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

A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 343 posts

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#91

Post by breuleux »

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.

Actually, why not choose all representatives by lottery?

I don't think representatives need to have any particular competencies beyond being representative of the interests of the population. Hired staff can take care of things that require particular abilities.

I reckon that a wholly random set of representatives would act like a direct democracy where every voter is free to fully focus on the issues, is allowed an entire staff to help them, and can consult and coordinate effectively with other voters. I think that could work pretty well.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#92

Post by steve76 »

coldtea wrote: post #61
morley wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Getting elected, that's their job. They are either campaigning or raising money.

I think the biggest problem with this is it would be used selectively and always move to one direction, and nothing will be mutual. Someone's going to choose what elections are used with tokens, and it will only go into that direction.

Don't use politics, or the law. It's there to cap the violence. Stay away, do things on your own. When you go to these big places, DC, Wall St., Silicon Valley, it really is other people taking over.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#93

Post by tlholaday »

bilbo0s wrote: post #70
crazygringo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Moderation is no solution at all when you think about it.

Contrariwise:

Compensated emancipation was typically enacted as part of an act that outlawed slavery outright or established a scheme whereby slavery would eventually be phased out. It frequently was accompanied or preceded by laws which approached gradual emancipation by granting freedom to those born to slaves after a given date. Among the European powers, slavery was primarily an issue with their overseas colonies. The British Empire enacted a policy of compensated Emancipation for its colonies in 1833, followed by Denmark, France in 1848, and the Netherlands in 1863. Most South American and Caribbean nations emancipated slavery through compensated schemes in the 1850s and 1860s, while Brazil passed a plan for gradual, compensated emancipation in 1871, and Cuba followed in 1880 after having enacted freedom at birth a decade earlier.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#94

Post by throwayEngineer »

overthemoon wrote: post #43
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…

Polarization isn't in itself a problem unless you believe the truth is somewhere near the center, which is itself an ideological position. On top of that, our choices have always been the options from C to E. Sanders is the farthest left serious candidate for president we've had in decades, and he's not very far left relative to many center-left European parties. Trump has farther right tendencies but policy-wise he'…

I don't see the truth in the center.

The federal government has been corrupt my entire life. I don't see any reason to give them additional money or power.

If anything, I find national liberals wrong, and state liberals more correct.

I wouldn't mind paying for things my area uses, I have some oversight.

Nationally trillions of dollars gets lost.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#95

Post by kazagistar »

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…

If I wanted, say, single payer insurance, I wouldn't be able to vote for it because my democratic candidate wants to stick to halfassed and broken Obamacare, and the Republican wants to abolish it entirely. I have no meaningful way to exercise that vote, even if this is a majority opinion, and not particularly extreme since it's the status quo in most of the world. Ditto for anything affecting monied interests, since the two presidential candidates are by necessity deep in the pockets of wealthy interest groups right from the beginning of their expensive campaigns.

The only way out I see is through constitution-level campaign finance reform, replacing multilayered first past the post, and probably reducing the power of the presidency so this new many-party Congress actually matters rather than so much power in a single (and thus winner takes all) office.

Edit: as another unrepresented belief, if I think Israel is a geniciding state that deserves no international support, well, too bad, the center of both parties if firmly in the pockets of pro Israeli interest groups.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#96

Post by weberc2 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #81
weberc2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Someth…

> Something happened in the last twenty years or so that increased our polarization. I'd expand the timeframe to 30 years and say the biggest contributors to this are the rise of neoliberal politics combined with globalization leaving a lot of working class people "behind" while corporations made ever more and more profits, combined with the rise of the Internet where the most outrageous content gets the most clicks/…

> great exchange of the white people

What is this referring to?

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#97

Post by vanderZwan »

breuleux wrote: post #91
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.

Actually, why not choose all representatives by lottery? I don't think representatives need to have any particular competencies beyond being representative of the interests of the population. Hired staff can take care of things that require particular abilities. I reckon that a wholly random set of representatives would act like a direct democracy where every voter is free to fully focus on the issues, is allowed an…

The Greeks who entered the lottery weren't chosen by a (meta) lottery. Greek democracy wasn't nearly as democratic as you may think.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#98

Post by jtaillon »

dev_dull wrote: post #79
crazygringo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Increasingly partisan news media made possible by more fragmented media (first cable, then the Internet) Isn’t the entire mainstream media owned by only like 6 corporations[1]? https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/these-6...

Yup, who make money the more you engage with or watch their advertisers. It turns out anger/rage seems to be the best way to do that. People (on the whole) don't consume political media to be challenged in their views... they get a dopamine hit from hearing that their view is correct and continue in a spiral hating the other side of whatever issue is at hand.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#99

Post by magnusmundus »

weberc2 wrote: post #96
mschuster91 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something happened in the last twenty years or so that increased our polarization. I'd expand the timeframe to 30 years and say the biggest contributors to this are the rise of neoliberal politics combined with globalization leaving a lot of working class people "behind" while corporations made ever more and more profits, combined with the rise of the Internet where the most outrageous content gets the most clicks/…

> great exchange of the white people What is this referring to?

The actual term is "great replacement", and it's a conspiracy theory regarding an alleged systematic replacement of native Europeans (i.e. "whites"). The Christchurch shooter was a big fan, apparently.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#100

Post by ptah »

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…

i agree. i sometimes think that a two party system is worse than one party as it is ultimately a waste of resources for very little difference
Post reply on HN