A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive • Hacker News Board

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#61

Post by coldtea » Fri, May 03, 2019, 2:30 PM UTC

morley wrote: post #40

erentz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with politics today isn't that people are single-issue voters... The problem is the people have no representation, what people want does not impact the likelihood of passage of a law.[1] People on the left in right have a lot more in common with each other than everyone likes to make out. But even where they agree still nothing happens. I think this “polarization” line is a convenient distraction from t…

I think you're pointing out a different shade of the same problem. People _do_ technically have representation in the form of their Congresspeople and Senators. But those elected officials have to polarize their viewpoints and thus their votes because when they vote out of party, the vocal members of their parties excoriate them as traitors. So the people in the middle feel like their representatives aren't represent…

>People _do_ technically have representation in the form of their Congresspeople and Senators.

Do those people really care and work for their voters? Or for their own career (including post-political career at some company they've done favors), lobbies, party, etc?

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#62

Post by cjslep » Fri, May 03, 2019, 2:30 PM UTC

hannasanarion wrote: post #51

larrydag wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. For this "tribal" reason of picking a party I've been more inclined to have term limits on Congress.

Term limits in congress aren't really a good thing though. We have term limits for President because the President is uniquely powerful, they can almost unilaterally bend the aparatus of government to their will. If allowed to rule for too long, a president can easily become a dictator. The same is not true of a congressperson who weilds 1/535th of the power of a branch. Besides, if the people want to put someone in…

Career congresspersons are beholden to those that secure their reelection. That's the current steady state system we have now. Term limits forces that dynamic to no longer apply to the final term, which frees congresspeople from this dynamic for at least one term.

It also forces clearer the revolving door between the private sector and politics as then the no-longer congressperson gets hired into a company.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#63

Post by bilbo0s » Fri, May 03, 2019, 2:34 PM UTC

hannasanarion wrote: post #46

jimhefferon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the natural evolution of the two-party system The US has a long history, almost all of it with a two-party system. Only sometimes is there extremity. To my mind, 1860 is even more extreme than today. (My opinion is that an important common thread between then and today is a class of people with a great deal of money who are deliberately driving the political atmosphere. But in any event a claim that it is a natural…

1860 was also the first year of a brand new two-party system. The previous decade was unilateral Democrat rule while the Whigs died and Constitutionalists, Know-Nothings, and Republicans fought over the scraps. It was an unusual time.

Yep. 1860 is more accurately characterized as the first year of the two party system. And the people only wanted another party because of the slavery issue. Literally, the only time we dealt with extremists, was when we first started the two party system.

So it's disingenuous to say that 1860 was like today. It wasn't. At all. There is no new, powerful, upstart party that people can vote for to get away from the extremists today. There is no overriding issue that people can legitimately claim to be at once barbaric and deleterious to the republic. There is none of that.

We just have two parties... who choose to be extreme for dubious reasons.

So it hasn't been as polarized as it is today, ever really during the two party era. Today is way outside the norm. We haven't seen anything like this before.

Of course, we've never had anything like our current leaders either. But that's a whole other issue. (A related issue though.)

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#64

Post by hannasanarion » Fri, May 03, 2019, 2:38 PM UTC

cjslep wrote: post #62

hannasanarion wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Term limits in congress aren't really a good thing though. We have term limits for President because the President is uniquely powerful, they can almost unilaterally bend the aparatus of government to their will. If allowed to rule for too long, a president can easily become a dictator. The same is not true of a congressperson who weilds 1/535th of the power of a branch. Besides, if the people want to put someone in…

Career congresspersons are beholden to those that secure their reelection. That's the current steady state system we have now. Term limits forces that dynamic to no longer apply to the final term, which frees congresspeople from this dynamic for at least one term. It also forces clearer the revolving door between the private sector and politics as then the no-longer congressperson gets hired into a company.

>Career congresspersons are beholden to those that secure their reelection

Yeah, those people are called "voters". That's how it's supposed to work. We want congresspeople to feel beholden to them.

> It also forces clearer the revolving door between the private sector and politics as then the no-longer congressperson gets hired into a company.

Isn't this just motivation for more cronyism? You're basically arguing that the last term of any congressperson should be spent working for a company instead of the people.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#65

Post by crazygringo » Fri, May 03, 2019, 2:39 PM UTC

jimhefferon wrote: post #21

crazygringo wrote: post #9

It's clever, but it doesn't solve the problem. Because the problem isn't with strong preferences -- it's with extreme preferences. If there were 7 versions of a bill (A,B,C,D,E,F,G) ranging from ultra-conservative (a "A") to ultra-liberal (a "G"), in a polarized community people could still be spending the minimum 1 point each on the A's or G's and none on B-F. The problem with politics today isn't that people are si…

> the natural evolution of the two-party system The US has a long history, almost all of it with a two-party system. Only sometimes is there extremity. To my mind, 1860 is even more extreme than today. (My opinion is that an important common thread between then and today is a class of people with a great deal of money who are deliberately driving the political atmosphere. But in any event a claim that it is a natural…

Slavery was a particularly and uniquely intractable problem where a "moderate" or "centrist" solution was particularly unappealing.

There's extensive literature on what's been driving polarization, but it really is a new "era" for it and not a cyclical thing. Factors include:

- More democratic/open primaries, which select extreme candidates

- More statistically targeted media (including social media) to take advantage of extreme views (including social media)

- Increasingly partisan news media made possible by more fragmented media (first cable, then the Internet)

None of these show any signs of going away, and all three are phenomena that are fundamentally new in the past few decades.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#66

Post by forinti » Fri, May 03, 2019, 2:40 PM UTC

The greeks had two institutions we could use: ostracism and lottery.

We should be able to vote on those we want out of politics and the most voted would have to seat it out.

And a small portion of representatives should be chosen by lottery. Maybe 5% or 10%. These representatives, obviously, would not have to answer to their sponsors.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#67

Post by bilbo0s » Fri, May 03, 2019, 2:42 PM UTC

forinti wrote: post #66

The greeks had two institutions we could use: ostracism and lottery. We should be able to vote on those we want out of politics and the most voted would have to seat it out. And a small portion of representatives should be chosen by lottery. Maybe 5% or 10%. These representatives, obviously, would not have to answer to their sponsors.

Those were always pretty interesting ideas to me, and I always used to wonder why the Founders did not replicate those facets of the Athenian Republic? It would solve a lot of our problems today.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#68

Post by drinane » Fri, May 03, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

I first heard this described in a book written by Eric A. Posner and E. Glen Weyl. The book has a lot of other cool reasonably doable ideas.

https://www.amazon.com/Radical-Markets-Uprooting-Capitalism-...

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#69

Post by weberc2 » Fri, May 03, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #9

It's clever, but it doesn't solve the problem. Because the problem isn't with strong preferences -- it's with extreme preferences. If there were 7 versions of a bill (A,B,C,D,E,F,G) ranging from ultra-conservative (a "A") to ultra-liberal (a "G"), in a polarized community people could still be spending the minimum 1 point each on the A's or G's and none on B-F. The problem with politics today isn't that people are si…

> it's that the natural evolution of the two-party system has forced us into choices that are more polarized than ever before in the history of the US

I don't think this is supported by the evidence. Polarization in the US hasn't been unidirectional (there are many long periods during which the US became less polarized) and the recent massive spike is, well, a recent spike--it's not a natural evolution at all. Something happened in the last twenty years or so that increased our polarization. I recall several good sources, but I'll have to dig around for them...

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#70

Post by bilbo0s » Fri, May 03, 2019, 2:46 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #65

jimhefferon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the natural evolution of the two-party system The US has a long history, almost all of it with a two-party system. Only sometimes is there extremity. To my mind, 1860 is even more extreme than today. (My opinion is that an important common thread between then and today is a class of people with a great deal of money who are deliberately driving the political atmosphere. But in any event a claim that it is a natural…

Slavery was a particularly and uniquely intractable problem where a "moderate" or "centrist" solution was particularly unappealing. There's extensive literature on what's been driving polarization, but it really is a new "era" for it and not a cyclical thing. Factors include: - More democratic/open primaries, which select extreme candidates - More statistically targeted media (including social media) to take advantag…

>where a "moderate" or "centrist" solution was particularly unappealing...

True.

Moderation is no solution at all when you think about it. I mean what's the compromise? They have to be slaves 3.5 days out of the week? And you can teach them to write, but any reading is strictly forbidden. So under no circumstances can you teach them to read?

Just hard to come up with any compromise that doesn't just sound ludicrous on its face.