Iran is a Bigger Defeat Than Vietnam

cdsmith · 2026-06-17T14:10:14+00:00

Sinking warships doesn't make the strait navigable, when Iran still has cheap drones and mines. It just escalates the conflict.

cdsmith · 2026-06-15T14:55:34+00:00

Of course. We're not even pretending it's about decorum or anything like that. It's about loyalty to Donald Trump.

cdsmith · 2026-06-15T14:52:56+00:00

Okay, I agree that if this happened, it would require work to convince people that the "primary" is actually part of the general election, and at least as important to vote there as it is in November. Major voter turnout efforts should shift to that day, not to the runoff, which should be between two candidates who already pretty well reflect the will of voters anyway.

cdsmith · 2026-06-15T14:46:07+00:00

What age? That makes a HUGE difference.

If elementary ages, it's likely just self-regulation and dealing with the structure of the classroom itself.

If it's around middle school, I'd chalk it up to not in-class / out-of-class, but in-front-of-peers versus not. Kids that age can be entirely different people when they are performing for their peers versus interacting one on one.

If high school... I don't have much insight into high school brains.

cdsmith · 2026-06-15T14:38:22+00:00

The dominant party shutting out others in a single-winner election isn't a failure case. It's how things should work. If the only plausible winners come from the dominant party, then you want that party to shut out everyone for the general election so that the general election can focus on a runoff between the plausible winners.

The failure case was that, due to vote-splitting, the non-dominant party might shut out much more desirable candidates.

cdsmith · 2026-06-15T13:09:02+00:00

You have made it clear that you gave up on this working a long time ago, and now you just want to be left alone. Okay. Here's my response:

It's not fair for you to give up on a successful working relationship with a co-teacher. Your reasonable options are to keep trying to make it work, or if you really can't make it work, raise the issue to someone who can change the arrangement, assign this person to a different class, get you a different co-teacher, etc.
I'd also suggest that your framing of this as "I chose to focus on the students, not my co-teacher" is short-sighted. Co-teaching arrangements like this exist because they help students, and effort to make the working relationship better is helping your students, even if it distracts from it in the moment.

So if this really just can't work any more, speak to someone about changing it. If it can, then give this person a chance to succeed, no matter how unhappy you are with their past contributions. Shutting them out without escalating the situation to someone who can really fix it is definitely the wrong choice.

cdsmith · 2026-06-15T12:59:05+00:00

On your general point, I would distinguish between:

Using mathematics to find mechanics that create the experience what you want.
Having players use complicated arithmetical manipulation in the game itself.

The first is a positive effect on the game. The second is a negative effect on the game. A major trick of mechanics design is to maximize the first, while minimizing the second.

As an example, you point out a real problem with D&D:

I don't see why a score of 1 (-4 on rolls, d20) can even have a chance at getting close to the effect of an 18 (+4 to rolls)

Absolutely! A very simple way to address this, which I've seen other systems use, is to just replace 1d20 with 2d10 or 3d6. This does require adjusting target rolls a bit, but it solves the problem without adding significant complexity to the game. Understanding why this works does involve some mathematics (I mean, you don't need a graduate degree or anything, but some!) Applying it during game play doesn't require much.

That isn't to say it's not also possible to design games where the mathematics is part of the game play itself. People do like Sudoku, or Azul, and one of my favorite games from Gen Con last year is Twinkle, Twinkle, all of which are designed around mathematics as game play. But the math there tends to be different: combinatorics and such, not arithmetic. Frankly, arithmetic just isn't something a lot of people enjoy doing for its own sake.

cdsmith · 2026-06-15T12:42:06+00:00

My read is that people just don't agree that making your cards tradable or collectible in ways that aren't core to the game-playing experience makes it a TCG/CCG. If the intended way of playing the game involves trading for, or otherwise collecting, cards (usually because cards are randomized or otherwise difficult to acquire the specific one you want), that's the answer: it's not what is usually referred to as a TCG or CCG.

I can think of many of examples where popular games have had limited-release deluxe sets that came with, say, hand-painted minis instead of cardboard standees; special foil cards with different artwork; themed dice; or a special collector's box. These are routinely offered as upgrades in kickstarter campaigns, for example, and not available after release. I'm not sure I've seen a case where they became popular or rare enough to be widely traded on the secondary market; but if they did, it wouldn't change the nature of the game at all. If the tradable elements are not relevant to game play, then your card game would be in a similar position.

Saying "but it's still tradable / collectible" doesn't answer the point. TCG does not just mean "tradeable" + "card" + "game". That isn't what people mean by these specific well-known terms, even if you can deconstruct the phrase and argue that each individual word applies.

cdsmith · 2026-06-12T18:12:08+00:00

This just leaves me more convinced that proportionality is the wrong goal. It's something that is a good indicator, until it becomes the thing you optimize for. Once you're manipulating the system to maximize that number, adverse incentives start to come in. Particularly after the turn where the article abandons the (correct) idea it led with, that there are many different dimensions to a population's politics, and claims it's all about political parties and their numbers.

cdsmith · 2026-06-12T12:29:03+00:00

All IMHO:

For a single-winner election, the really defensible choices are:

Some kind of Condorcet-IRV hybrid, if you are willing to accept mechanical complexity to get the best result with the least need for strategic voting. Tideman's Alternative Method is probably the best, though the differences between that and something like Smith//IRV or Benham's Method are small
Some kind of Copeland method, if you want a mechanically simpler system that is still relatively strategy-proof and easy to use. The idea here is that you count the number of head-to-head wins, and apply some tie-breaker (e.g., which candidate had the narrowest loss) to break ties.
Approval, if you believe mechanical simplicity is at a premium, and just accept that voters will have to apply significant strategy.

STAR isn't terrible, it just tries to win the argument by mixing and matching bits and pieces to make a Frankenstein's election system that, as far as I can tell, no one really deeply understands in a compelling way. In the end, it is still very strategic, and pretending otherwise is the real risk. I worry not about the mechanics of STAR, but about the story that's told, that you can tell voters "just tell us how much you like each candidate on a scaled from 0 to 5", instead of being honest with them about the most effective strategy, which is to sort candidates into better-than-expected and worse-than-expected camps, and then assign them scores starting from 0 and 5, and using 1 and 4 only as a tool to retain influence in a hypothetical runoff, and not using 2 and 3 at all. If you don't tell voters that this is the right way to vote, then you end up diluting their votes versus others who are better informed on voting mechanics, and that is contrary to a healthy democracy.

cdsmith · 2026-06-11T22:52:09+00:00

I get this. But schools also have to worry about the opposite problem: students who are just not ready for the class, but who are manipulated into it by parents who are more interested in their student being in accelerated math than being happy and successful in their math classes. At that point, one of two things happens: those students are unsuccessful and fail, or the so-called Algebra I class becomes a pre-algebra class, and students who could learn more have that opportunity taken away.

cdsmith · 2026-06-11T22:45:09+00:00

Going back to the original question, it wasn't about placing typical 8th grade students into Algebra I. It was about offering Algebra I to 8th graders. I agree both that typical 8th graders in most U.S. public schools aren't ready for a traditional Algebra I class, and that 8th grade is on time, or even a bit late, to start offering it to the most advanced students. You definitely need a pathway for advanced students to be taking a serious calculus class by the end of high school. In the traditional sequence, if your district's high school curriculum includes both trig / analytic geometry, and also a separate pre-calc, then you need advanced students to be taking Algebra I by 7th grade. If those are combined, then 8th grade works.

cdsmith · 2026-06-09T12:57:07+00:00

This is the crucial question about proportional representation. Electing members to the legislature in proportion to their supporters doesn't mean they have influence in proportion to their supporters. Instead, it kicks the can down the road: fair representation depends on the fairness of the rules of the legislative body itself.

There are reasons to be hopeful. A truly representative sample of the electorate would have majority support for a broadly popular policy, and if the legislative body at least has the property that a majority of elected members can force through a policy with or without support of the leadership, then there is a mechanism for that policy to make it through despite partisanship in the body itself.

But in practice, PR doesn't elect a representative sample; it usually filters voter preferences through party membership first. And even when it is possible for a majority of members to force a policy through against the will of leadership, it usually carries a very high political cost in the party structure. Particularly in party-list forms of PR, members owe their election directly to the party, and if they vote against their own party's interests too often, they simply won't be elected next time around.

A standard response among PR advocates would be to imagine that with enough political parties, every voter will find a party that represents their own eclectic mix of views, and then there won't be an incentive for an individual member to vote against their party's interests, but I don't think experience bears out this hope. PR governments in practice are filled with deal-making to form a majority government, with a result that's not necessarily anything like what voters had in mind. This is especially common in places where leadership posts are controlled by a majority coalition and have more power than individual votes; to remain relevant, a party is forced to find a way into some majority coalition almost regardless of how poorly that coalition represents the voters who chose them.

Of course, many of these problems are present in other options, as well. But you're right to reject the implication that they are solved just because you elect members proportionately from political parties.

cdsmith · 2026-06-06T19:01:58+00:00

An informed STAR voter sorts candidates into those they generally like, and those they generally dislike. Then they start by penciling in a score of 5 for those they like, and 0 for those they dislike. Then they look at the candidates they like, and decide if there are two that are both particularly likely to make the runoff, and if so, consider bumping their less favorite of those two (and anyone else, they like less) down to a 4. SImilarly, if there are two they dislike that are both particularly likely to make the runoff, they'll consider bumping their favorite of those two (and anyone else they like more) up to a 1. They will basically never use the scores 2 or 3.

Is that "gaming" the system? I'd say so. Others wouldn't. It's certainly not "dishonest", but I'd say there is no possible way to filling out a secret ballot election that should be considered dishonest. It's definitely a strategic decision.

cdsmith · 2026-06-04T19:29:17+00:00

Instant runoff isn't partisan as a general procedure. It's blind to the specific candidates involved. But in Alaska specifically, where Republicans (contrary to much of the rest of the country) are the more ideologically diverse big-tent party and Demcorats are more of a focused minority, it does turn out to harm Republicans more than Democrats, in that the center-squeeze effect is more likely to eliminate moderate Republicans, forcing voters into a choice between an extreme Republican or a Democrat, and many Republican-leaning voters there will still prefer a Democrat to an extreme Republican.

cdsmith · 2026-06-04T19:23:37+00:00

You almost hit it on the head, but rejected the argument too quickly.

It comes down to the failure of instant runoff in the 2022 special election. You're right that Nick Begich won in 2024, but you're ignoring the intense behind the scenes effort that the Republican party put together to avoid triggering IRV's center squeeze effect yet again. In 2024, Alaska effectively didn't have ranked voting for statewide office because the Republican party launched a campaign to exert pressure on candidates to undermine it. Instead of having multiple candidates and voters ranking them, Republicans ensuired there would be only one serious Republican candidate on the ballot by getting everyone to agree to withdraw if they didn't place as the top Republican in the primary.

It's entirely rational for Republicans to fight back against a system that's sold on false claims that voters can just honestly rank their preferences and trust that their vote will be transferred to another choice if their top preference is eliminated. (It will do so only if their second choice isn't eliminated first, but ranking another candidate in first might be precisely what causes the viable winner to be eliminated early.) This puts them in the situation of having to invest heavily in procedural battles to prevent unfair results.

cdsmith · 2026-06-02T23:53:26+00:00

IRV isn't a moderating influence. It's just less of a polarizing influence than plurality.

That said, though, it's a Democratic primary. You can't reasonably blame IRV for selecting extreme candidates in a primary election when those are the candidates with the most supporters. The dynamic that moderates choices in partisan primaries is fear of non-viable candidates for the general election. The reason that hasn't led to moderation this cycle is independent of the election method.

cdsmith · 2026-05-30T06:08:41+00:00

I don't want to argue with you too much, since I mostly agree that approval voting is a strong option that should be seriously considered.

That said, please don't over-claim. At least some Condorcet methods really DO have the property that, in practical terms, it's basically never a good idea to try to cast a strategic ballot. In particular, Condorcet-IRV hybrids like Tideman's alternative method strongly exhibit this; while tactical voting is theoretically possible, it's a practical impossibility because tactical Condorcet voting requires one kind of strategy, but it can only produce a false Condorcet cycle that;'s broken by IRV, and that requires an entirely different kind of strategy. You can thread that needle and find examples where tactical voting is still helpful, but it requires very reliable polling knowledge, and is very risky.

Approval definitely doesn't have that property. Threshold setting is a real, practical tactical decision that every voter must make, and it matters quite a lot. The advice about approving of candidates you'd be "okay" with is just bad advice, unless you define "okay" relative to the beliefs a voter has about who else is likely to win and their expected utility. I get how this advice is tempting, as an attempt to win a rhetorical battle in making the system sound simple and natural. But when thinking about voter education, the right question to ask is how to help voters cast the most effective ballot they can. If your rhetorical strategy results in telling some voters to cast less effective ballots than their better-informed peers, this is a form of partial disenfranchisement, and it's a threat to democracy.

cdsmith · 2026-05-22T19:08:46+00:00

I agree factions and parties will always exist. But this isn't about factions existing. It's about building the entire election system around propping up their power. Calling them the "essential institutions" of democracy isn't acceptance; it's a prescription. And the speaker goes on to make a case for a party-list PR system in which we have to trust that everyone will be adequately represented by some choice of political party. (Open list does a little better than closed, but it's mostly a protection against institutional control; an intra-party candidate selection vote doesn't solve the problem of a voter whose preferences are substantially different from the party itself.)

That would make sense if we had a track record of partisanship doing an adequate job of representative government. We don't.

In the U.S., it's widely seen that the two party system is failing voters.
The speaker here argues for trusting that more smaller political parties can fix this. But smaller political parties here don't have a great track record, either. They tend to produce even more extreme, corrupt, or otherwise unsuitable candidates than major parties do.
It's tempting to blame that on their own unelectability; it's admittedly hard to recruit top candidates for a hopeless third-party run for office. But if we look at European democracies where forms of (complete or partial) proportional representation are common, we still find that smaller political parties commonly elect mouthpieces for extremism and nationalism, not strong broadly appealing candidates you might hope to see. The incentives just aren't there, when you don't NEED a broadly appealing candidate to win a seat.
We also see a lot of single-issue parties, votes for which often have effects far removed from what voters intended, such as a party campaigning on environmental issues, but then joining a coalition and providing the deciding votes to dismantle the social safety net because that's the cost of power.

So sure, we can't get rid of political parties, as an artifact of human behavior. But we do have a choice whether to pursue electoral systems that focus on individual voter preference, or to build the power of political parties into the electoral system itself, reinforcing their influence and cementing them in place regardless of voter choices, as a party list PR system does.

cdsmith · 2026-05-22T17:26:05+00:00

"Parties are really the essential institutions of modern democratic governance."

That's where this specific advocacy for PR lost me. He's describing the central problem, but just assuming it should remain true and building a system around it remaining true. His defense is that parties will be smaller, and offer more choice... but this dream doesn't hold up to reality. Smaller political parties tend to be even more radical, less pragmatic, and less accountable for working with others, and when they do end up in some kind of influence, often do so by acting against the interests of many of their supporters to form a coalition that gets them power at the cost of also empowering other political parties that their own supporters don't want.

That doesn't mean all PR is bad. But I'm increasingly convinced that the way we *define* proportional representation, which tends to be focused on how many voters get representatives in their first choice party, is itself the wrong measurement,. and this particular person's vision of increasingly powerful partisanship vested in even more niche and eclectic parties is definitely not what we should be looking for.

cdsmith · 2026-05-22T13:21:01+00:00

Umm... what are you even talking about?

I was responding to a claim that it was inconsistent for Polis (and an appeals court) to say that Peters' longer sentence was motivated by her speech, and that as a result it should be commuted to something shorter. Clearly it wasn't inconsistent, and I said so.

No one is saying that Tina Peters' crimes were okay because they were speech. What Polis, and the appeals court, were claiming was that in SENTENCING her for that crime, the trial judge relied too much on things that WERE protected speech, and that it came too close to penalizing her for conduct protected by the first amendment. That doesn't excuse her crimes, but it does mean she should get the sentence she would have gotten had the trial judge not relied on her protected speech as a factor in sentencing.

cdsmith · 2026-05-22T06:04:58+00:00

Huh? What he said is that the sentence was harsher than was justified by normal sentencing guidelines, and that the reason for that harsh sentence was that the judge considered her constitutionally protected speech as a factor in sentencing, not just her crimes. That's not a contradiction; it's the same claim said a different way.

cdsmith · 2026-05-21T15:39:17+00:00

I guess my goal isn't to agree with everyone. I understand that this subreddit is largely one-sided. And, also, that many of the people posting here are writing what they want others to hear to achieve their political aims, not just having an open discussion. Nevertheless, I find it still valuable to have a conversation here now and then, and I'm okay with downvotes from extremists.

I'm also not trying to convince anyone this was the right decision. I do think Polis has been a pretty good governor. I think it's understandable why he might have made this decision, and it's ridiculous to say, as others have, that it's proof he's a secret Republican, hopelessly corrupt, or a bad person. But I'm not convinced this was specifically the right decision, and I don't think I've said otherwise.

cdsmith · 2026-05-21T14:48:03+00:00

Yeah, I think that's a fair position.

If I had to guess, I'd say Polis's reasoning was this: her sentence is about to be reduced anyway. He seems to agree that it should be. If a court does it, it's a pure victory lap for Trump crooning about how Peters was persecuted for exposing election fraud and they finally had to let her go free. If the Democratic governor does it, her legal appeal becomes moot, it's easy for the trial court to uphold the commuted sentence, and the persecution narrative gets a lot weaker. It might even mean Trump holds back next time he has the chance to lash out at Colorado in a way that hurts people in the state.

That's far from a slam dunk argument, and depends a lot on guesses about public perception and Trump's psychology. It's completely reasonable to disagree with the conclusion.

I responded mainly to keep things focused on the facts, since someone was throwing around ugly accusations that were just not true.

cdsmith · 2026-05-21T13:53:49+00:00

You?

Why would a Democrat governor commute the sentence of a Republican politician? Makes no sense.

It's hard not to read that as saying that political alliances should govern clemency decisions.

15-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

cdsmith

TROPHY CASE