[15 / 4 / ?]
Quoted By: >>12990949 >>12991350 >>12992479 >>12992512 >>12993024
>keeps saying whoever is leading on the first choice ballot or on plurality, no matter what, that person will win 100% (NO PROBABILITY anyone else can win) in a ranked choice system
>he makes no sense
>call him out for it
>says "muh statistics" which don't even exist
>"if someone is leading, we can predict he'll probably win"
>I say, "well yeah, but based on the margins between candidates. if on the first choice and if the margin between the two leading candidates is over 10%, we can predict because the lead is so huge that the rest of the votes will "probably" go to the leader but you can't apply that principle here and say there's no way someone who didn't win the plurality in the first choice ballots cannot win the instant runoff-
>he just interrupts and says I'm wrong, stupid and not using my head
>show him past examples and studies of a candidate not winning the plurality vote, but winning in a ranked choice / instant runoff situation
>says those past examples are just "examples" just like these "incorrect polls from the 2016 and 2020 election"
>he then says, "well not everyone is going to choose more than 1 candidate"
>explain to him this is a ranked choice system, you can choose more than 1
>he says "how can you be this dumb", and not using my head
>he then brings up an example if two candidates were running in an instant runoff, the winner of that election is the plurality winner
>I explain that the runoff system wasn't made for only two people so this is bad example and of course the person who won plurality win if there are two people no matter what voting system there is
>he then thinks I just said the person "with the least amount of votes" would win and then obnoxiously says "WOW you're stupid!"
>I scream "DID I SAY THAT, I SAID THE FRONTRUNNER WOULD WIN SINCE THERE ARE ONLY TWO CANDIDATES"
>I then scream at his "WOW" sarcastically a few times and push him to the ground and called him a fucking idiot
Is this the so-called "based" parenting?
>he makes no sense
>call him out for it
>says "muh statistics" which don't even exist
>"if someone is leading, we can predict he'll probably win"
>I say, "well yeah, but based on the margins between candidates. if on the first choice and if the margin between the two leading candidates is over 10%, we can predict because the lead is so huge that the rest of the votes will "probably" go to the leader but you can't apply that principle here and say there's no way someone who didn't win the plurality in the first choice ballots cannot win the instant runoff-
>he just interrupts and says I'm wrong, stupid and not using my head
>show him past examples and studies of a candidate not winning the plurality vote, but winning in a ranked choice / instant runoff situation
>says those past examples are just "examples" just like these "incorrect polls from the 2016 and 2020 election"
>he then says, "well not everyone is going to choose more than 1 candidate"
>explain to him this is a ranked choice system, you can choose more than 1
>he says "how can you be this dumb", and not using my head
>he then brings up an example if two candidates were running in an instant runoff, the winner of that election is the plurality winner
>I explain that the runoff system wasn't made for only two people so this is bad example and of course the person who won plurality win if there are two people no matter what voting system there is
>he then thinks I just said the person "with the least amount of votes" would win and then obnoxiously says "WOW you're stupid!"
>I scream "DID I SAY THAT, I SAID THE FRONTRUNNER WOULD WIN SINCE THERE ARE ONLY TWO CANDIDATES"
>I then scream at his "WOW" sarcastically a few times and push him to the ground and called him a fucking idiot
Is this the so-called "based" parenting?
