Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

mest.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 234 posts

Re: Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

#201

Post by newshacker47 »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #78
pklausler wrote: post #74

There are disagreements over opinions and there are disagreements over basic facts, and I'm just done with arguing with crazy people who have their own weird realities.

Even in the face of basic facts, people are still not very forthcoming in wanting to engage in a rational discourse. For instance, people who lost their minds that Bush misled the public on the WMD's in Iraq, were just fine arguing the fact that Obama lied when he said if I like my doctor, I can keep my doctor or when he said my health care costs would go down $2,500/year. I'm sorry, but you can't accuse one party of…

I can see people losing their minds about a lie that leads to war compared to overselling a change to medical insurance. I would like politicians (or anybody) not to lie about anything, but the consequences of those seem to be in completely different ballparks.

Re: Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

#202

Post by Houshalter »

pitaj wrote: post #198
Houshalter wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IRV is better but not perfect. If third parties actually start to become viable, then they would start to steal first votes away from the moderate parties. Eventually they would steal enough votes to cause them to be eliminated. So you are still better off selecting the two major parties as your first vote, even if you don't really like them. If you have full tactical voting, it ends up exactly the same as plurality…

> If third parties actually start to become viable, then they would start to steal first votes away from the moderate parties. Unless I misunderstand IRV, there is no "vote stealing" due to your vote automatically dropping off to your next-preferred candidate. > Eventually they would steal enough votes to cause them to be eliminated. I assume by "them" you're referring to a (previous) major party. In that case, I don…

There is a much better explanation in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q7rzqJ0YS8 As the third party becomes more and more popular, eventually they steal enough first votes away from the main party to cost both of them the election.

It's true that IRV limits the cost of vote stealing. But first votes still matter a huge amount in IRV, and you can only give one first vote. So there can always be some vote stealing. This is not a problem when third parties are really small and inconsequential. But if this actually worked to create viable third parties that had significant percent of the vote (the main goal of people that want such systems, otherwise there is no point), it would become a huge issue.

The link I posted shows that approval and range voting do vastly better in computer simulations of elections. Which is nice because approval voting is much simpler. And there is never a scenario where you shouldn't vote for your favorite candidate, under approval voting.

The last issue has been experimentally observed in Australia:

http://rangevoting.org/AusAboveTheLine07.html

People insincerely rank the competing party in last place, even though they don't really think they are the worst party. The major parties encourage this, and explain to their voters how to vote strategically.

More issues here: http://rangevoting.org/IrvExec.html

Re: Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

#204

Post by Houshalter »

vacri wrote: post #163
Houshalter wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IRV is better but not perfect. If third parties actually start to become viable, then they would start to steal first votes away from the moderate parties. Eventually they would steal enough votes to cause them to be eliminated. So you are still better off selecting the two major parties as your first vote, even if you don't really like them. If you have full tactical voting, it ends up exactly the same as plurality…

We have IRV where we live. The major parties are still major parties, and the minor parties are thriving. The past couple of elected governments have had to make coalitions between major and minor parties to form government. Your concerns just don't play out.

That sounds more like STV. IRV is only for single winner elections. You can't get coalitions or anything like that from single winner elections. The 2 major parties would still dominate any single winner election under IRV.

The problem with IRV is demonstrated in more detail here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q7rzqJ0YS8

I think it's still better than FPTP, and it does let third parties at least get some attention. But there are other, better, systems. IRV has been adopted in a few places in the US, and then abandoned shortly after. I think systems like approval voting have a better chance of catching on.

Re: Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

#205

Post by aninhumer »

pitaj wrote: post #198
Houshalter wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IRV is better but not perfect. If third parties actually start to become viable, then they would start to steal first votes away from the moderate parties. Eventually they would steal enough votes to cause them to be eliminated. So you are still better off selecting the two major parties as your first vote, even if you don't really like them. If you have full tactical voting, it ends up exactly the same as plurality…

> If third parties actually start to become viable, then they would start to steal first votes away from the moderate parties. Unless I misunderstand IRV, there is no "vote stealing" due to your vote automatically dropping off to your next-preferred candidate. > Eventually they would steal enough votes to cause them to be eliminated. I assume by "them" you're referring to a (previous) major party. In that case, I don…

This is a shorter video from the same source as the other reply that deals specifically with IRV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtKAScORevQ

>Unless I misunderstand IRV, there is no "vote stealing" due to your vote automatically dropping off to your next-preferred candidate.

The problem is that they drop to your next preferred candidate who has not been eliminated.

If you're thinking about the problems that occur with plurality voting, it's easy to imagine your second choice will always be a popular "safe" choice, but if third parties get stronger (which is surely the point?) those safe choices can end up being eliminated before your second choice can help them.

Re: Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

#206

Post by slowmotiony »

beatpanda wrote: post #190
slowmotiony wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which side is saying they want to get rid of all immigrants?

Donald Trump's side. Trump has repeatedly said he wants to remove all 11 million undocumented men, women, and children, by force if necessary. And that means more armed paramilitary shock troops in U.S. cities, more families held in immigrant detention centers, more children being condemned to violence and deprivation in countries they've never known, college students getting torn away from nearly-finished educations…

That makes zero sense. His wife is an immigrant - surely you must have known this? This fact directly contradicts your post.

And you know how to make sure none of this stuff can happen to you? Simple - don't break immigration laws. It's really that simple. The law is there for a reason.

Re: Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

#207

Post by aninhumer »

Houshalter wrote: post #204
vacri wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have IRV where we live. The major parties are still major parties, and the minor parties are thriving. The past couple of elected governments have had to make coalitions between major and minor parties to form government. Your concerns just don't play out.

That sounds more like STV. IRV is only for single winner elections. You can't get coalitions or anything like that from single winner elections. The 2 major parties would still dominate any single winner election under IRV. The problem with IRV is demonstrated in more detail here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q7rzqJ0YS8 I think it's still better than FPTP, and it does let third parties at least get some attention…

> You can't get coalitions or anything like that from single winner elections.

But you can get more third party candidates winning (in single winner districts), leading to coalitions within parliament, which is probably what the parent means.

Re: Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

#208

Post by wu-ikkyu »

guelo wrote: post #89
okreallywtf wrote: post #75

While I think that tech tools like this have the potential to be great, so far I think technology has made the problem worse. My conclusion from my recent experiences over the last year or so with the election and before (and volunteering/organizing volunteers therefor) is that people don't just need to communicate, we need to interact, and my observation is that this needs to happen (or at the very least works best)…

You're basically saying that there is no hope of fixing the problem since what you're suggesting is never going to happen at any scale. If nothing else this tool, even if imperfect, offers some hope.

The future of virtual reality (i.e. a holodeck) could enhance peer to peer communication by moving from just text based communication to showing body language, tone of voice, facial expressions etc.

Re: Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

#209

Post by wu-ikkyu »

mavdi wrote: post #57
robbizorg wrote: post #2

Hi everyone, Recently, given the results of the election and the divisiveness that's been revealed because of it, it seems like the country isn't talking to one another anymore. We're afraid of one another and the polices the other political party will put in place. A lot of this, I think, has to deal with the lack of communication between actual human beings that lie on both sides of the isle. I made this app, Mest,…

I actually think we're talking too much. Sometimes even when we have nothing constructive to say.

Listening is an underrated and scarce skill.

Re: Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

#210

Post by ideonexus »

acchow wrote: post #186
okreallywtf wrote: post #75

While I think that tech tools like this have the potential to be great, so far I think technology has made the problem worse. My conclusion from my recent experiences over the last year or so with the election and before (and volunteering/organizing volunteers therefor) is that people don't just need to communicate, we need to interact, and my observation is that this needs to happen (or at the very least works best)…

Stephen Colbert last night: "Politics used to be something we thought about every 4 years. That's good that we didn't think about it that much, because it left room in our lives for other things and OTHER PEOPLE" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXhFGO8R7aU

I really appreciated Colbert's words that night, but I don't know how true his quote was. There was a great article I read a decade ago that I could never find again about, "How People Talk About Politics," and it matched my own experience.

Standing in long lines at the DMV in Virginia in 2000-something, a man says to me, "See what happens when you let the Democrats run things?"

Watching the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, a woman told me, "My grandmother said this would happen. She said the economy always collapses under Republicans."

Working IT at the Coast Guard for ten years, people talked politics all the time. All of that talk about as informed as the quotes above, but I try not to think less of people who are misinformed. Politics is hard. It's complicated, but we are all expected to participate in it and try to stay informed while most of us are unaware of how much or cognitive biases cause us to misunderstand and misremember the things we learn about the whole complex morass that is almost entirely run by lawyers.

For me, this election is now an exercise in compassion. I overheard two coworkers talking yesterday about how they both voted for Trump because they hated Clinton so much. What surprised me was the tone of fear and uncertainty in their voices at having won. They want what's best for America, just like their political opponents do, and they honestly thought their candidate was the better choice--with strong reservations. My life is great at the moment, so I sincerely hope their candidate delivers what they feel is missing in their own lives.

Post reply on HN