In regard to https://www.votingtheory.org/forum/post/2148
This winter (2002-2003), how many of the people living in Germany shall freeze to death, compared to the number of a typical winter of the recent past?
Germans will be spending on how much on methane shipped from the US this winter? How much would they normally spend on that source?
Do German citizens agree with their government's policies in regard to the above two measures?
Are these questions concrete enough?
Are they disqualified on the grounds of who asks them?
Are they valid regardless of who asks them?
None of this has to do with voting theory
Bullshit. The point of being interested in voting theory is to establish control of governmental policies by the public at large. To point out where such efforts have succeeded or failed bears on whether work toward changing voting systems is worthwhile and on what types of change might be worthwhile. I believe that for 70% to 90% of the voting-theory enthusiasts from the US who write on antisocial media, PR is their wet dream. Germany already has PR. Why hasn't it succeeded? Why should US (UK, Canada and so on) activists work for PR if all they can get is the same level of slavery that the US ruling class imposes on the Germans today?
and bringing them up as you did clearly drove away a newcomer to the forum.
It may be clear to you, but it is not clear to me. It's not possible to contemplate why someone would leave a forum on voting systems without first having an idea why they would become interested in the topic in the first place. And I don't know why anyone other than myself got interested in it. And in my case, the case of Germany today puts in question for me whether my reasons for becoming interested were valid.
(who unsurprisingly said "if this the level of discourse in a voting theory forum, then I hope the rest is not like you") Do you not understand why it got that response?
My idea of how to characterize or measure "level of discourse" seems at odds with yours. To me, a high level would be characterized by focus on the topic rather than on the participants. It would be characterized by fearless, honest answering of questions people bring up.
I think it's perfectly fine to state a view on your favorite voting methods and the like. It's fine to state a "pro-democracy," anti-authoritarian point of view, and to be against toxic politics. Those are issues that are perfectly appropriate to bring up and state a position on.
What you are doing is something else. It's actually bringing in that toxicity.
How would that be? Toxic political discourse, as I see it, includes lies, taking statements out of context, twisting meanings, putting people under physical threat, and such.
This isn't a "political rants" forum. I don't know where others stand on it, but if it was up to me we'd have moderators who'd remove that stuff before it drives even more people away.
Are those of us who live in the US interested in changing the voting system in the US for a political purpose? Asking whether a wet-dream system actually achieves the purpose isn't a rant.
I haven't supposed people's interest in this topic runs parallel to that of an enthusiast for steam locomotives and steamboats, which exists because steam engines make cool noises and you can see how they work. I thought it was for political improvement, so that misgovernment would not cause our families to die out.
Germany already has PR. Why hasn't it succeeded?
[...] same level of slavery that the US ruling class imposes on the Germans today?
It's this kind of comment that I find totally useless and toxic, and honestly kind of xenophobic.
Germany is very successful in a great number of metrics; more so than the US on many.
Society is complicated, and while election reform is great and important, it's not the only factor and it's not a magic bullet.
It's not productive to start griping about certain (subjective, vague, and probably untrue) flaws in an entire country, and then blame those flaws on whatever mode of democracy they happen to enjoy. I think this is the rhetorical equivalent of pointing at China's superior ability to quickly build infrastructure (e.g. high speed rail) and then concluding that democracy cannot match autocracy.
This reminds me of the time that I told a certain range voting zealot that my alma mater uses STV to select its student council, and they retorted "must be why they're going down the drain in the rankings." Your comments, like the aforementioned quote, are false, toxic, vague, and unattributable to the voting method in use. I'm not at all surprised they pushed away a potential new member to this forum, which we desperately need. There are like 3 regular users and maybe a handful more sporadic users. This place is a ghost town; even personally speaking I don't plan to be very active here moving foward.
Why should US (UK, Canada and so on) activists work for PR if all they can get is the same level of slavery that the US ruling class imposes on the Germans today?
Damn, I just logged back in to see what I caused, and I see this I have to agree with Andy, statements like this from the person hosting this forum are probably not the best.
rob Banned last edited by
@spelunker Glad to see you aren't gone forever over it.
@Jack-Waugh will say that his role isn't moderator and is mostly just the technical job of putting up the forum, but at the end of the day, it is important that people with such roles be more careful about such things.
SaraWolk last edited by
Sorry for the delay, but this thread was recently brought up again as an example, so I'd like to post a comment addressing the Code of Conduct issues raised.
Making the forum welcoming for new (and old) people is important. We also make a point of being welcoming to people across the political spectrum. To that aim, we do have a code of conduct that can be helpful.
It includes this: "Please make an effort to stay on topic and to not waste people's time. Keep in mind that this is a volunteer-driven project, and that time contributed by participants and moderators is appreciated and valued. Try to keep all discussions relevant to voting theory and reform efforts. Avoid sweeping generalizations or assumptions."
When a reform that people think will produce democracy fails to do so, that merits a notice.