Hacker News Reader

Comment by renewiltord | Hacker News Reader

Interesting. That just means I can make you vote any way I want by making the dumbest argument for the other side. You advertise a strategy that guarantees that you will always cast a manipulated vote. Entertaining.

View on HN

You seem to imply that not voting for the left automatically means voting for the right. May I remind you that there is another option you probably forgot about? Did you ever hear about the concept of abstaining from voting?

That is also a desired outcome. If I desire a green outcome, I only have to make blues stop voting. In multi-party system if I can make reds and yellows also stop voting it’s great. Fortunately, they will all comply even if I tell them I’m doing this. In fact, they (and you) will particularly comply when told for fear of the shame of backing down.

This pride is particularly exploitable and is why you can orchestrate all sorts of outcomes among demographics that have this vulnerability.

In a two-party system (a necessary de facto in a single-member-district plurality system), failure to vote for a candidate is mathematically identical with a vote for the opposing party.

That's nonsense. By that logic both sides can claim "They didn't vote FOR us so essentially the voted for the other side", which means that by not voting you voted for both.

Interesting. Judging from your comment, I guess you are living in a country with a two party system and the death penalty? Well, I dont.

I fail to see the mathematical equivalence. One is side A: +1 side B: 0

the other is side A: 0 side B: 0

Reply on news.ycombinator.com