!leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com moderator @Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com removed my comment
or primariesa spoiler effect happens when a losing candidate affects the results of an election simply by participating
Vote splitting is the most common cause of spoiler effects in FPP. In these systems, the presence of many ideologically-similar candidates causes their vote total to be split between them, placing these candidates at a disadvantage. This is most visible in elections where a minor candidate draws votes away from a major candidate with similar politics, thereby causing a strong opponent of both to win.
This willful ignorance of the spoiler effect is tiresome denialism of mathematics. We've already seen the consequences.
reminding that primaries exist & quoting wikipedia's explanation that in the US's voting system, voting for minor candidates spoils the election in favor of the major party candidate the voter opposes most.
In context
the post is titled
Vote Blue No Matter Who
with my comment responding to the parent comment, which practically denies the point the higher comment is driving at that not "voting blue" can only spoil the election in favor of "the fascists". Ignoring the purpose of primaries, the parent comment suggested alternatives that still don't "vote Blue".
According to the modlog entry | Time | mod | Action | |
|
|
| | | mod | Removed Comment ![meme: bitches dont know bout my spoiler effect][bout] or primaries > a [spoiler effect][spoiler] happens when a losing candidate affects the results of an election simply by participating > Vote splitting is the most common cause of spoiler effects in FPP. In these systems, the presence of many ideologically-similar candidates causes their vote total to be split between them, placing these candidates at a disadvantage. This is most visible in elections where a minor candidate draws votes away from a major candidate with similar politics, **thereby causing a strong opponent of both to win**. This willful ignorance of the spoiler effect is tiresome denialism of mathematics. We've already seen the consequences. [bout]: https://i.imgflip.com/ab9g3o.jpg [spoiler]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect by lmmarsano reason: Rule 3 |
the moderator claims this violates rule
3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.
That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of “Marxist”-“Leninists” (read: Dengists) (actual ML’s are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don’t just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago). Somehow, straightforward social choice theory (a branch of mathematical social science) is "liberalism", "revisionism", or "reactionary". Is "1 + 1 = 2" equally problematic?
Maybe moderators shouldn't claim mathematics is ideology.
I think that's you, honestly: you twist the definition of liberalism and claim the sophistry comes from the person you're questioning. I'm not even sure what you're arguing: apparently, it's not leftist for people to have a voting system? Only liberals vote? Explaining the consequence of a particularly flawed voting system is intrinsically liberal somehow? Weird take.
Though you could have simply browsed the original comments to draw your own verdict as a moderator would & did, you instead raised one irrelevant question after another as a moderator wouldn't until I quickly directed to evaluate shit like a moderator. Is that called sealioning? It's pretty good.
That someone with your approach to evaluating rules moderates here is a disturbing reminder to those coming here to expect less from moderators in terms of objective, impartial judgement & control of biases. Everyone here should be somewhat disappointed to witness the sort of judgement displayed.
Did you know people can write & think different things? Or that their unrelated thoughts have no bearing on the logic of what they wrote? Wow! Logic: imagine that. Good job discrediting yourself, champ.
/disengage