Who'll be the next president – Google Search • Hacker News Board

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#131

Post by paulhauggis » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 2:35 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #114

rayiner wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mom didn't grow up here, and she doesn't speak English as a first language so she barely consumes U.S. media. The idea that her viewpoints are the result of media indoctrination is ridiculous. The area that the media hammers hardest (foreign policy) is the one area where she disagrees with the government, and she opposes things the media is broadly in favor of (gay marriage, decriminalized marijuana).

[deleted]

It's all about perspective. If you personally lean to the left, you won't see the left-leanings of CNN/MSNBC/most media. If you lean to the right, you will (and won't see Fox news as being as biased as it is).

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#132

Post by paulhauggis » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 2:37 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #46

adventured wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no correlation between having a lot of parties and a sound, well functioning political system. See: Italy, and a dozen other examples from Europe over the last 70 years If your culture is rotten, your politics will be rotten, regardless of whether you have 2, 5, 27 parties.

A multi-party system does not guarantee that there will be no political problems (particularly not if it polarizes into what's effectively a two-party system), but a two-party system is practically guaranteed to not represent minority opinions, and very likely to degenerate into a "vote for the lesser evil".

"but a two-party system is practically guaranteed to not represent minority opinions,"

It's designed this way. Many minority opinions are minority because they are bad and should never be implemented.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#133

Post by CWuestefeld » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 2:43 PM UTC

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #112

visakanv wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do people really think like this? All you have to do is "pay your dues" and you "deserve" it instead of voting on issues, track record & potential to make real change? Yes. Source: Click around the Facebook comments of any substantially large digital publication. Tonnes of people don't even vote. Of those that do, most vote for the parties they're already loyal to. Of the few that are in the middle, most decide acc…

It's very sad that people only vote their party. People need to learn to cross the line when it makes sense to. We are nearly perfectly split down the middle. This is a weak position to be in.

Well, it looks to me like people rarely vote for a candidate. More often, they're voting against a candidate because they believe that the other team is evil and must be stopped.

And it should be obvious that we're already in the end game for this strategy: if you vote against the other guy because he's evil, then your guy doesn't need to be good, he just needs to be perceived as slightly less evil. So it becomes a race to the bottom.

The cause of this seems to me to be the forced gerrymandering of voting districts so we don't get a meaningful voice in politics (other than as implied by the color of our skin, which is what the voting rights act requires).

But I think that, while getting rid of gerrymandering is a necessary part of any solution, the ultimate fix is to do away with the institutionalized two-party system. If today's problem is that the decision is binary (if I hate A then I must choose B), then offering three or more choices forces some thought and decision (at the very least: I know I hate A, but is B or C a better alternative?).

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#134

Post by patrickmn » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 2:45 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #67

decafbad wrote: post #58

Which country?

Whaddya mean, there's only one country that owns the internet; how could that question even be relevant. /s

For now!

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#135

Post by paulhauggis » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 2:47 PM UTC

IanDrake wrote: post #101

The thing that scares me is that Google is probably right (my political leanings aside). It's scary because the political machine (the "news" and media) probably gives off a signal that a deep neural network has learned. It might be that simple. Our entire democracy could be exposed for the sham that it is. It doesn't matter what a candidate has done or says they're going to do, it only matters what media keeps sayin…

It's even worse on the Internet with younger voters. If you look at /politics on Reddit, it's all propaganda that bashes the opposition. Link titles are changed to invoke anger.

I hate to see when this generation grows up and Twitter and Reddit are the sole sources of political information.

The "hands up don't shoot" is a good example. Forensic evidence came out and it was proven that this never happened, yet it didn't fit the political narrative. CNN and most of the mainstream news continued to push it as if it was fact.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#136

Post by knodi123 » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 2:48 PM UTC

MrDosu wrote: post #21

"Because the other side doesn't have a viable candidate" Glorious two party system, how is that even remotely called democracy by anyone?

it's the most democratic presidential election system in the entire country

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#137

Post by _ea1k » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 2:48 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #69

gerty wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does read like an ode before a coronation. Though a poorly written one. Anything but Clinton/Bush. Sanders perhaps.

Sanders? An admitted Socialist? How about Rand Paul? Someone that has actually fought on the right side of issues important to the HN community. Sanders actually supports an 80% tax rate. If you want an economy that resembles Romania in the 1980s, vote for Sanders. If you want freedom, vote Rand Paul. Democrat values are inconsistent with entrepreneurial. They want to disincentivize success with higher taxes and they…

I agree with some of your points, but in some ways I think you are overly optimistic. I bet that the majority of the people not in Charleston couldn't name the Charleston shooter either (not that his name is particularly important). Your point about them not knowing tax rates is absolutely accurate, though.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#138

Post by paulhauggis » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 2:50 PM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #53

Okay, this is weird. I'm almost certain that within the last year or two one of the main Googlers said something like "People just want to be told what to do" It was quite a controversy at the time, and people argued that he was just being flip. I thought it would make a nice addition to this story, juxtaposing people's desire for easy answers with an example of the type of easy answers Google provides folks. It coul…

I think they realized that they can easily influence our political landscape by pushing desired candidates and ideas to the top of the search engine results.

But what he said does have truth to it. Most people are employees (they need to be told what do do). It's just an easier way to live.

*Edit: I forgot. So many people on HN work for Google and I can't criticize the king.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#139

Post by knodi123 » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 2:51 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #102

MrDosu wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah and it's also the only country in the world where those elections lead to the same couple of families winning every time...

Hyperbole much? Out of fifty-something Presidential elections under the Constitution, there have been two close family members of a past President elected, the families involved winning a total of five elections. That's not the same couple of families winning every time.

no, but let's say that either Jeb or Hillary wins a couple of terms. If that occurs, then at the end of their term, we'll be able to say there have been THREE different last names in the white house in the last 35 years.

Political dynasties are real.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#140

Post by saturdaysaint » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 2:53 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #59

ck2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hillary will be president for one reason. Do you really want a third Bush in the White House for a third Iraq war? Alternatively, do you really want a Bush picking the next two or three Supreme Court judges? It would set back the country into the 1960s. Voting rights, equality, access to abortion. All rolled back to 1960s with an imbalance of power in the supreme court.

Really? Set the country back to the 1960s? You also actually think Bush is going to be the nominee? You don't seem to know much about Republicans if you think that. As far as the 1960s goes, the economic picture was much better then than it has been over the past 8 years. The JFK tax cuts caused a decade of prosperity; the middle class was much stronger, wage growth was steady. What we have now is a generalized malai…

It will be amazing if Bush doesn't end up with the nomination. In past elections, his money advantage would be a lock. Even allowing for disruptive technological/cultural changes, his stance as the moderate nominee is a huge advantage in blue/purple states that tend to look for the candidate most likely to swing their state.