You're the one saying we should effectively stick with the current mechanism, despite its flaws. The onus isn't on me to provide an alternative, it's on you to defend a problematic solution.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should try to stop this in either case. There's a balance to be found in both cases, and it's the correct balance point that is being discussed.
Yep, I agree. That's what I (imperfectly) meant by the lack of serious counterproposals: I'm not sure the current HSR is the best approach, but I haven't seen anyone come up with a better idea, and I'd rather have something than nothing.
Fair enough, it's not a trivial undertaking and I suspect reddit knows that as part of their shakedown strategy.
I still feel like the various protests going on indicate the space is absolutely ripe for an alternative and being a bad alternative might just be good enough.
I didn't make an argument saying that the way it is, is the way it should be. I just said it is the way it is for reasonable reasons and I don't see how this new way could gain traction. Pushing up hill isn't a great strategy.
If you're claiming there's consensus RCV with IRV is no good, you're going to have to show sources. Because everything I know tells me that's patently false. There's no such consensus in academic, there's no such consensus in the political world, there's no such consensus anywhere.
You say pretty much any other proposal is better, plenty of other people say the other proposals mostly look even worse.
I don't understand why you ascribe this to "hardheaded loyalty" instead of people just genuinely disagreeing with you, and that they have good reasons for it.
That's like refusing a fresh cheeseburger because you're afraid that by the time you bite into it, it'll develop botulism - even as you're minutes away from starving to death. You're nitpicking tiny details and dismissing a clear improvement because it does not conform perfectly to your idealized standards. Life is messy, people make mistakes. That just means we keep moving forward and self correcting when we need to not when we make up entirely hypothetical downsides, most of which never end up happening anyway. I repeat, again: you have provided zero evidence for your claims that the Rust team is doing the wrong thing or heading in the wrong direction.
This insistence on using hypotheticals instead of providing evidence screams fear; not a rational evaluation of the community and its plans. It's the same tired strategy used by conservatives for thousands of years to fight literacy, education, suffrage, abolition of slavery, welfare, universal healthcare, and pretty much everything good that has happened in human society. No one but its rhetorical peddlers take it seriously because it is purely self defeating: if you're too paralyzed by hypothetical issues to take the first step, then those issues will never be resolved, freeing you from facing the uncomfortable change ahead.
I'm afraid we're simply going to have to agree to disagree on this point. I do not share the opinion that this is a good idea with significant upside and virtually no downside. I also do not agree that none of the issues I have raised apply to the original suggestion - I believe they do apply, which is why I raised them.
I agree, and I understand that such "radical" claims invite a dismissive reaction (downvotes). But the presentation really does make a very compelling argument and offers a simple and elegant alternative solution that solves most problems.
reply