0 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Linch · 2024-11-03T17:27:15.479Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

See Scott Aaronson and Julia Galef on "vote trading" in 2016: https://www.happyscribe.com/public/rationally-speaking-podcast/rationally-speaking-171-scott-aaronson-on-the-ethics-and-strategy-of-vote-trading

comment by exmateriae (Sefirosu) · 2024-11-03T06:59:19.476Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'm not american so I have no skin in the game.

Isn't one of the democrat's main arguments that Trump is a danger to democracy and won't respect basic duties ? Supporting cheating seems a bit hypocritical.

Edit : This is not actually cheating, I had misunderstood it. Still, not much of a fan of such ideas.

Replies from: TheCookieLab

↑ comment by TheCookieLab · 2024-11-03T12:11:38.319Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Such is the great irony of our times. Apparently the left must destroy Democracy in order to save it.

Replies from: Linch, dylan-richardson

↑ comment by Linch · 2024-11-03T17:28:47.093Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Constitutionally protected free speech, efforts opposing it were ruled explicitly unconstitutional.

God LW standards sure are slipping. 8 years ago people would be geeking out about the game theory implications, commitments, decision theory, alternative voting schemas, etc. These days after the first two downvotes it's just all groupthink, partisan drivel, and people making shit up, apparently.

↑ comment by Dylan Richardson (dylan-richardson) · 2024-11-03T12:32:51.244Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This isn't "cheating", neither is it at all illegal. Essentially it entails nothing more than a conversation about politics.

Replies from: notfnofn

↑ comment by notfnofn · 2024-11-03T13:35:05.318Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

On a first glance, this looked really sketchy to me, and I think with politics people need to be really careful to avoid being misinterpreted. I don't really blame the above comments for misunderstanding how this works. To make it clearer:

There are 3 people involved in a trade: 1 swing state voter and 2 non-swing-state voters.
All 3 people involved would prefer Kamala to Trump but do not want to vote for Kamala for some reason (probably related to Gaza).
The 3 people agree to only cast one collective vote to Kamala, in the state where it matters.

The reason they have to word it in a funny way is to convince themselves that the two in a non-swing-state would have really voted for Kamala without the trade and the one in a swing state would have really voted third party without the trade.

Replies from: Sefirosu

↑ comment by exmateriae (Sefirosu) · 2024-11-03T14:36:26.215Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thanks for making this clearer, I had misunderstood this indeed. I'm still very much not a fan of the idea of "switching votes", but I guess that's not much different from some alliances and other shenanigans that happen during elections.