The Future of American Democracy is in Danger

[Breccia]

A Note on the Florida University Ban

UPDATE: University of Florida President Fuchs Right Off

University of Florida President Kent Fuchs will step down, a decision he said was in the works for months, he announced in a video on the school's Twitter account Wednesday.

Fuchs will remain until a replacement is appointed, he said, adding he expects the transition in early 2023.

He did not mention any controversies of his tenure, focusing on his future, resume and achievements. He closed quoting the Bible, in which the apostle Paul told Timothy, "I have fought the good fight. I have finished the race. I have kept the faith."

"I have planned that the final phase of my career would be as a member of the teaching and research faculty in my home academic department, electrical and computer engineering, here at the university," he said.

The university is facing scrutiny over allegations of undue political influence after professors were barred from testifying as paid experts in a voting rights lawsuit targeting the state of Florida and other parties. The university -- which originally barred professors from testifying, only to later say they could if they were not paid -- quickly reversed its stance, allowing faculty to be paid for testimony.

A faculty senate report last month detailed a culture of fear among faculty members alleging political influence, as well as instances of pressure to destroy and delay publication of Covid-19 research.

We've seen many a Republican and/or Trumper do this sort of thing: spend more time with their family, thump a Bible, admit nothing and flee before the subpoena's hit.

Fuchs is 67. This is academia. He's "too young" to retire, this motherfucker is fleeing a disease-infested campus before he gets sued or fired.

[Stormspark]

UPDATE: University of Florida President Fuchs Right Off



We've seen many a Republican and/or Trumper do this sort of thing: spend more time with their family, thump a Bible, admit nothing and flee before the subpoena's hit.

Fuchs is 67. This is academia. He's "too young" to retire, this motherfucker is fleeing a disease-infested campus before he gets sued or fired.

You added an extra "t" to "hump a Bible".

[Coniferous]

Seriously, this attitude right here is why political change isn't feasible in the USA.

So many, on both sides, take this exact stance, that change and reform aren't possible and you just need to accept what the Democrats and/or Republicans are telling you because they're the only games in town.

I'm not saying it's easy, but it's definitely possible to completely upend either party in a single two-year election cycle, rendering them politically irrelevant. And that's not even a hypothetical, because the Republicans did exactly that (admittedly, over a couple more cycles than that) themselves.

You've convinced yourself you don't have a choice, and you reject anyone suggesting you might.

To use a wow analogy, this is like saying it's possible to shift a 99% horde server to 50/50 horde/ally, or 99% ally. The equilibrium state of a server is 99% one faction, so it's always going to resist moving away from that. Similarly, the equilibrium for the US is a two party system because elections are winner take all. So... good luck.

Yes, back in the ancient times (vanilla wow, or the 1800s) things were less optimized and more volatile, but the equilibrium is firmly established now.

You're better off trying to move the party you're in towards your views than to try to get a third party in there. Republicans used to be the anti slavery party, and democrats were the conservatives.

[Endus]

To use a wow analogy, this is like saying it's possible to shift a 99% horde server to 50/50 horde/ally, or 99% ally. The equilibrium state of a server is 99% one faction, so it's always going to resist moving away from that. Similarly, the equilibrium for the US is a two party system because elections are winner take all.

This is a false analogy, since wildly unbalanced servers are desirable, since there are myriad servers available and a variety of options. Those who want a Horde-dominated server can pick one, and ditto for anyone who wants an Alliance-dominated server. There are also no costs for server choice (other than moving characters between them).

There's only one country that's affected by US elections, and even if you want to break it down to the State level, you neither got to choose your home state nor do you get to change it for free.

Your analogy doesn't hold up, at all.

And frankly, if there was just one server, and three factions, and everyone played Faction A or B, and nobody played C, and there were no inherent advantages to A or B, then yes; none of those players get to complain that they can only choose between Faction A or B. Faction C exists. They just won't make the effort to try and make it competitive. That's apathy, not a systemic problem.

You're better off trying to move the party you're in towards your views than to try to get a third party in there...

Except, y'know, all the times a third party's been a success, in the USA. Not to mention Independent members of Congress.

There's literally extant examples that you can be successful outside the two-party system. And you're claiming they can't be. You're observably wrong about this.

[Coniferous]

This is a false analogy, since wildly unbalanced servers are desirable, since there are myriad servers available and a variety of options. Those who want a Horde-dominated server can pick one, and ditto for anyone who wants an Alliance-dominated server. There are also no costs for server choice (other than moving characters between them).

There's only one country that's affected by US elections, and even if you want to break it down to the State level, you neither got to choose your home state nor do you get to change it for free.

Your analogy doesn't hold up, at all.

And frankly, if there was just one server, and three factions, and everyone played Faction A or B, and nobody played C, and there were no inherent advantages to A or B, then yes; none of those players get to complain that they can only choose between Faction A or B. Faction C exists. They just won't make the effort to try and make it competitive. That's apathy, not a systemic problem.



Except, y'know, all the times a third party's been a success, in the USA. Not to mention Independent members of Congress.

There's literally extant examples that you can be successful outside the two-party system. And you're claiming they can't be. You're observably wrong about this.

It is valid. The equilibrium isn't about what's desirable, it's about a situation where no one has incentive to change once you get into it. The prisoner's dilemma is exactly this - when both turn on the other, the outcome isn't desirable but neither has incentive to unilaterally change.

Your claim that there are a wide variety of options available for servers actually illustrates the point - there are hundreds of servers, and they are mostly dominated by one faction (the RP servers and Brazilian ones aren't for obvious reasons, but that's a very small fraction). That's evidence that the equilibrium state is single faction dominated, and once a server gets to be single faction dominated, it stays that way because it's really hard to convince 15,000 people to faction change. Options for other types of server (50/50) mostly don't exist except in isolated cases.

Similarly, the US hardened into a two party system 160 or so years ago, and it's stayed that way.

How do you define success outside a two party system? Getting elected to congress? Or some sort of small town state senator? Your original post talks about completely upending a party in a single 2 year cycle and rendering them irrelevant. There are no "extant" examples of that... you talking about the Whigs in the 1850s?

[Endus]

It is valid. The equilibrium isn't about what's desirable, it's about a situation where no one has incentive to change once you get into it. The prisoner's dilemma is exactly this - when both turn on the other, the outcome isn't desirable but neither has incentive to unilaterally change.

There is no "equilibrium" to begin with. You've got no basis for that. And your examples of WoW servers doesn't work to support you because there are servers without such extreme faction dominance, and servers where each faction is dominant. It's an expression of individual choice which server you end up in, and they all exist simultaneously.

Your claim that "there are a wide variety of options available" for servers actually illustrates the point - there are hundreds of servers, and they are mostly dominated by one faction (the RP servers and Brazilian ones aren't for obvious reasons, but that's a very small fraction). Once a server gets to be single faction dominated, it stays that way.

And that works against your position, for reasons already noted.

How do you define success outside a two party system? Getting elected to congress? Or some sort of small town state senator?

We're talking national politics, not state politics.

And at the national level, independents have seen success, and third parties have supplanted one of the "big two".

Your original post talks about completely upending a party in a single 2 year cycle and rendering them irrelevant. There are no "extant" examples of that... you talking about the Whigs in the 1850s?

And now you're shifting goalposts. I was talking about members like Bernie Sanders, an Independent for years through multiple election cycles.

Nor did I ever say the process [reasonably] could or should be completed in a single 2 year cycle. That's a bullshit set of goalposts you've cobbled together out of some random sticks you found. I'm not kicking at your made-up horseshit goalposts.

[Coniferous]

Nor did I ever say the process could or should be completed in a single 2 year cycle. That's a bullshit set of goalposts you've cobbled together out of some random sticks you found. I'm not kicking at your made-up horseshit goalposts.

I'm not saying it's easy, but it's definitely possible to completely upend either party in a single two-year election cycle, rendering them politically irrelevant.

We done here? Lol.

[Endus]

We done here? Lol.

Get back to me when you take a moment to figure out what "possible" means. It's possible, but that doesn't mean it's likely, nor does it mean it's necessary for third-party success, even. If every Republican voter voted Libertarian in the next election cycle, there would be no national Republican presence whatsoever. That's what "possible" means.

You're just misrepresenting my actual comments at this point.

[Coniferous]

Get back to me when you take a moment to figure out what "possible" means. It's possible, but that doesn't mean it's likely, nor does it mean it's necessary for third-party success, even.

You're just misrepresenting my actual comments at this point.

In one comment you said "it's definitely possible to completely upend either party in a single two year cycle". In the other you said, "Nor did I ever say the process could or should be completed in a single 2 year cycle."

Here's the definition of "could": "used to indicate possibility." So how am I misrepresenting? I directly quoted your statement and you accused me of "bullshit" and "horseshit" (very eloquent, by the way) moving of goalposts.

[Endus]

In one comment you said "it's definitely possible to completely upend either party in a single two year cycle". In the other you said, "Nor did I ever say the process could or should be completed in a single 2 year cycle."

Here's the definition of "could": "used to indicate possibility." So how am I misrepresenting? I directly quoted your statement and you accused me of "bullshit" and "horseshit" (very eloquent, by the way) moving of goalposts.

Fine. I retract "could". Replace with "reasonably could".

Now, want to deal with the issue of how everything else you claimed was nonsense that doesn't hold up to scrutiny?

[Coniferous]

There is no "equilibrium" to begin with. You've got no basis for that. And your examples of WoW servers doesn't work to support you because there are servers without such extreme faction dominance, and servers where each faction is dominant. It's an expression of individual choice which server you end up in, and they all exist simultaneously.

And that works against your position, for reasons already noted.



We're talking national politics, not state politics.

And at the national level, independents have seen success, and third parties have supplanted one of the "big two".

To address the part of your post that isn't just directly contradicting your earlier statement... nationally, the "big two" parties have been the democrats and republicans for 170 years. Yes, Ross Perot had a moment, and the Bull Moose, and the Know Nothings, but they mostly died out/got assimilated into one of the main parties. No third party has supplanted them and rendered them irrelevant. People have won an election here and there (for a sliver of power - 1 vote in congress or the senate), that's all.

The servers that aren't faction dominant are outliers. Literally none of the high pop servers (again, other than RP) are 50/50, they're all extremely biased to one or the other.

[Endus]

To address the part of your post that isn't just directly contradicting your earlier statement... nationally, the "big two" parties have been the democrats and republicans for 170 years. Yes, Ross Perot had a moment, and the Bull Moose, and the Know Nothings, but they mostly died out/got assimilated into one of the main parties.

And?

You're cherry-picking and trying to exclude all the evidence that debunks your claims.

The servers that aren't faction dominant are outliers. Literally none of the high pop servers are 50/50, they're all extremely biased to one or the other.

Again, faction dominance is a positive for most players, and since they have multiple servers to pick from, they can select according to their preferences.

If there were dozens of United States of Americas, and you could pick which ones you wanted to be born into or immigrate into, yeah, you'd probably pick ones with a political leaning you favor, and that would result in some of those countries being 100% Democrat, and others being 100% Republican, and still others being 100% something different entirely.

But in the real world, unlike WoW;

1> There's only one country, not dozens of separate options.
2> You don't get to pick which version of the country you get, unlike servers.
3> There's more than two options, unlike your choice of WoW factions.
4> Political ideology actually means a hell of a lot more than WoW factions, which are pretty much purely aesthetic and fundamentally meaningless in any grand terms even within the game itself.

There's no comparing server factionalization and US politics. It's a really weird idea and there isn't any correlation on any metric whatsoever.

[Coniferous]

And?

You're cherry-picking and trying to exclude all the evidence that debunks your claims.

If there were so much evidence, a constructive poster would, you know, maybe just provide some. But I know if I ask you for that you'll just post the sea lion comic again. Because apparently we're just supposed to accept everyone's claims at face value without any support? I still don't understand this part of your schtick.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, faction dominance is a positive for most players, and since they have multiple servers to pick from, they can select according to their preferences.

If there were dozens of United States of Americas, and you could pick which ones you wanted to be born into or immigrate into, yeah, you'd probably pick ones with a political leaning you favor, and that would result in some of those countries being 100% Democrat, and others being 100% Republican, and still others being 100% something different entirely.

But in the real world, unlike WoW;

1> There's only one country, not dozens of separate options.
2> You don't get to pick which version of the country you get, unlike servers.
3> There's more than two options, unlike your choice of WoW factions.
4> Political ideology actually means a hell of a lot more than WoW factions, which are pretty much purely aesthetic and fundamentally meaningless in any grand terms even within the game itself.

There's no comparing server factionalization and US politics. It's a really weird idea and there isn't any correlation on any metric whatsoever.

You have missed my point entirely. I'm not talking about people choosing a server they like based on preference, I'm talking about how each server tends towards a state where a single faction dominates. Similarly, the US tends towards a state where there are only two parties, because you need a majority to win elections so having three parties doesn't work very well. It's the equilibrium because once you reach that state (a 99% single faction server, or a country like the US with 2 strong parties), it's very unlikely that you can move away from it.

[Shalcker]

If there were dozens of United States of Americas, and you could pick which ones you wanted to be born into or immigrate into, yeah, you'd probably pick ones with a political leaning you favor, and that would result in some of those countries being 100% Democrat, and others being 100% Republican, and still others being 100% something different entirely.

But there are actually dozens of States in United States, and you can freely pick which one you move to, with quite distinct laws, regulations, and policies.

[Shalcker]

Spoken like someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

States are quite comparable in this Horde-Alliance servers analogy.

Some States have more Democrats; other have more Republicans. They have some common systems, and they have some distinct interactions inside them. They differ by population too.

Of course this analogy does break down on other attributes; no analogy can be perfect.

[Coniferous]

States are quite comparable in this Horde-Alliance servers analogy.

Some States have more Democrats; other have more Republicans. They have some common systems, and they have some distinct interactions inside them. They differ by population too.

Of course this analogy does break down on other attributes; no analogy can be perfect.

The idea is this: when you have a 60/40 server, particularly a pvp one , more people will tend to join the 60% side and the 40% side will start to shrivel. I saw this on my server during MoP - the path to Ordos was permanently blocked by people from the opposite faction so my faction couldn’t get in. There may be oscillation for a while but eventually you hit 90/10 or something, and from that point on no one wants to join the 10% side.

Similar dynamic exists for political parties in the US. If you have 3 parties and 1 is dominant - say it’s 40-30-30 - then it behooves members of the other two parties to team up and get a 60-40 advantage. Once the 60-40 advantage is attained, the 40% party will move its positions until you get close to 50-50. It’s basic game theory.

[Endus]

States are quite comparable in this Horde-Alliance servers analogy.

Some States have more Democrats; other have more Republicans. They have some common systems, and they have some distinct interactions inside them. They differ by population too.

Of course this analogy does break down on other attributes; no analogy can be perfect.

They aren't.

You don't pick the state you're born into. And even the state you immigrate to is often predicated on where you happen to arrive. WoW servers are chosen with information on policies and populations available to those choosing.

Changing your home state is very costly. Not in terms of official documentation, but simply the practice of actually uprooting and moving. It can't simply be done on a whim for a trivial fee, unlike changing servers in WoW (for free, even, if you don't care about bringing along characters).

The factionalization of servers is intentional and emerges out of player choice, with players choosing servers that favor the faction they want to play.

Populations don't change on a short-term basis, whereas voting preferences can.

There's no comparison to be made here. No correlations whatsoever. It's a completely nonsense analogy.

- - - Updated - - -

The idea is this: when you have a 60/40 server, particularly a pvp one , more people will tend to join the 60% side and the 40% side will start to shrivel. I saw this on my server during MoP - the path to Ordos was permanently blocked by people from the opposite faction so my faction couldn’t get in. There may be oscillation for a while but eventually you hit 90/10 or something, and from that point on no one wants to join the 10% side.

Similar dynamic exists for political parties in the US. If you have 3 parties and 1 is dominant - say it’s 40-30-30 - then it behooves members of the other two parties to team up and get a 60-40 advantage. Once the 60-40 advantage is attained, the 40% party will move its positions until you get close to 50-50. It’s basic game theory.

No, it literally doesn't. If this were the case, it wouldn't be a 50/50 split that swings either way; the USA would be 90%+ one party, always, forever.

You're also missing that you only have two choices with WoW servers. Alliance, or Horde. You have plenty more choices in American elections, and can develop new choices too.

Also, the dynamic you're talking about is unique to the USA. Plenty of other countries have democratic systems that don't boil down to a two-party system.

And lastly; it isn't "game theory", because these choices are informed and meaningful, not random-ass pulls based on chance and whimsy.

[Coniferous]

They aren't.

You don't pick the state you're born into. And even the state you immigrate to is often predicated on where you happen to arrive. WoW servers are chosen with information on policies and populations available to those choosing.

Changing your home state is very costly. Not in terms of official documentation, but simply the practice of actually uprooting and moving. It can't simply be done on a whim for a trivial fee, unlike changing servers in WoW (for free, even, if you don't care about bringing along characters).

The factionalization of servers is intentional and emerges out of player choice, with players choosing servers that favor the faction they want to play.

Populations don't change on a short-term basis, whereas voting preferences can.

There's no comparison to be made here. No correlations whatsoever. It's a completely nonsense analogy.

- - - Updated - - -



No, it literally doesn't. If this were the case, it wouldn't be a 50/50 split that swings either way; the USA would be 90%+ one party, always, forever.

You're also missing that you only have two choices with WoW servers. Alliance, or Horde. You have plenty more choices in American elections, and can develop new choices too.

Also, the dynamic you're talking about is unique to the USA. Plenty of other countries have democratic systems that don't boil down to a two-party system.

And lastly; it isn't "game theory", because these choices are informed and meaningful, not random-ass pulls based on chance and whimsy.

When you say, "If this were the case, it wouldn't be a 50/50 split that swings either way; the USA would be 90%+ one party, always, forever" it's clear you still have no idea what I'm saying. I'm saying that each system has an equilibrium state that's hard to get out of, but the equilibrium is different for each one. In the US, it's a two party system because the elections are winner take all, so it will tend towards two parties at 50/50. In WoW, it's a single faction dominated server. The rest of what you're saying has nothing to do with any of this, I have no idea why you're talking about choosing states and moving - you're just totally lost here.

Does that make sense yet?

[Endus]

When you say, "If this were the case, it wouldn't be a 50/50 split that swings either way; the USA would be 90%+ one party, always, forever" it's clear you still have no idea what I'm saying. I'm saying that each system has an equilibrium state that's hard to get out of, but the equilibrium is different for each one. In the US, it's a two party system because the elections are winner take all, so it will tend towards two parties at 50/50.

And you have provided nothing whatsoever to back this up. A cursory examination of US electoral history proves it false.

In WoW, it's a single faction dominated server. The rest of what you're saying has nothing to do with any of this, I have no idea why you're talking about choosing states and moving - you're just totally lost here.

Does that make sense yet?

It won't ever make sense, because there's nothing analogous, and American electoral outcomes don't have the stability you claim in the first place.

You're making this all up and the facts work against you every step of the way.

[Coniferous]

And you have provided nothing whatsoever to back this up. A cursory examination of US electoral history proves it false.



It won't ever make sense, because there's nothing analogous, and American electoral outcomes don't have the stability you claim in the first place.

You're making this all up and the facts work against you every step of the way.

The margin of victory in the popular vote in every presidential election since 1988 has been under 9%. The closest any non-major party candidate has come in that time was 1992 when Perot got 19%. The last time a non-major party candidate came in second place was 1912, and this illustrated the problem a 3rd party faces, because the third party came from a split in the republican party that allowed the dems to win. The last time a different party won was 1848, before the republican party rose to prominence. Ross Perot is the only non-major party candidate since 1968 to win a county or come in second place in a state.

There's some facts. How am I wrong?