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

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#101

Post by overthemoon » Fri, May 03, 2019, 3:27 PM UTC

throwayEngineer wrote: post #94

overthemoon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, I guess my point is just this--it's tempting to see oneself above the ideological fray, when solutions like this come from priors just like any others. This technocratic third way approach tries to bury its political identity in the appearance of objectivity. I'm not even necessarily criticizing its content, though I happen to disagree, I'm just saying that when trying to come up with a balanced system, this approach necessarily favors the center, which, like I said, is an ideological position.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#102

Post by breuleux » Fri, May 03, 2019, 3:30 PM UTC

vanderZwan wrote: post #97

breuleux wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, I'm aware. I'm arguing for universal lottery, and I think it would work.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#103

Post by narcindin » Fri, May 03, 2019, 3:30 PM UTC

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?

AKAIK It refers to demographic trends in the Western world where white ppl have lower fertility rates than other groups.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#104

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 03, 2019, 3:33 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…

[deleted]

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#105

Post by fmahaztra » Fri, May 03, 2019, 3:37 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.

Assuming I'm understanding it correctly, wouldn't the first one be a huge disincentive for the passing of politically/socially unpopular policies that are beneficial in the long-term?

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#106

Post by bilbo0s » Fri, May 03, 2019, 3:39 PM UTC

tlholaday wrote: post #93

bilbo0s wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

So in other words, still slavery. Right?

I mean, there's still slaves.

"Your kids can be free! But only the ones born after the next Vernal Equinox falling on a Tuesday. Oh, and by the way, You can never be free."

Again, a solution that's ludicrous on its face and doesn't really get rid of slavery. Kind of like the compromise we had here, where you could "technically" have slaves in the North. (Of course, occasionally in the North, your neighbors came by to kill you and take your slaves to Canada. But you could have them.) Obviously, it just turned out to be not a very workable solution. Like any compromise on an issue like that. There were just a whole lot of people out there taking that whole "..then, thenceforward, and forever free.." thing deadly seriously.

Either you have slavery or you don't. It's kind of binary. You really can't go into a roomful of pregnant high school girls and pick out the one who is the "most virgin" is kind of my point. It's ludicrous to think that you can.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#107

Post by ummwhat » Fri, May 03, 2019, 3:39 PM UTC

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?

It's a way to relabel normal immigration by upstanding people into nefarious "white genocide".

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#108

Post by bilbo0s » Fri, May 03, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

greggyb wrote: post #89

dev_dull wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

There used to be literally three channels. We've doubled!

Good point.

There's a lot more news outlets than there used to be when I was a kid. No question about that.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#109

Post by forinti » Fri, May 03, 2019, 3:48 PM UTC

fmahaztra wrote: post #105

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.

Assuming I'm understanding it correctly, wouldn't the first one be a huge disincentive for the passing of politically/socially unpopular policies that are beneficial in the long-term?

You wouldn't be able to vote everyone into ostracism. Only the most disliked politicians would be thrown out of the game.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#110

Post by furyofantares » Fri, May 03, 2019, 3:55 PM UTC

localhostdotdev wrote: post #58

> An intriguing new tool of democracy just had its first test in the real world of politics, and it passed with flying colors. how can you even measure if a voting system is a success?

By asking the people voting how well they feel they are able to express their interests and how well they think the result expresses the group interest.

In this case it sounds like they’ve got a group who are used to voting together and having outcomes that don’t make it very clear exactly what the group wants, and then after implementing this the group found the results much more expressive.