explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2136: Election Commentary

2019-04-12T18:48:53Z

LordFlashmeow: Made note of the fact Cueball is comparing each digit of the numbers, rather than the numbers themselves.

{{comic
| number = 2136
| date = April 12, 2019
| title = Election Commentary
| image = election_commentary.png
| titletext = This really validates Jones's strategy of getting several thousand more votes than Smith. In retrospect, that was a smart move; those votes were crucial.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by XOF NEWSBOT 3000. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is a joke about the way newscasters commentate elections, and how they make it far more complicated than it needs to be. Smith has 55384 votes, while Jones has 59102 votes. Instead of comparing the votes as one number, Cueball compares each digit to see which is larger.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[Cueball is presenting a graphic on his left that shows two names followed by five numbers]
:Cueball: Smith is leading in 3 of the 5 digits, and is tied in another. But Jones has a solid lead the thousands place, if Smith can't catch up there, it's over.

:Smith  5 5 3 8 4
:::<sup>tie X ✓ ✓ ✓</sup>
:::<sub>tie ✓ X X X</sub>
:Jones  5 9 1 0 2

:[Caption below the panel:]
:A lot of election commentary just consists of ways to add up who has more votes.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

1846: Drone Problems

2017-06-05T21:12:02Z

LordFlashmeow:

{{comic
| number = 1846
| date = June 5, 2017
| title = Drone Problems
| image = drone_problems.png
| titletext = On the other hand, as far as they know, my system is working perfectly.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Possibly more, may contain language errors. Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Megan]] is frustrated because of people flying drones too close to her. So she builds a system to shoot them down and shows it to [[Cueball]], who clearly is also excited about the idea and helps spot the drones. However, each of the drones gets accidentally destroyed by its own pilot because of their inability to fly the drones.

After three hours of unsuccessful drone hunting, a frustrated Megan complains about people unable to fly the drones, which prevents her (and Cueball) from having fun shooting them down. The joke is that she originally created the system to get rid of the drones, so the lack of drones should be the desired output - and now she wants the drones nearby (even if only temporarily).

The title text refers to the fact that from an outsider's perspective, the system is keeping all the drones away from the house.

Another possible secondary joke is that the drones were flying near her because the pilots can't fly properly.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is sitting on her knees at the porch in front of a house when Cueball comes walking up. She is using a smartphone which is connected to a dish-antenna pointing into the sky.]
:Megan: People in the park keep flying drones near me, so I've built a system to shoot them down.
:Cueball: Cool! Oh yeah, there's one now.
:Megan: Time for a test!

:Megan: Okay, locking on…
:Cueball: Wait, it just crashed.
:Megan: Damn.

:Cueball: Here comes another one! Aim for… nope, it got stuck in a tree.

:Caption: Three hours later…
:Cueball: Finally, two more just—no, one crashed and the other is hurtling sideways toward the lake.
:Megan: ''Will you people learn to fly these things?!''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Drones]]

1846: Drone Problems

2017-06-05T21:11:15Z

LordFlashmeow: Added a secondary joke explanation

{{comic
| number = 1846
| date = June 5, 2017
| title = Drone Problems
| image = drone_problems.png
| titletext = On the other hand, as far as they know, my system is working perfectly.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Possibly more, may contain language errors. Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Megan]] is frustrated because of people flying drones too close to her. So she builds a system to shoot them down and shows it to [[Cueball]], who clearly is also excited about the idea and helps spot the drones. However, each of the drones gets accidentally destroyed by its own pilot because of their inability to fly the drones.

After three hours of unsuccessful drone hunting, a frustrated Megan complains about people unable to fly the drones, which prevents her (and Cueball) from having fun shooting them down. The joke is that she originally created the system to get rid of the drones, so the lack of drones should be the desired output - and now she wants the drones nearby (even if only temporarily).

The title text refers to the fact that from an outsider's perspective, the system is keeping all the drones away from the house.'

Another possible secondary joke is that the drones were flying near her because the pilots can't fly properly.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is sitting on her knees at the porch in front of a house when Cueball comes walking up. She is using a smartphone which is connected to a dish-antenna pointing into the sky.]
:Megan: People in the park keep flying drones near me, so I've built a system to shoot them down.
:Cueball: Cool! Oh yeah, there's one now.
:Megan: Time for a test!

:Megan: Okay, locking on…
:Cueball: Wait, it just crashed.
:Megan: Damn.

:Cueball: Here comes another one! Aim for… nope, it got stuck in a tree.

:Caption: Three hours later…
:Cueball: Finally, two more just—no, one crashed and the other is hurtling sideways toward the lake.
:Megan: ''Will you people learn to fly these things?!''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Drones]]

1846: Drone Problems

2017-06-05T18:28:33Z

LordFlashmeow: Minor grammar edits

{{comic
| number = 1846
| date = June 5, 2017
| title = Drone Problems
| image = drone_problems.png
| titletext = On the other hand, as far as they know, my system is working perfectly.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Possibly more, may contain language errors. Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Megan is frustrated because of people flying drone too close to her. So she builds a system to shoot them down and shows it to Cueball, who clearly is also excited about the idea and helps spot the drones. However, each of the drones gets accidentally destroyed by its own pilot because of their inability to fly the drones.

After three hours of unsuccessful drone hunting, frustrated Megan complains about people unable to fly the drones, which prevents her (and Cueball) from having fun shooting them down. The joke is that she originally created the system to get rid of the drones, so the lack of drones should be the desired output - and now she wants the drones nearby (even if only temporarily).

The title text refers to the fact that from an outsider's perspective, the system is keeping all the drones away from the house.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Megan is sitting on her porch when Cueball comes walking up.

:Megan: People in the park keep flying drones near me, so I've built a system to shoot them down.
:Cueball: Cool! Oh yeah, there's one now.
:Megan: Time for a test!

:Megan: Okay, locking on…
:Cueball: Wait, it just crashed.
:Megan: Damn.

:Cueball: Here comes another one! Aim for… nope, it got stuck in a tree.

:Caption: Three hours later…
:Cueball: Finally, two more just—no, one crashed and the other is hurtling sideways toward the lake.
:Megan: ''Will you people learn to fly these things?!''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Drones]]

Talk:1846: Drone Problems

2017-06-05T15:56:29Z

LordFlashmeow:

I wrote a short little explanation that needs a lot more. Maybe I'll add more after school.
[[User:LordFlashmeow|LordFlashmeow]] ([[User talk:LordFlashmeow|talk]]) 15:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)LordFlashmeow

1846: Drone Problems

2017-06-05T15:52:19Z

LordFlashmeow: Make basic framework for a more detailed explination

1844: Voting Systems

2017-05-31T18:46:34Z

LordFlashmeow: Removed redundant bolding

{{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|Here we have basically two explanations which have to be merged.}}

This comic references three types of voting systems:

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''' is any single-winner electoral system 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. A candidate with this property is called the Condorcet winner. Due to the Condorcet Paradox, there may not be a Condorcet winner in an election with 3 or more candidates.

'''Condorcet's Paradox'''

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.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem '''Arrow's impossibility theorem'''] gives a list of criteria for ranked voting electoral systems and states that no system can satisfy all of them at once, despite that for each of them it may seem "obvious" that an electoral system ought to satisfy it.

The primary joke in the comic is the premise that people who are pedantic or knowledgeable enough to find Arrow's theorem to be relevant will self-fulfill the theorem by being inclined to disagree on any effort to produce a community-wide ranking. This is illustrated by Cueball's voting system preference that is contingent on essentially disagreeing with the preferences of other people, which defeats any effort to produce a community-wide ranking.

A secondary joke in the comic is that often voters don't pick their favorite choice in a vote, because voting strategically for a less favorite choice may prevent their least favorite choice from being selected. This is the kind of situation these voting systems are designed to eliminate, as a traditional "first past the pole" voting system creates situations where people do not vote for their first-choice candidate.

A third joke is the idea of having to vote for a voting system creates its own paradox, particularly given that one of the candidates (Condorcet method) would itself stipulate that it cannot (logically consistently) win in the situation that it is being proposed in (3 or more candidates).

==Transcript==
:[White Hat and Ponytail are standing on either side of Cueball who is talking while lifting one hand.]
: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}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Politics]]

1844: Voting Systems

2017-05-31T17:52:02Z

LordFlashmeow: /* 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|Here we have basically two explanations which have to be merged.}}

This comic references three types of voting systems:

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''' is another single-winner electoral system 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. A candidate with this property is called the Condorcet winner. Due to the Condorcet Paradox, there may not be a Condorcet winner in an election with 3 or more candidates.

'''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.
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.

'''Condorcet's Paradox'''

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 joke in the comic is that often voters don't pick their favorite choice in a vote, because voting for their second or third favorite choice may prevent their least favorite choice from being selected. This is the kind of situation these voting systems are designed to eliminate, as a traditional "first past the pole" voting system creates situations where people do not vote for their first-choice candidate. The idea of having to vote for a voting system creates its own paradox.

==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}}