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

Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 151 posts

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#111

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

wwweston wrote: post #100
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #24

Because elections are a poor way to elect competent people, overall? The best democratic system in the world won't help anything if the population is not educated or interested enough to make an informed decision. Democracy itself is distorted because it doesn't thrive for optimal solutions, instead, it thrives to please the people. The people who get elected are detached from the population to begin with. Being a "p…

> Being a "politician" is a full-time job. That's absurd. Really? Representing thousands (if not hundreds of thousands or millions) of people and sorting/synthesizing policy suggestions to try and come up with something that will (a) work in constituent interests (b) will fly with some majority well enough to make it happen -- it's somehow "absurd" that this might conceivably take up 40+ hours a week? A lack of infor…

> Apparently a displeased people would be more optimal?

Let me make an analogy:

Democracy is like presenting hamburger and healthy food to kids every 4 years and asking them to chose one; then later complaining they're obese.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#112

Post by jff »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #72
cobrausn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what else scientists aren't? A group that can be generalized about that easily. Are you seriously willing to put forth scientists 'can tell no lies'? Do you have any evidence to support this generalization? As an earlier poster has said, being a scientist doesn't make you any less human and subject to everything that goes along with that - emotions, irrationality, ego, and so on.

"not good liars" does not mean "can tell no lies"; in this case it means "has not had years of professional training and experience in debating/argument tactics and how to manipulate irrational audiences".

You obviously never attended graduate school :)

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#113

Post by jonxu »

I posit that truly great scientists cannot make great politicians (at least in liberal democracies).

The primary motivation of a great scientist is to pursue truth, typically in what is observable or can be proven by experimentation (there are exceptions). The primary motivation of a great politician is to convince other human beings to affect change or keep them in office. This usually involves obfuscating truths and repainting what is observable to appeal to others.

This puts core motivations and corresponding skill-sets between a great scientist and great politician at fundamental odds with each other.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#114

Post by davidhollander »

proland wrote: post #69
hmgrwntxn wrote: post #55

I don't want to step on too many toes, but I have to make mention of the error in the particular arrogance among the scientific community that their work qualifies them to reform other industries and facets of the human existence. Obviously the work of scientists and engineers is vital, and worthy of credit and praise, but I would not trust even the smartest scientists and engineers I know to handle the foreign polic…

"Or tell me how to live my life, ethically or morally" Is this really the duty of politicians though? Certainly there's been a lot of discourse about this in the current landscape, especially from those attempting to impart their personal ethics and morals on the political landscape, but this shouldn't be the duty of the government, but the duty of individuals (chiefly parents) as well as that of a society as a whole…

> Government shouldn't have any business in what is ethical or moral but in what is legal

"Enforcement" is the use of force to assert an ethical and moral position. "Legal Enforcement" is the monopolistic use of force to assert an ethical and moral position. It's not possible to enforce "what is legal" on others without asserting a morality.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#115

Post by hmgrwntxn »

proland wrote: post #69
hmgrwntxn wrote: post #55

I don't want to step on too many toes, but I have to make mention of the error in the particular arrogance among the scientific community that their work qualifies them to reform other industries and facets of the human existence. Obviously the work of scientists and engineers is vital, and worthy of credit and praise, but I would not trust even the smartest scientists and engineers I know to handle the foreign polic…

"Or tell me how to live my life, ethically or morally" Is this really the duty of politicians though? Certainly there's been a lot of discourse about this in the current landscape, especially from those attempting to impart their personal ethics and morals on the political landscape, but this shouldn't be the duty of the government, but the duty of individuals (chiefly parents) as well as that of a society as a whole…

Sure, I agree, I wasn't trying to say that it's the politician's job...that line was meant to represent the ethical sphere of a human's existence, another example of a facet in which I don't think a scientist necessarily should be trusted to lead, at least not solely based on their occupation/skill set related to their scientific work. That's all I meant.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#116

Post by Zakharov »

Tichy wrote: post #53
ionforce wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was that popular link being circulated a while back... Democracy does not aim to select the optimal candidate but to minimize the damage caused. The candidate chosen is the "least bad", not the most optimal.

Isn't "least bad" equivalent to optimal?

I think in this case "least bad" means "least bad in the worst case".

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#117

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

derleth wrote: post #73
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #24

Because elections are a poor way to elect competent people, overall? The best democratic system in the world won't help anything if the population is not educated or interested enough to make an informed decision. Democracy itself is distorted because it doesn't thrive for optimal solutions, instead, it thrives to please the people. The people who get elected are detached from the population to begin with. Being a "p…

> Because elections are a poor way to elect competent people, overall? Better than anything else we've tried. I could mention Pol Pot and I could mention the Soviet Union and so on, but I won't. All I'll say is, "When you fuck up a system of government, the results get bloody extremely fast."

> Better than anything else we've tried.

Is it really better? Or is the one people chose because it favors inertia and doesn't force them to think?

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#118

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

Kilimanjaro wrote: post #84
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #24

Because elections are a poor way to elect competent people, overall? The best democratic system in the world won't help anything if the population is not educated or interested enough to make an informed decision. Democracy itself is distorted because it doesn't thrive for optimal solutions, instead, it thrives to please the people. The people who get elected are detached from the population to begin with. Being a "p…

We are in a position to change politics in this connected era, yet we don't do it. We need modern thinkers to propose new election systems, new forms of government, new ideologies more consonant with modern times. It will take time, old school politicians are dying, new crops are learning the old tricks to perpetuate themselves in power. New ideas are emerging, people is getting sick of corruption, occupy movements g…

What we need is less government and more conscious individuals willing to make decisions.

Any concentration of power leads to corruption and manipulation of masses. Democracy is just one way of doing it - the most successful so far.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#119

Post by starpilot »

uuilly wrote: post #19

Science can only describe the physical world, it can't tell you what to do about it. The Nazis had plenty of highly placed scientists. Woodrow Wilson did too and they were in favor of eugenics. The deification of science is a life raft post adolescents cling to as they try to swim away from the inherent corruption of mankind. Scientists are no less afflicted with selfishness, vanity or pettiness than people in any ot…

I think about college and all the team projects. The best project lead I had was not necessarily the best at the material, but he was the most competent at delegating work, focusing the team, and moving things along. When he asked me to explain a concept he didn't understand, I didn't think less of him (short of major oversights). He was vastly more competent than I at managing the group though, and I didn't mind because it let me focus on the science. The best engineers/scientists do not necessarily make the best handlers of people. And any government lab or university engineering department has plenty of petty office politics, rife with enough absurdity that we have comics and movies about it.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#120

Post by pserwylo »

Zakharov wrote: post #109
lmkg wrote: post #15

At least part of the problem is structural. One contributing factor could be that the US uses direct regional elections, instead of a parliamentary system. In a parliamentary system, the people vote on a party, rather than a person, and the party decides the individuals who get elected. There's less of an emphasis on individual charisma, and charismatic leaders only need appear at the top of the ticket. A party with…

In Australia people vote for individual members, but most do so based on party affiliation. The members available to vote for are chosen by the parties. Candidates seem to be chosen more based on factional loyalty than on expertise; unless someone's on the front bench they don't do anything but provide a vote. This leads to Australia having relatively more career politicians in parliament than the US does.

Keeping in mind that although we vote for individual MPs (although as you point out, mostly based on party affiliation), the party itself chooses for the Prime Minister.

When our previous PM got ousted mid-term, I noticed that lots of people were shocked that a party is allowed to do that to an "elected" PM (when of course, we don't elect the PM, we just elect MPs). Another lot of people pointed out that it is perfectly legitimate, because we effectively vote for the party (by voting for their MPs) and it is their choice as to who runs the country.

I was in a middle ground. Sure, we don't elect the PM directly, but the way the party leaders campaign (and the way their colleagues talk about their leaders), you would think that we had a presidential-style campaign each election cycle. Especially with the 2007 election, where the leaders name was used in the main campaign slogan. So I can forgive the people who didn't realise that we don't actually choose our Prime Minister, because it sure feels like it during the election campaigns.

During the next election, keep an eye out to see how much of a Leader-vs-Leader competition it becomes, in addition to just Party-vs-Party.

Post reply on HN