KⒶMⒶLⒶ WⒶLZ 2Ⓐ24

show me reports I have made.

it’s no law at all. it couldn’t have been proven, and it can’t be disproven either. it’s a tautology.

duverger is an undisprovable tautology. it is not a law

the libertarian party punches way above the greens. you’re simply wrong.

you speaking about it as though people who would vote for a conservative only have one issue: Conservative candidate. but it’s a whole platform, and it’s also diverse in its Interests

tell people that didn’t vote “you don’t vote, you don’t have a right to bitch”

I don’t believe in rights at all but I’ll say anything I like

game theory assumes rational actors. it does not determine human behavior

values voting is the solution. it’s plain as day that the reason party consolidation happens is strategic voting. a refusal to compromise preserves a diversity of parties.

I’m not a bad guy.

harm reduction has a specific meaning. voting is not harm reduction.

the video learned the wrong lesson. party consolidation is the result of strategic voting. values voting is the solution.

yes

I tried to meme her but everyone thought I was trolling

perfect

duverger is undisprovable.

duvergers law is no law at all, though. it’s an undisprovable tautology

your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith

duverger’s law is a tautology because, from a critical rationalist perspective, a tautological statement cannot be empirically tested or falsified. it’s true by definition. duverger’s law states that a plurality-rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. however, if this law is framed in such a way that any outcome can be rationalized within its parameters, then it becomes unfalsifiable. for example, if a country with a plurality-rule system has more than two parties, one might argue that the system still “tends to” favor two parties, and the current state is an exception or transition phase. this kind of reasoning makes the law immune to counterexamples, and thus, it operates more as a tautological statement than an empirical hypothesis. the critical rationalist critique of marginalist economics, which relies on ceteris paribus (all else being equal) conditions, suggests any similarly structured law should be viewed with skepticism. for duverger’s law to be more than a tautology, it would need to be stated in a way that allows for clear empirical testing and potential falsification, without the possibility of explaining away any contradictory evidence. this would make it a substantive theory that can contribute to our understanding of political systems rather than a mere tautology.

duvergers law is not a mathematical proof. it isn’t even a law. it’s a tautology.

you still haven’t shown the proof.

it’s not a mathematical fact. if it were you could lay out a proof instead of linking a YouTube video.

black pilled as fuck