My method is to help your "adversary". The way I think about it is this: we can't obtain absolute truth, so we're always somewhat wrong; we have limited data and information, so we need to be able to consider what others have that we don't. Arguments can be both adversarial and cooperative, right?
If your goal is to seek truth, then you need to reframe the setting. It is not "I defend my position and they make their case", that is allowing yourself to change but framed to maintain your current belief. Sure, you have good reason to maintain your belief and I'm not saying you shouldn't hold this, but it should be a byproduct of seeking truth rather than the premise.
Just pick a position you feel strongly about and imagine how your world would change if it was false. How your relationships would change. How stupid your previous statements would be.
Pick anything. Climate change is a big one. I would definitely have to eat some chaff if it was shown to be false personally.
It's not that easy. The deeper issue is plurality voting and duverger's law, with people being incentivized not to vote for something but to vote against a perceived evil, as that's what the campaigns get more traction with on the whole.
Plurality voting applied to the tragedy of the commons, i.e. the nash equilibrium decision matrix, results in the worst possibility if there's no basis for trust. If we could vote on the results of that matrix, by replacing {+1, 0, 0, 0...} voting with {+1, +0.5, -0.5, 0, 0, 0...} voting, things might actually improve with 3-4 viable, local parties, with smart selection of candidates actually representing districts constructively and campaigning accordingly.
But we don't have that. I fear its absence at all scales from local right on up to resolution of international conflict may end up being the Great Filter: The coordination problem of solving the tragedy of the commons in all its forms.
It is telling that you considered their post to be about class warfare rather than different values.
The original focus of this thread was on technical precision vs. market efficiency, and how quality was sacrificed for faster conversion to sales.
That shift compromises products for everyone by creating a race to the bottom toward the minimum viable product and safety standards. When the consequences eventually hit, the aggregate responsibility and emergent effects lose direct attribution...but they exist all the same.
> The US is not a one party state so its direction on these questions may be unclear for a while, but I think I know how Trump, Gabbard, Rubio etc. will answer that question as the working class very much put them in office
Endless misdirection of targeted greedy promises and opportunism did. The coins launched right before the election blew through the emoluments clause, and the tweet threatening removal of funding from universities with "illegal" protests is targeting the first amendment along with news organizations that are feeling the pressure.
The opposition will be but a token, and the bargaining power of the average person is the ultimate target for destruction.
When the only perceived means of winning is making others lose, most people are going to lose.
The US should never have used plurality voting. It functions as the inputs to the Nash Equilibria decision matrix, our individual votes being against a perceived evil rather than for a value which supports civilization.
If instead of {+1, 0, 0, 0...} we used {+1, +0.5, -0.5, 0, 0, 0...} with each non-zero value used at most once and without duplication of candidate, we would be able to vote for the outputs of the decision matrix--our combined decision--and avoid the tragedy of the commons. I believe the coordination problem is the Great Filter, and going interplanetary won't solve the underlying math of shooting first being incentivized by winner-take-all, and the risk of mutually assured destruction.
The Partial Vote system as I call it would still be one voter one vote, it would just be easier to express it in separate components rather than listing all permutations.
Edit: Also, try applying ranked choice to a nash equilibrium matrix. There are some pathological cases to using rankings for a single-seat (result) selection process, where a voter might have had a better result for them if they hadn't voted. That can't happen with the partial votes described above.
Too complicated. Americans don't even understand the much simpler and (IMHO) sufficient ranked choice voting [1]. Alaska, a deep red state, sent a Democrat to Congress because the voters split their votes between 2 Republican candidates because they didn't rank both candidates.
While I think RCV would be better, I still don't think it solves the problem. There are a bunch of ways in which our system is designed to create a two party system, such as what constituionally happens if no candidate gets a majority of votes in the electoral college [2].
That aside, look at other countries. Has more than two parties really helped in practice? Germany, the UK, Israel and France all have 3+ parties in their house of representatives equivalent and all have swung to the right.
Practically speaking, we could solve a bunch of our problems by simply repealing the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 [3], which set the number of House members to 435 and a district size of 700k+. This would take a simple majority in the House and Senate and would revert district sizes back to 30,000. This would kill gerrymandering, practically speaking.
Ranked choice for single-seat elections can create situations where your ballot backfires, which is why it has been tried and rolled back. It works for proportional representation, but then you've got people divided ideologically rather than by region and their local communities.
The divide by ideology (proportional), or into "safe" one-party states and "battleground" states (plurality in the US) is the biggest issue, the two parts of the human experience losing touch with why the contrasting values exist in the first place.
That said, good point on the issue of the size limitation on the House.
That's a convenient narrative but it overlooks the desire to prevent normalization of hostile takeovers.
Russia tried to pretend that its satellite states and NATO were similar arrangements (with the latter thus being under US control), because that would make it seem like they were on even ground.
To the extent it ends up being true, it will be due to Russia's influence (conveniently allied with others' authoritarian tendencies).
