IRV: Real Democracy Doesn't Exist Without It [AntiBullshitMan]

[Encephalitisify]

I could sit here all day long giving you sources, and you still would find a way to deny yourself the truth. Its what makes you a good sheep.

[AntiBullshitMan]

"I could sit here all day long giving you sources"

I defy you to provide just one. You've failed to do so twice so far. Because your initial claim is horseshit.

"Its what makes you a good sheep"

Not taking your baseless claims at your word & requesting evidence makes me teh sheep. Got it.

"if it hasn't come from your favorite propagandist"

Sustainable peer reviewed data = Propaganda. Got it. From now on I shall restrict all my future research solely to sources from special interest groups.

[Encephalitisify]

lol "peer reviewed investigative journals" LMAO.  So in other words if it hasn't come from your favorite propagandist, then your not listening. Can't argue with someone like that. You have a nice life dude. I would suggest you take logic 101 in college. Calls to authority are illogical. The search engine gives you tons of local news outlining changes each year in election laws on a local level. When x = x it doesn't matter where it comes from, its true.

[Encephalitisify]

Just do a search on change election "insert year". You will find all kinds of "evidence".

[AntiBullshitMan]

@Encephalitisify

This is like telling me that in order to find evidence for David Ike's reptilian theory, I need to keyword search "David Ike's Reptilian Theory" and I'm sure to be successful.

You need to cite actual peer reviewed investigative journals which support your claim and which have stood the test of time, if you want to be taken seriously. Or better yet, re-read my initial reply and actually let it sink in this time.

[Encephalitisify]

Voting is totally fake. They change the rules every election to suit who they want to win based on a set of candidates chosen by those in power.

[AntiBullshitMan]

@Encephalitisify

Neat extraordinary claim there. You wouldn't happen to have any extraordinary evidence to go along with that, would you? Nah, of course you wouldn't.

The only "rules" changed are those of exposure. An motivated electorate can easily force feed an uncompromised candidate. The first 2 steps towards this, are explained in this video. The reason nothing ever gets done is because people like you choose to ignore these steps & instead just regurgitate the same nay-saying drivel.

[Emil246]

break up both parties into smaller parties also.

[malachin9n]

The problem with IRV as far as I can see is it does not fairly weigh how much you want your first choice candidate. In a 3 party election (which is to be preferred in every situation over 2 party elections) your first choice should count more than your second choice. That way if my first option doesn't have enough votes to win outright but he is also the favored secondary option, he should then still win. Think of it as a primary vote worth 2 pts, and a secondary vote worth one pt.

[Mutex50]

IRV is better than plurality, but it has a lot of problems and doesn't stop spoilers. It would be better to use the Condorcet method or use Approval Voting with a top two runoff.

[steve19683]

Re: voting is the only way. Well...mass demonstrations and riots can also nudge policy in one direction or another. And you KNOW those NRA types aren't holding onto their guns just to defend their homes against common thieves.

I support IRV. However, if I were American, I'd be much more concerned about electronic election fraud. If a vote is important, it's important enough to be counted by hand.

[TheMaleWithNoName]

Great endorsement, I thought.

[AntiBullshitMan]

@TheMaleWithNoName

Including you, we're up to about 11 people having outright endorsed it so far...

The extortion of the major parties is gonna happen, there's no way for them to keep ignoring such a huge segment of their voting base.

Any moment now...

[TheAzov]

@ABS: No, rather it was replies to comments that like of Powerlifter & SeeProfile. Ironic that your endorsement of IRV, as a means of enhancing voter empowerment, seems supported by those who want torestrict voting. If that's their goal the present primary and party system works well enough.

[SeeProfileForDetails]

The problem with democracy is simple: if most of the people are morons, then morons are going to be voting and running your country. Consider all the lunatics in USA who are christians with guns..

[AntiBullshitMan]

Already targeted that problem last year in several videos in which I proposed a multiple choice test which would have to be taken by every voter prior to the election, the result of which would determine the weight of each vote. So if I score 33% & you score 99%, your vote would have two thirds the weight of mine. It would be an easy test, with simple q's like "What does your candidate stand on health care?". The ignorance of those voting for a slogan or a flag & nothing else, would be exposed.

[AntiBullshitMan]

@SeeProfileForDetails

Also, you asked me over on Gary's board: "why trust democracy".

Because I trust dictatorship a little less.

Replied to you here since your comment over Gary's page seems to have vanished.

[TheAzov]

Re: Powerlifter's comment: See what I mean? By what criteria do you exclude those "unworthy" to vote? Was a time that being a woman, or under 21, or not paying property tax was reason enough.

[AntiBullshitMan]

@TheAzov

Is that directed at me? If so, you've drastically misinterpreted my proposal here. I've never advocated excluding those "unworthy" of voting. This is a video about IRV. I've also done a few vids in the past in which I proposed a voter test, the results of which would scale down/up the weight of each vote individually. So unless someone scores 0% (which would be impossible given the sheer simplicity of the test) they would not be excluded from having their vote count for something.

[workwillfreeyou]

Think for yourself, become involved and vote with your dollars!

[Powerlifter83]

I like your videos but for fucks sake please realize this country IS NOT and is not supposed to be a democracy. This country is a constitutional republic. Everyone voting is never a good thing.

[solseventhorizon]

I like this idea. Do you think we'll ever have the national discipline for a true democracy?

[IRVGuy]

Finally! And yes, I endorse this. Oh how I endorse this!

[SuperUnlawful]

So your vote counts!!!

[RenXiS47]

I agree about the idea, you pointed out!

Great video, never heard about IRV before.

*Thumbs up*

peace out.

[TheAzov]

"Mis"conduct. Anyway - a lot of struggle and bloodshed was required to get to the point we're at today. It's so easy to talk of restricting the vote to keep "the dumbasses" out, but who decides, and would the standards be applied fairly? The historical record strongly states otherwise.

[TheAzov]

I see a lot of attacks on the democratic idea here, but voting is now considered, like all constitutional rights - "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness" - to be inherent and not "deserved," not to be withdrawn except for criminal mosconduct.

[TheAzov]

Also the question of winning runnerups soliciting (buying off) the first-round losers for their endorsement. No system is perfect: human ingenuity will find a way to fuck any grand idea. Safeguards need study.

[TheAzov]

Finance reform seems a dead issue for the present. The US Supreme Court guaranteed corporate fixing in the most blatant manner since the Grant administration. The whole premise here, as in the process itself, is that candidates will be fairly chosen by the electorate, but it leaves untouched the question of how candidates are selected in the first place.

[TheFactsofReality]

I don't live in the US, and the system here does not work that way, the votes are almost distributed proportionally so you have more than 2 parties in the General Assembly. It's almost a 2 party system though since the main parties have 70 % of the vote, and the spoiler effect still exists. A lot of people just vote for the lesser of two evils and there are other problems. But yes this should be implemented, specially in the US where the political spectrum has shifted ridiculously to the right.

[GoatOfTheMountains]

awesome...... maybe i'll make a voting vid, i don't know..... i do think that it's a thought that should be like a splinter in everyone's brains...... if we can make them fear for their seats, then you might get the real change we need.....

[SubstancePrime]

"Leaves 10+ comments whining about how you're being too idealistic, while contributing nothing of substance to the actual debate"

Pretty sure nobody asked if we thought this was likely to actually happen, but simply giving up on ideas because they're "naive" is a surefire way to accomplish nothing.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. - George Bernard Shaw

[SubstancePrime]

Not really understanding why people are so pessimistic about this idea. Sure, it doesn't fix the fact that most people can't think for themselves, but thats not the point. The point is, its a way to elect a more representative government.

Campaign finance + lobbying reform to weaken the corporate controls and then IRV to move away from the 2 party tyranny we have now. The hard part is getting any of these put in place. This is where citizen's initiatives can be useful.

[TheAzov]

Regional cultural factors in the US usually revolve around religion and race.

The major reason this is opposed in the US is its negation of of the party machinery. The political parties are middlemen brokers between the office and the voter and end up absorbing both. Breaking their monopoly is necessary for voter empowerment, but that will not remove the special interests who fund the parties.

[InJustice4Most]

a comment

[TheKRippledKhemist]

But who decides the candidates we vote for in the first place? It seems to me that the greater power the governing bodies possess, the less control we have over deciding democratically who will represent it.

[gardenswan]

I fully endorse IRV. Great video.

[Ramiiam]

I'll support IRV. What you call "geographical bias" is one of the cornerstones of our republican system, based on the idea that local communities and interests deserve representation at the state and federal levels. We will keep that, thank you.

[AntiBullshitMan]

@Ramiiam

It restricts people's choices based on their geography, when voting is supposed to be about ideology. Anyway I doubt I'm going to convince you of anything here since I'm know you've already heard Gary's extensive arguments against it... and apparently remained unconvinced.

But glad you like the IRV proposal.

You gonna make any videos soon by any chance? It's been a while.

[Ramiiam]

@AntiBullshitMan

I'll get around to making vids sooner or later. Talking to groups of people is what I do for a living, so making a vid sometimes feels too much like work. You could force the issue by addressing me...

[Ramiiam]

@Ramiiam

I'm not in agreement that elections are or should be exlusively contests of ideology. That is part of what they are. I've lived in nine states in New England, Mid-Atlantic, Deep South, Southwest, West Coast, and Midwest. I believe there really exist regional perspectives that are important and would be badly served by a homogenizing electoral system.

[AntiBullshitMan]

@Ramiiam

''there really exist regional perspectives''

Are you talking about cultural effects here? If so, why should we bow to culture as if it has any philosophical integrity? If I'm mistaken and you're referring to something else, then what is it? Maybe do a video listing some examples -- examples sufficient enough to justify rendering leftist voters in predominantly red states as a non-factor, and vice versa.

[Ramiiam]

@AntiBullshitMan

You have to ask whether the function of democracy is to represent people, or to represent philosophical positions. If it is to represent people, those people will come embedded in cultures. If it is to represent philosophies, we might do better by appointing a junta of philosopher kings. As for the minority voters, they are marginal because they are a minority. I thought the point the point of democracy was to to have majority rule with protection of minority rights.

[erickeVolved]

Elections? Democracy? Ha! Even if you do have a choice between one master or another, you are still a slave. What is it inside of you that must have someone to tell you what to do and how to live. In a few years you will be dust, as will we all. How about writing your own script for a change?

[AntiBullshitMan]

@erickeVolved

Useless cliche drivel utterly vacant of insight.

Thanks for your ''to hell with civilization'' contribution. Such a shortage of it around here.

''Ha!''

[echo29x]

It is important to understand, however, that voting is not enough. I have said as much before, but let me give some examples.

-The labor laws passed under FDR were responses to the labor movement's demands, not as voters, but as workers - with strikes, rallies, etc.

-The Civil Rights act - due to the civil rights movement

-Womans suffrage - did women elect people to give them the right to vote?

Those are three examples of the largest changes in American history, and there are plenty more.

[thepr]

Of course I agree with IRV, it's my bread and butta ^_^

[MilitantPeaceist]

ABM - I feel you are merely trying to find a better system within a broken system. It's the way you vote, that is arbitrary as what's on offer and the outcome both are opposite to what democracy is all about. You have money deciding the candidates and sole rule when they win an election. Basically half the population oppresses the other half during office...

[MilitantPeaceist]

...Democracy was supposed to be like a census to see what the demographic is needing to allowcate assistance, not say "You win, it's all yours now, do what you want". Everytime one gets in, they either dismantle what the others did or change it to suit them. This means the gov works against alot of somebody's, all the time. Especially now your politics has changed from ConservativeRight/LiberalLeft to ReligiousRight/NeoLiberalLeft which are both capitalistic (corporate fundie loving)...

[MilitantPeaceist]

...There is no conservatism in capitalism in your government anymore, it is like a break away train + you have the stock market of imaginary money that largely dictates the overall direction of countries and is outside of their control and in the control of the people that have enough money to play it and influence it & bail countries out. They create the mess then bail the victim countries out and aquire more assets and power....

[MilitantPeaceist]

...So in the end, what are you voting for? There is a better way, but people are convinced that changing driver means direction change but forget they keep us on a highway with only 2 directions!

[VeohBlows]

Far as I remember, and/or my conclusion on the 2000 election, Hanging Chads and crazy right wing extremists gave Bush the election, Nader? I guess he had something to do with it........BUT!!!!!.....we can never exclude Candidates.

[ArrecBarrwin]

@ ABM "Got cut off at the end there (damn it!)" hah circumcision

[asdfgoogle]

I hope someone popular on youtube can pass this around. This is the only logical method of voting. Electoral college is dumb and most americans are so dumb we don't even know what it means. IRV is so simple, a fricken 80 year old with alzheimers would understand it within seconds!

[rosko123]

This is the problem we have in the UK at the moment you have 3 parties (labor, conservative and liberal democrats) and we have had labor for a long time now and conservative for a long period before that and the liberal democrats are starting to get a following at the moment but I fear people arn't going to vote for who them because they will see conservatives might win and so vote labor or vice versa its bullshit and not the way it should be but theres no way round it at least for this election

[theVAGINAntichrist]

Let's abolish the government

[aunicornist]

@theVAGINAntichrist

How would you do that? If you abolished the government in your own country another one would immediately sweep in to claim the land.

[AntiBullshitMan]

@theVAGINAntichrist

How about we abolish proposing useless, impractical solutions instead.

[xXxDragunov14xXx]

Democracy is 2 wolves, and a sheep deciding on dinner.

[StormCloudsGathering]

If instant run off voting were instituted then voting could bring change, but that's not going to happen. It's naive to think that you will be able to create change by voting in the current system, and it's naive to think those running the current system are going to let their sweet little two party mafia get disrupted by letting IRV get established. This country is run by corporations and it will be until the system collapses.

[AntiBullshitMan]

It's actually naive to think we the people aren't part of the problem, & that it's only the corporations. Corporations along with other special interest groups do often dictate who our giant douche vs. turd sandwich candidates are going to be, & the compromises we all accept do take place even before the elections begin. But it can be changed democratically, without the entire system collapsing. All we need is strength in numbers. Instead we have 50% voting republican & over 50% opposing IRV.

[StormCloudsGathering]

@AntiBullshitMan - Wow, you really believe it is the people who determine who get's into office? For starters the media only talks about the candidates they want you to hear about, or with they speak of others dismissively if they are feeling generous. The people voted in Obama based on what he promised, but he is obeying the corporations now that he is in office and breaking all his promises. Bush was no better. The system is corrupt to the core, and a collapse is coming like it or not.

[AntiBullshitMan]

You didn't take in anything I said. I clearly stated that special interest groups do result in compromises taking place well before the elections start, so spare me your cliche lectures regarding what the media covers. Everybody knows.

I'm trying to explain to you how none of this disproves the fact that, at the end of the day, it's still us voters deciding who gets elected. And we decide poorly, because of this loose ''it's all corrupt'' talk never providing any specific, practical solutions.

[StormCloudsGathering]

@AntiBullshitMan - First and foremost voters don't decide who is president, the electoral college does. Secondly the process leading up to nomination is tightly controlled. I have first hand experience with this having been a delegate for the presidential elections. The party bosses decide who gets the nominations, not the people, so if the people have the choice between two puppets how is that free choice?

[AntiBullshitMan]

Again, our votes do directly determine who is pres, despite the roadblocks (roadblocks ''we the people'' can undo, if we truly want to). It's not complicated. This is your 3rd comment in which you spew generic lectures to me about our choices being predetermined, despite me having already explained WHY they're predetermined, in both my replies to you. By continuing to reply in the way you have, you're demonstrating that your only goal here is getting the last word, not progressing the debate.

[AntiBullshitMan]

''electoral college does''

No it doesn't, but it still needs to go. Votes of voters are what, at the end of the day, generates the end result. Insisting that a lack of proportional coverage of the candidates amounts to votes being a non-factor is propaganda rhetoric & I'm not going to leave it uncorrected, nor am I going to keep arguing circles with you. Take your pick.

FYI to everyone else: Above I said the choices are predetermined, but in the media coverage sense, not the practical sense.

[StormCloudsGathering]

@AntiBullshitMan - you need to research the voting system in this country a bit more. The popular vote is a show, the electoral college is all that counts : wikipedia org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28­United_States%29

[StormCloudsGathering]

@AntiBullshitMan - I don't care who gets the last word. You will have the last word most likely. I'm just describing what I see as the current reality. What you are talking about is idealism... that is to say something you hope could happen but as of yet is not happening. That's fine if you want to be an idealist, but with a user name like "AntiBullshitMan" you shouldn't expect everyone else to prance through the daisies with you.

[AntiBullshitMan]

@StormCloudsGathering

It's idealism precisely because people keep saying it's idealism, while the other 90% simply don't care enough to get involved politically and make a change. If a 90% majority did care and were as passionate about it as I am, that's all it would take.

I know full well that nothing is probably going to result from this, & that's why I wrote ''chasing the wild goose, but it doesn't hurt to try'' in the video underbar... so no score on the idealist jab either, stormy.

[AntiBullshitMan]

@StormCloudsGathering

Based on what you wrote here, I don't see why you talk about (hence care) anything on YT either. I can just as easily come on your board and scream ''he's talking about something as if it matters... meaning he thinks he can change it, he's an idealist!'' but I don't. What the fuck is the point of that type of empty petty nay saying bullshit. It's either this, or trying to violently overthrow a gov't that has access to nuclear weapons. I'll take option A, thanks.

[Mirror4u2]

@AntiBullshitMan In 48 states..since 1964...we have a "winner-take-all" system--Please googled it.-don't assume you can infer it's meaning.

The people do not elect the president..electoral votes do. Back to the "system". EVERY person in Tn voted for McCain. EVERY person in Fl voted for Obama..how do I know this? The "Winner-take-all" system.

Congress, senate, governor, etc.....You're right people need to vote. But the other side of the coin is...if nobody voted--there would be change.

[AntiBullshitMan]

I don't need to google anything, you need to listen to my video more closely, in which I mention how geographical districts cancel out people's votes and limit options. But this doesn't mean the votes don't elect the president, it means it's a broken system run by archaic presumptions of how democracy must work.

Again, 2 party system, the 2 parties dictate our main options, but this doesn't change the fact that there is a 3rd party option. Voter ignorance doesn't prove a lack of real choice.

[SmilingSkeptic]

I like the idea.

[Kahouneko]

I think we have it implemented in Australia.

[ZOMGitsCriss]

*leaves a comment here endorsing its implementation*

bah !

[oojamaflipper]

thanks for this expo vid. i didn't fully understand it myself.

[AntiBullshitMan]

@ooj

You... didn't fully understand what? IRV? Seriously? Even after watching all the vids Gary's done on it?!

[oojamaflipper]

@AntiBullshitMan i havnt watched much of his IRV stuff.. that was a long time ago anyway.

[AntiBullshitMan]

@oojamaflipper

He only has a couple of vids on that channel. Plus you'd think watching only 1 vid of his would get the job done, regardless of how long ago it was.

BTW the channel was opened in late 2008, not exactly a long time ago. Unless we're counting it in YT years.

[oojamaflipper]

@AntiBullshitMan dude.. who are you talkin to here?

goldfish... that's all im sayin

; )

[showABCshow]

I swear you look like CaptainDisillusion