• MisterFrog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’m not explaining away exceptions, they’re called outliers. In any set of data there will be deviations. When I want to plot some viscosity data and get a few random points on my chart that don’t line up with the rest of the curve, I’m still very confident that my curve is close to being accurate, as long as I have enough data points.

    We have enough data points on first past the post elections.

    For it to be disproven you would show first past the post elections don’t have to two party systems in the vast majority of cases (which isn’t the reality).

    Now, you can try and handwave this away by saying, “oh but that’s what people were TOLD TO BELIEVE, so you can’t prove it”. That’s why we have not just the correlation to rely on, we have maths.

    And you can’t (I hope you don’t) really disagree that you either have many candidates, who then win with less than a majority, or two parties, which then necessarily means the third smaller candidates can’t win, and so people then vote for one of the larger parties so their vote counts. That’s the binary state of affairs, there are no other options, the reality of maths doesn’t allow for anything else, the votes add up to 100% ¯_(ツ)_/¯

    • Victoria Antoinette @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      you can try and handwave this away by saying, “oh but that’s what people were TOLD TO BELIEVE, so you can’t prove it”.

      this is a strawman. you’re not dealing with what I actually said.

      • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m not saying we need more data though, we have the data, plurality voting overwhelming results in two party systems. This is disprovable and I’m totally happy to change my mind based on the evidence and data.

        I’m not straw-manning, you said before with regards to looking up the spoiler effect “I have. it’s not a natural phenomenon, it’s a story that the media tells.”

        Apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying there.

        • Victoria Antoinette @lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’m not straw-manning, you said before with regards to looking up the spoiler effect “I have. it’s not a natural phenomenon, it’s a story that the media tells.”

          in that context, the fact that the media says it and academics say it is a reason some people might believe it. i’m saying even if you do believe it, it’s an undisprovable claim. it has little explanatory power, and ultimately, yes, is a myth.