interest in a specific candidate and we would be too dumb to figure that out. Is that your position?

    You’re not going to find some clever solution that allows you to bypass the problem of coordinating a mass switch, that problem is fundamental.

    Hey, ancient wisdom person, you need to be able to explain why the problem is fundamental and not solvable. I don’t see it. And all that ancient wisdom does you no good politically if you can’t impart it.

    This is tiresome.

    I agree, please stop making bad arguments so we can stop this thread or maybe I can learn something.

    • OBJECTION!
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I feel like you are hinting at the possibility of not only a leftist majority but a majority interest in a specific candidate and we would be too dumb to figure that out. Is that your position?

      No. If you’d listened to a single thing I said, you’d understand that it has nothing to do with being “too dumb to figure it out.” It’s a problem of coordinating a mass switch. It’s a collective action problem. Intelligence has nothing to do with it, people acting rationally on an individual level are not necessarily going to arrive at the best collective outcome. Read, like, anything about game theory, I am begging you.

      Hey, ancient wisdom person, you need to be able to explain why the problem is fundamental and not solvable. I don’t see it. And all that ancient wisdom does you no good politically if you can’t impart it.

      I agree, please stop making bad arguments so we can stop this thread or maybe I can learn something.

      I have shot down half-assed argument after half-assed argument of yours, and you just keep spewing them out without putting any actual consideration into them.

      First it was that polls showing the popularity of third party candidates in general could provide the mechanism for coordinating a switch. I disproved that.

      Then it was that favorability polls would provide the mechanism for coordinating a switch. I disproved that.

      Now it’s that polls you just dreamed up that nobody is asking that are supposed to provide the mechanism for coordinating a switch. I suppose this one could go on forever, with each question I prove wouldn’t work being replaced by an equally inane question that you spent 5 seconds coming up with. Just over and over again forever.

      You might as well be trying to prove Bigfoot exists by asking one by one about every location you can think of, and each time I check one you simply produce a new location to check.

      So I’ll tell you what - I will address one, final attempt to produce a mechanism for coordinating a switch. Right now you’ve offered a suggestion, “We could try “has most favorable opinion of?” or “most ideologically aligned with?”” Before I do: are you confident enough in that attempt that you’re ok with it being your very last one? Have you actually thought it through and tried on your own to think of reasons why it might not work? If I’m able to address this one, will you finally admit that you are unable to provide any mechanism for solving the collective action problem, and that you cannot defend your position?

      • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        It’s a problem of coordinating a mass switch.

        Ok, so I don’t want to use up my one question, so I will just assume your position is that if we had one fascist leader and everyone else was a leftist who agreed on which candidate they would want to lead them, then the leftists wouldn’t be able to do whatever to figure that out and the one and only fascists leader would stay in charge forever. Got it.

        You really should vote for the lesser evil, because your opinion of the people you agree with is very low. By your own logic, you’re are already screwed.

        Now it’s that polls you just dreamed up that nobody is asking that are supposed to provide the mechanism for coordinating a switch.

        Hey, if you have a general argument for why polling wont work, why didn’t you use that instead of just asserting that it wouldn’t without explaining (rhetorical question does not count)? That is why I am trying to figure out why you think that. The only way I know how to do that is by trying to figure out what wording is causing you issues.

        Before I do: are you confident enough in that attempt that you’re ok with it being your very last one?

        Yes, stop edging me. Any question I ask you, you will probably provide another evasive answer to. Anyone reading this thread will see that plainly. Please add more weight to my arguments.

        I want to hear your response to this: Why would polls worded like “has most favorable opinion of?” or “most ideologically aligned with?" not work to detect a consensus of a single leftist candidate and why wouldn’t people then vote for that candidate?

        • OBJECTION!
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          You really should vote for the lesser evil, because your opinion of the people you agree with is very low.

          Again, as I already told you, the problem has nothing to do with intelligence. It isn’t some kind of personal failing to be in a collective action problem, that’s why it’s called “a collective action problem.” Again, you’re out of your depth here, it’s very clear that you don’t understand how collective action problems work, and you need to stop asserting your ignorance and learn about them. Go skim the Wikipedia article on Collective Action Problems, particularly the part relating to game theory and maybe something will stick. The concept here is important to understand in general, with plenty of use-cases completely unrelated to politics.

          I want to hear your response to this: Why would polls worded like “has most favorable opinion of?” or “most ideologically aligned with?" not work to detect a consensus of a single leftist candidate and why wouldn’t people then vote for that candidate?

          Ok, great. So you’re all in on this one and once I’ve addressed it, you will not propose any other solutions.

          First off, let’s note that these polls do not currently exist. Therefore, regardless of whether they would work or not, at the very least until they do, my position is justified. No mechanism currently exists to coordinate the switch and, not owning a trusted polling company myself, I don’t have the means to bring these or any other polls into existence. So, while they don’t exist, I don’t need to incorporate them into my decision making calculus.

          Second, if these polls did exist, their implications would not be immediately apparent. If these polls showed that a third party candidate was most favored, but every other metric, from polls about intended voting to political endorsements to campaign finance and so on, metrics that have more established track records and that people are used to relying on to predict outcomes, then it would be much more likely that people would see your polls as a statistical anomaly. And if people saw it that way and did not switch, then the next election cycle, they would say, “see, we were right, it was a statistical anomaly, that question is not a reliable predictor of who would win.”

          Third, which candidates people like and dislike is influenced by the exposure they have to that candidate. A candidate with a lot of funding and air time can more effectively pitch themselves to a wider audience, even if they aren’t as good of a candidate or aren’t as aligned with their views. Furthermore, the perception that this happens means that even if an ad isn’t convincing to you, it will factor into your calculations about who is more likely to win.


          Is that enough? Despite your baseless accusations that I’m being “evasive” I have given three crystal clear responses to your latest proposed solution (just as I clearly answered all your prior solutions). I could probably find more, if you like (I didn’t even get into the specific questions themselves yet). But at that point you’re probably better off reading the Wikipedia article so you can understand the underlying concept.

          I could explain it to you myself, going over the Prisoners’ Dilemma and all that, but since you’re regarding everything I saw in debate-mode, convinced that I’m saying something ridiculous, I think you’d learn more by getting the information from a different source.

          • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Collective Action Problems

            Oh, nice link (not sarcastic), I didn’t realize these issues had a name. Thanks!

            But it doesn’t apply to the hypothetical. The first line is “A collective action problem or social dilemma is a situation in which all individuals would be better off cooperating but fail to do so because of conflicting interests between individuals that discourage joint action.” The hypothetical was that the majority of people already agree on a specific candidate. So there are no conflicting interests that matter.

            First off, let’s note that these polls do not currently exist.

            I don’t understand the point of this paragraph. Do you think the current green candidate has a majority interest? If so, then we should start making polls. Conservatives make polls every day like “Bad Black Man Bad?”. I am pretty sure this not a difficult task, especially if we have a majority.

            Second, if these polls did exist, their implications would not be immediately apparent.

            Yes, I agree with this. I understand why this isn’t ideal, but humans are messy. Like I said is might be 4 - 8 years before we are able to act on our majority.

            I think “immediately” also points out some emotional energy. I think you are weighing the horrors of the current situation (and they are very bad) and are willing to take extreme risk to stop those horrors. An admirable goal, but taking those extremes risks has consequences and not just for you. The risk you are currently taking is trying to convince as many people as possible to vote in such a way to throw a wrench in the system. This can work if you can get a large enough amount of people, but that is like a 1 - 5 percent chance. That leaves a 95% percent chance that the outcomes will be the worst possible. On top of this, as you have said, you currently have no metrics. So you don’t know how likely you are to succeed. It’s a bad gamble and I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary.

            And if people saw it that way and did not switch, then the next election cycle, they would say, “see, we were right, it was a statistical anomaly, that question is not a reliable predictor of who would win.”

            Ok, so we miss once and stop trying? Why is the left so weak in your mind? Why not just keep trying until we get the candidate that everyone wants elected elected?

            Third, which candidates people like and dislike is influenced by the exposure they have to that candidate.

            Where did this come from? I will assume this is a closing argument and not an answer to my question. As I have stated before. Money is very helpful, but not necessary. You can do things like fundraise. Berne proved that it was possible. And the bigger the majority you have, the more of a source you have.

            Is that enough?

            You linked me to an interesting wiki article that didn’t apply. You wrote a paragraph about how we currently don’t have polls, then claimed victory. You talked about how my idea wouldn’t work right away, then assumed people would just give up. Then you talked about how money was necessary, which was not part of the question.

            So your answer boils down to leftist will just give up even if they have the majority, because organizing is hard and not perfect.

            I will accept this. I asked a question, you answered to the best of your ability. You and I are both tired of this conversation. I am good with ending it here. I will not be replying to this conversation after this.

            I will have to find someone else to convince me that no-voting or 3rd party voting is a good idea, because we are not communicating well.

            I wish you well. No hard feelings, have a nice life.