• Hexboare [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    22 days ago

    bullshit math wizardry are they pulling out of their ass to argue that the exact ranking of each individual candidate

    If you’re voting in an election with ten candidates, but you only like two of them and equally despise the other eight, the “maths impossibility” arises because you’ll have to put a candidate you hate third

    • EelBolshevikism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      Couldn’t you just not write a third? This makes no sense to me unless you strictly enforce having a third choice being necessary, which seems random and needless. If someone can just not have a third candidate, or not have a second candidate, I see no reason why that would negatively affect the system. Their vote is just lost if neither of their candidates win with their votes, same as if they didn’t go to vote in the first place.

      • Hexboare [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        22 days ago

        Yes, in Australian Senate elections you only need to rank at least 6 parties above the line or at least 12 individual candidates below the line on the long ballot paper

        In practice you might rank all ~100 candidates to try and avoid a couple candidates you hate the most