A Sick Giant • Hacker News Board

Re: A Sick Giant

#91

Post by atq2119 » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 6:42 AM UTC

robbrown451 wrote: post #84

mistermann wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What the author says here is better said by a dozen others. I just had an overwhelming feeling of no shit sherlock when reading this... As far as I can tell, other writings on the topic haven't had any noteworthy effect in rectifying the problem. Do have any insights on what we should do about the situation?

I do. Get rid of First Past the Post voting and replace it with something like Approval voting. As it is, candidates in the middle can't get elected. Two dominant parties is an entirely predictable result of FPTP voting. Approval voting (or ones that tend to elect the Condorcet winner, which also should be the first choice of the median voter) would solve 90% of the problems cited in this article.

I suspect that proportional representation is even more important to establishing a multiparty system that forces cooperation rather than polarization.

Re: A Sick Giant

#92

Post by snowmaker » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 7:35 AM UTC

robbrown451 wrote: post #47

He makes plenty of good points, but completely fails to make mention of how plurality voting (also known as "first past the post") results in two dominant parties, rather than electing people who represent the preference of the median voter. This is known as Duverger's Law, and I would argue it is about 90% responsible for everything he speaks of. Voting systems that don't do this exist. Approval voting is one of the…

Thank you for introducing me to Duverger's Law! I had been looking for that concept for a long time but never knew how what it was called or how to search for it.

Re: A Sick Giant

#93

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 7:48 AM UTC

tyri_kai_psomi wrote: post #80

dragonwriter wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reality of the situation is the US was founded, both socially and politically on Judeo-Christian principles of morality, and the nuclear family The truth is it absolutely wasn't. It's true that various forms of Christianity (with more virulent anti-Semitism than any “Judeo” component) were broadly popular with the general population at the time of founding, the intellectual elite who were the thought leaders sh…

If you really think this, then all I have to say to you is you must read the Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence and Constitution with quite the set of blinders on my friend. For example, consider this quotation from John Jay in Federalist No 2: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1329146-it-has-often-given-... > the intellectual elite who were the thought leaders shaping our model of government were largely…

> Most standard taught US history on the events that took place basically from the split of the One Catholic Church, through the dark ages, and up to just before the founding of this country is woefully inaccurate.

I don't think anyone who places the East-West Schism before the Early Middle Ages (on top of the still using the term “Dark Ages”) really has any leg to stand on in accusing any other portrayal of history as “woefully inaccurate”.

Re: A Sick Giant

#94

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 7:56 AM UTC

ken wrote: post #44

I skimmed this, and there's some good and interesting data and analysis here. The one aspect that seems to be missing, by its own admission, is how this fits in with the rest of the world. This is looking at the USA in a vacuum, which is not without merit, but countries no longer exist in a vacuum, especially the USA. As mentioned in one of the last "Fun and Procrastinatey" footnotes: > The U.S. Left has moved enough…

The "US Left" is still voting for stupid wars. So, they could maybe move a bit further in whatever direction would change that...

Re: A Sick Giant

#95

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 7:58 AM UTC

tehjoker wrote: post #15

The liberal worldview thinks that everything is basically ok and that the problem is that "norms" are being violated and bad information leads to pointless conflict. Liberals are wrong. There are fundemental structural problems with this country and the current psychosis is the result of neither political party addressing them while going war and profit crazy on the backs of the working people that slave and die with…

It's OK, we'll just vote harder next time!

Re: A Sick Giant

#96

Post by Ygg2 » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 8:06 AM UTC

Nition wrote: post #37

Ygg2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? The rule is absolutely stupid, and pointless. It's about as meaningful to airplane security as TSA. In other words, none at all. I mean if rules say you need to report your fellow Uighurs, you should follow them because other will?

Because it's likely to cause discomfort and negative attention from the other passengers who will worry it could jeopardize their flight, and not using your phone for a little while isn't a big deal. It's not so much about following a rule or not, as just being socially responsible.

So, if everyone does it, it's ok?

If everyone reports on their fellow Jew/Uighur, you should follow along? I mean not doing so might cause distress to your neighbor.

I'm not interested in this particular case, but in general.

Re: A Sick Giant

#97

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 8:15 AM UTC

ken wrote: post #44

I skimmed this, and there's some good and interesting data and analysis here. The one aspect that seems to be missing, by its own admission, is how this fits in with the rest of the world. This is looking at the USA in a vacuum, which is not without merit, but countries no longer exist in a vacuum, especially the USA. As mentioned in one of the last "Fun and Procrastinatey" footnotes: > The U.S. Left has moved enough…

> It neglects to show full context: that US Left is actually Middle

The US Left is Left, but the US has three big factions: a very large Right faction and smaller Center and Left factions, and he Democratic Party is an uneasy Center-and-Left coalition, where the Center faction has been dominant for the last couple decades but has lost some ground in the last few years to the resurgent Left.

Re: A Sick Giant

#98

Post by colordrops » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 8:27 AM UTC

simula67 wrote: post #89

robbrown451 wrote: post #47

He makes plenty of good points, but completely fails to make mention of how plurality voting (also known as "first past the post") results in two dominant parties, rather than electing people who represent the preference of the median voter. This is known as Duverger's Law, and I would argue it is about 90% responsible for everything he speaks of. Voting systems that don't do this exist. Approval voting is one of the…

I think the purpose of democracy should primarily be to avoid civil conflict and only secondarily be to represent the median voter. First past the post voting ensures a two-party system which means that people will make compromises while voting and not outsource that responsibility to politicians. The latter might cause voters to not own the consequences of trading favors (which is necessary for coalition building) a…

Do you have examples where this system has caused civil conflict elsewhere?

Re: A Sick Giant

#99

Post by unsupported » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 8:34 AM UTC

rezendi wrote: post #85

robbrown451 wrote: post #47

He makes plenty of good points, but completely fails to make mention of how plurality voting (also known as "first past the post") results in two dominant parties, rather than electing people who represent the preference of the median voter. This is known as Duverger's Law, and I would argue it is about 90% responsible for everything he speaks of. Voting systems that don't do this exist. Approval voting is one of the…

I'm a fan of single transferable voting, but the claim that FPTP is responsible for America's politics does not seem well borne out by the evidence. As the Wikipedia article on Duverger's Law notes: "In practice, most countries with plurality voting have more than two parties." The USA is very much an outlier here. Even if there remained only two _dominant_ parties, a significant third party like the NDP in Canada, o…

I think the reason why US has two parties is that most States apply FPTP at a district level, but then also have a winner-takes-all at State level based on the districts result. So one district selects one party, and then the State gives all its N votes to the majority party among districts, selecting N people of the same party. UK only has FPTP at constituency (district) level. So one constituency selects one person (one MP belonging to one party).

In UK when voting you have to chose among the top two parties in your own constituency in order to have a chance to get the MP you want rather than throwing your vote away. Votes distribution at national level doesn't really count from the voter point of view.

In US when voting you have to chose among the top two parties in your own State because if your district picks a third party and no other district does, your whole district vote is thrown away. Votes distribution at State level really counts from the voter point of view.

Re: A Sick Giant

#100

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 8:39 AM UTC

One imagines wise boomers carefully examining the intricately arranged series of "Media Matrices" and sagely nodding at the subtle points illuminated in each. "Yes, I've heard of this 'Onion'; really not a very useful source of news!" "I wonder why they didn't draw the firm who employ my favorite news personalities here in this 'North Star' area?"

Do we really think the main problem in USA is that not enough people consume median journalism? This veers dangerously close to an assumption that our only real problem is that the "Fairness Doctrine" no longer protects us from Badthink. I'd propose a different idea. If there are actual problems of long standing, e.g. myriad interminable wars or shocking incarceration rates, they might owe their durability to the fact that few people really oppose them as hard as some other aspects of modern life are opposed. What sort of coverage would we predict of these problems from "the North Star"? Might that segment of the "matrix" elide such coverage altogether? When we do hear opposition to or even coverage of morewaralwaysmorewar or similar issues, and it comes from kooks like TheNation or ZeroHedge, does that reinforce the marginal importance of these issues, or perhaps does it call into question this matrix picture altogether? What was the point of the internet, if we all ought to watch the same news?