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

U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 381 posts

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#371

Post by eru »

ClayShentrup wrote: post #366
eru wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I confused myself there. If you want your site to be usable for drive-by-quoting in an Internet discussion, perhaps you want to make two copies of that text, one specifically for Approval Voting and one for score voting in general? PS Overall nice website, I am reading more.

Ironically, my startup just got through YC and my fingers are crossed that we're successful enough for me to one day fund such reforms, so we'll never be threatened by a Trump again.

Congratulations!

I wonder what the right strategy would be? I guess start small and introduce sensible and simple voting everywhere you can:

- Shareholder votes in a company - Where to go for dinner - Vote for mayor in a small town - ...

Most people don't even know that there are different voting systems, yet alone that some of them are vastly better than others. (It's like watching people play Monopoly, when they are much better games around these days.)

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#372

Post by eru »

ClayShentrup wrote: post #368
eru wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other systems might be slightly better. But Approval Voting is dead simple to explain, and you don't even need new ballot papers compared to plurality.

The only system that's generally better is Score Voting aka Range Voting. But you want to _avoid_ ranked voting methods. http://ScoreVoting.net/NESD.html

I'm pretty convinced that for single winner elections approval voting is pretty great.

I haven't convinced myself when multiple people can get elected.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#373

Post by winstonewert »

ClayShentrup wrote: post #368
eru wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other systems might be slightly better. But Approval Voting is dead simple to explain, and you don't even need new ballot papers compared to plurality.

The only system that's generally better is Score Voting aka Range Voting. But you want to _avoid_ ranked voting methods. http://ScoreVoting.net/NESD.html

I don't think the argument presented there works.

Consider the example with A, B, and C at the end. It claims that approval voting would probably elect C, but why? If the voters apply perfect strategy, B supporters won't approve C, and B will win. The same is true of range voting, where B supporters will give C a rating of zero.

It does not seem escapable that a majority voter block can dictate their wishes on the whole population by exaggerating their stated preferences.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#374

Post by winstonewert »

eru wrote: post #371
ClayShentrup wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, my startup just got through YC and my fingers are crossed that we're successful enough for me to one day fund such reforms, so we'll never be threatened by a Trump again.

Congratulations! I wonder what the right strategy would be? I guess start small and introduce sensible and simple voting everywhere you can: - Shareholder votes in a company - Where to go for dinner - Vote for mayor in a small town - ... Most people don't even know that there are different voting systems, yet alone that some of them are vastly better than others. (It's like watching people play Monopoly, when they ar…

For what it's worth, voting system changes typically result from a two-party system splitting: http://repositori.upf.edu/handle/10230/506. When countries end up with more then two parties, those parties suddenly have an incentive to institute better voting systems. That would suggest you'd have to take out the Republican/Democrat duopoly to change the US system, but perhaps Trump will do some good after all.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#375

Post by makomk »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #290
mchahn wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible. The people have nothing to do with that decision. It is just plain unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution never meant for personal rights to be applied to corporations.

Let's make sure we know what we're talking about here. The CU decision was over a bunch of people who made a movie that was critical of a political candidate, and aired that movie not long before the election. Is it your contention that we really should prevent this kind of thing from happening? Because to me, it seems like the very cornerstone of the democratic system. The minute such activity is illegal, the people…

The CU decision was over a bunch of people who made a movie that was critical of a political candidate, and paid a TV station to air that movie not long before the election. Congress had restricted spending on political advertising and it was this restriction that CU overturned. You're arguing that the cornerstone of democracy is the ability of the wealthiest to spend unlimited amounts on propaganda to convince citizens that they should vote for the candidates that benefit the wealthy the most.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#376

Post by eru »

winstonewert wrote: post #374
eru wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congratulations! I wonder what the right strategy would be? I guess start small and introduce sensible and simple voting everywhere you can: - Shareholder votes in a company - Where to go for dinner - Vote for mayor in a small town - ... Most people don't even know that there are different voting systems, yet alone that some of them are vastly better than others. (It's like watching people play Monopoly, when they ar…

For what it's worth, voting system changes typically result from a two-party system splitting: http://repositori.upf.edu/handle/10230/506 . When countries end up with more then two parties, those parties suddenly have an incentive to institute better voting systems. That would suggest you'd have to take out the Republican/Democrat duopoly to change the US system, but perhaps Trump will do some good after all.

Interesting. They had some changes in party systems in the US over the course of the country's life, but did they change the voting system?

Britain also had some changes (with labour replacing liberal at the beginning of the 20th century).

I hail from Germany, which traditionally has a more proportional system. (It's a weird mix that seems to do reasonably well in practice. They could replace the first-past-the-post of the `Erststimme' with a score voting system, but the Erststimme isn't that important anyway.) They never had less than three parties in the federal parliament after WWII, even with a 5% threshold needed to move in.

The UK had three somewhat relevant parties in the 20th century (though only two relevant parties per county). Why haven't they changed electoral system? (And when they had a referendum about it, why did they suggest the dreadful IRV?..)

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#377

Post by eru »

winstonewert wrote: post #373
ClayShentrup wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only system that's generally better is Score Voting aka Range Voting. But you want to _avoid_ ranked voting methods. http://ScoreVoting.net/NESD.html

I don't think the argument presented there works. Consider the example with A, B, and C at the end. It claims that approval voting would probably elect C, but why? If the voters apply perfect strategy, B supporters won't approve C, and B will win. The same is true of range voting, where B supporters will give C a rating of zero. It does not seem escapable that a majority voter block can dictate their wishes on the wh…

As long as you need a majority, that's still very democratic? (If it was a plurality only, that would be harder.)

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#378

Post by winstonewert »

eru wrote: post #377
winstonewert wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the argument presented there works. Consider the example with A, B, and C at the end. It claims that approval voting would probably elect C, but why? If the voters apply perfect strategy, B supporters won't approve C, and B will win. The same is true of range voting, where B supporters will give C a rating of zero. It does not seem escapable that a majority voter block can dictate their wishes on the wh…

As long as you need a majority, that's still very democratic? (If it was a plurality only, that would be harder.)

Yes, but the page in question is arguing that approval/rank voting is better because it doesn't always elect the majority's first choice.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#379

Post by winstonewert »

eru wrote: post #376
winstonewert wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, voting system changes typically result from a two-party system splitting: http://repositori.upf.edu/handle/10230/506 . When countries end up with more then two parties, those parties suddenly have an incentive to institute better voting systems. That would suggest you'd have to take out the Republican/Democrat duopoly to change the US system, but perhaps Trump will do some good after all.

Interesting. They had some changes in party systems in the US over the course of the country's life, but did they change the voting system? Britain also had some changes (with labour replacing liberal at the beginning of the 20th century). I hail from Germany, which traditionally has a more proportional system. (It's a weird mix that seems to do reasonably well in practice. They could replace the first-past-the-post…

The USA has had changes of party systems, but never in a way that resulted in a lasting third party.

Certainly there are places like the UK, or my homeland, Canada, that have had three relevant parties for a while without changing the system. Although both UK and Canada have forces pushing for reform. The recently elected government of Canada gave an election promise to change the system, but, well, I'm not holding my breath.

But I'm not saying at all that any country with multiple parties will enact voting reform, but statistically, it seems that voting reform is often brought about that way.

I suspect IRV was brought to vote in the UK, because that was deal that could be reached between the Conservatives who didn't want change, and the Liberal Democrats who did. However, I will note that IRV isn't so bad when selecting members of a legislature. Approval/Condorcet elect compromise candidates, but we don't want to simply have a legislature of compromise candidates, but rather representative of how people voted. But some from of proportional system is probably better.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#380

Post by curryhowardiso »

fergbrain wrote: post #112
curryhowardiso wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, absolutely - and another reason is that it forms a sort of "de facto precedent". Even though there isn't a USSC judgment, in future people will (hopefully) refer to "the time the DoJ tried to do X" and the theory is this is citation enough.

This was District Court, not SCOTUS.

Yes, which is why I said "despite not having a SC precedent"?
Post reply on HN