1844: Voting Systems

2017-05-31T14:51:28Z

Jruhlman09: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1844
| date = May 31, 2017
| title = Voting Systems
| image = voting_systems.png
| titletext = Kenneth Arrow hated me because the ordering of my preferences changes based on which voting systems have what level of support. But it tells me a lot about the people I'm going to be voting with!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic references three types of voting system:

1) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting '''Approval Voting''']: Approval voting is a single-winner electoral system. Each voter may "approve" of (i.e., select) any number of candidates. The winner is the most-approved candidate.

2) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting '''Instant-Runoff Voting''']: In Instant-Runoff Voting (also known as Ranked Choice or Preferential Voting) voters in elections can rank the candidates in order of preference. Ballots are initially counted for each elector's top choice. If a candidate secures more than half of these votes, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the candidate in last place is eliminated and removed from consideration. The top remaining choices on all the ballots are then counted again. This process repeats until one candidate is the top remaining choice of a majority of the voters.

3) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method '''Condorcet Method''']: A Condorcet Method election is one that elects the candidate that would win a majority of the vote in all of the head-to-head elections against each of the other candidates, whenever there is such a candidate.

'''Arrow's impossibility theorem''' states that when voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking.
As a simple illustration, suppose we have three candidates, A, B, and C, and that there are three voters with preferences as follows (candidates being listed left-to-right for each voter in decreasing order of preference):

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
! Voter !! First preference !! Second preference !! Third preference
|-
! Voter 1
| A || B || C
|-
! Voter 2
| B || C || A
|-
! Voter 3
| C || A || B
|}

If C is chosen as the winner, it can be argued that B should win instead, since two voters (1 and 2) prefer B to C and only one voter (3) prefers C to B. However, by the same argument A is preferred to B, and C is preferred to A, by a margin of two to one on each occasion. Thus the choice between A and C would not be the same whether the B choice is present or not. This example is referred to as '''Condorcet paradox'''.

The theorem may be interpreted in a way suggesting that no matter what voting electoral system is implemented in a democracy, the resulting democratic choices are equally imperfect.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat, Ponytail and Cueball are all standing. Cueball is talking.]

:Cueball: I prefer approval voting, but if we're seriously considering instant runoff, then I'll argue for a Condorcet method instead.

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:Strong Arrow's theorem: the people who find Arrow's theorem significant will never agree on anything anyway.

{{comic discussion}}

955: Neutrinos

2014-03-04T15:03:52Z

Jruhlman09: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 955
| date = September 23, 2011
| title = Neutrinos
| image = neutrinos.png
| titletext = I can't speak to the paper's scientific merits, but it's really cool how on page 10 you can see that their reference GPS beacon is sensitive enough to pick up continential drift under the detector (interrupted halfway through by an earthquake).
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The title text is missing}}
The "Neutrino exceed the speed of light issue" [http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20110594-264/physics-shocker-neutrinos-clocked-faster-than-light/ was an actual story] from the day before the comic was posted. An experiment at {{w|CERN}} caused a stream of neutrinos to be passed from CERN in Switzerland to a receiving station at the INFN laboratories of Gran Sasso in Italy ({{w|LNGS}}). The initial findings from the experiment were that the neutrinos arrived at the detector in less time than a beam of light would have taken. The neutrinos had apparently exceeded the {{w|speed of light}}.

{{w|Albert Einstein}} famously posited that the speed of light in a vacuum is both constant and absolutely the fastest possible speed in the universe. Nothing can go faster. Therefore, a report that neutrinos have been found travelling faster than light challenges a fundamental law of physics and turns all of physics, or at least {{w|special relativity}} on its head.

[[386|Prior experience]] has shown [[Cueball]] that in such cases, arguing with people and preaching caution is futile. Cueball realizes that it is more satisfying and profitable to place bets with them instead. His reasoning is that almost invariably, these supposedly world-changing discoveries end up falling apart after further investigation, and that if it doesn't, he wouldn't care.

Postscript: Cueball (that is, Randall) was correct. The experiment was found to be flawed. [http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112551696/cern-confirms-neutrinos-not-faster-than-light/ Neutrinos are not faster than light], the data was probably wrong due to an incorrectly synchronized clock, or caused by some broken wiring on the receiving end.

==Transcript==
:[Megan and Cueball are talking.]
:Megan: Did you see the neutrino speed of light thing?
:Cueball: Yup! Good news; I need the cash.
:Megan: Huh? Cash?

:[Text above half-sized panel.]
:Yeah. When there's a news story about a study overturning all of physics, I used to urge caution, remind people that experts aren't all stupid, and end up in pointless arguments about Galileo.

:[Half-height panel.]
:[Cueball sitting on chair, looking down at laptop in his lap. Books and things are on a desk in front of him.]
:Cueball: No, this isn't ''about'' whether relativity exists. If it didn't, your GPS wouldn't work.
:Cueball: What do you mean, "science thought police"? Have you seen our budget? We couldn't ''begin'' to afford our own thought police.

:[Megan and Cueball talking again.]
:Megan: That sounds miserable and unfulfilling.
:Cueball: Yup. So I gave up, and now I just find excited believers and bet them $200 each that the new result won't pan out.

:[Same as last panel.]
:Megan: That's mean.
:Cueball: It provides a good income, and if I'm ever wrong, I'll be too excited about the new physics to notice the loss.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1844: Voting Systems

955: Neutrinos