British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today • Hacker News Board

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#61

Post by petercooper » Thu, May 05, 2011, 2:09 PM UTC

MEHColeman wrote: post #44

petercooper wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a personal view but I think there is. I think that AV could make the process of voting different/confusing enough for many voters to be turned off of voting or, perhaps, screwing up their ballots. If I agree with only one element of the "No" campaign, it's that enough of the electorate is stupid/ignorant enough to find the change difficult changing the outcome of future elections.

This probably sounds terrible, but if you are too "stupid/ignorant" to write your preferences in order 1-5, are you really competent enough to be voting? I really don't expect there are many people (or any, I mean, really?) who are that stupid - that's just doesn't seem a valid reason to be against it. If you just write "1" instead of an "X", it's exactly as easy as the current system. Could you do it? Can you really…

Perhaps this comes from living in the north, but the people I associated with are less sophisticated than you give them credit for. My wife has next to zero understanding about any of this and is not voting because she has no understanding of the issues involved. Ditto for my parents. And my in-laws.

Assuming that everyone's an intellectual and will research and consider the options and then make an informed choice is both idealistic and unrealistic. Many people have better things to do with their lives than thinking about politics and they're out there doing them. Making the voting process even more complicated is hardly going to compel them to get involved.

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#62

Post by eftpotrm » Thu, May 05, 2011, 2:13 PM UTC

MikeTaylor wrote: post #48

henrikschroder wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are those the only choices? Why not switch to proportional representation instead, using D'Hondt or Saint-Laguë? Or is there such strong support for the current single-winner system in the UK that noone wants to change the base idea?

The only reason we got the referendum at all is because the Conservatives didn't win an outright majority of seats, and so weren't able to form a government after the last election. They had to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and the LD's terms for lending their support to a party that they have very little in common with was they they insisted on the AV referendum. The Conservatives grudgingly accepted…

... and, lest anyone think that losing seats to the LibDems just means it's the LibDems' self-interest driving their wish to change, look at the comparison of the vote and seat percentages. At the last election, for every LibDem MP elected there were 5 Conservative MPs elected, but for every 2 LibDem voters there were only 3 Conservative voters. Is that really the parliament we asked for?

We need AV not because it's the best forever but because it's our only chance of reform for a generation. I'm voting yes.

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#63

Post by petercooper » Thu, May 05, 2011, 2:15 PM UTC

MikeTaylor wrote: post #51

petercooper wrote: post #32

if you care about democracy at all — then get out and vote YES TO AV. Get a grip. If one cares about democracy "at all" then they need to go out and vote Yes to one extremely narrow option that's only, arguably, mildly better than the status quo? This is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

You misrepresented the call to vote here by trimming the quote down too far. What the original article says is: "Please: if you’ve ever complained about how our politicians don’t represent us and the people who do represent us can’t get elected; if you’re sick of having to choose between two lizards; if you care about democracy at all — then get out and vote YES TO AV." So I did make an actual case, rather than just…

You made a case but wrapped it up with an appeal to which way someone should vote.

Sheepishly voting Yes because someone suggested they might not care about democracy otherwise is not very democratic. If someone cares about democracy, all they need to do is vote full-stop.

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#64

Post by petercooper » Thu, May 05, 2011, 2:16 PM UTC

frobozz wrote: post #47

petercooper wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a personal view but I think there is. I think that AV could make the process of voting different/confusing enough for many voters to be turned off of voting or, perhaps, screwing up their ballots. If I agree with only one element of the "No" campaign, it's that enough of the electorate is stupid/ignorant enough to find the change difficult changing the outcome of future elections.

The converse view: Surely people who are so stupid/ignorant that this system would stop them voting, are too stupid/ignorant to be able to vote effectively in any election. You may argue that it sounds a bit elitist, but personally, I want an electorate capable of making informed choices in the voting booth.

I agree with your last point entirely, but unfortunately it's a politically unacceptable one. Passing some sort of civics exam before having the right to vote would be fine by me.

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#65

Post by corin_ » Thu, May 05, 2011, 2:18 PM UTC

Isofarro wrote: post #55

petercooper wrote: post #32

if you care about democracy at all — then get out and vote YES TO AV. Get a grip. If one cares about democracy "at all" then they need to go out and vote Yes to one extremely narrow option that's only, arguably, mildly better than the status quo? This is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

I can't remember the last time the UK had a referendum about voting reform, and based on that it's quite tough to figure out when the next one will be if the winning result is "No". A clear "No to AV" may be interpreted that no voting reform is needed.

There has never been a referendum about voting reform before in the UK (in fact, the only single previous referendum that was nation-wide was more than 35 years ago, and was related to our membership in the EEC).

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#66

Post by seabee » Thu, May 05, 2011, 2:30 PM UTC

GeneralWaste wrote: post #26

dazzawazza wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Liberal Democrats want (for the most part) PR. There was no way the Conservatives would agree to that in the coalition agreement so this was as good as you they could get. As the press would say "it's a dirty coalition compromise" which you can read as "it's a pragmatic decision based on the political landscape of the day taking in to account the moral perspective of all involved acting as elected officials"

Some in the UK hold the opinion that the Liberal Democrats capitulated too easily to the Conservatives during the negotiation process that led to the formation of our current government. Whilst they only have a relatively small number of MPs they still hold the balance of power and could perhaps have held out for PR. Their apparent willingness to compromise this and other principles of their party in exchange for a s…

Bear in mind that Labour offered AV with no referendum necessary, but did not have the seats to form a majority with the Lib Dems alone. Had they upped their offer to (a referendum on) PR it would have had the support of the minor parties and likely would've passed; however, all other issues would face severe compromise and difficulty, so being in opposition benefits Labour (a party that doesn't need PR, even if it desires it) in the long-term.

Minority governments do not last very long and with Labour on the wane there was a significant possibility of a subsequent election giving the Conservatives a majority; at best, there would be an opportunity for a Lib-Lab majority. The Liberals' power is often overstated by principled idealists, but for pragmatists it was a good choice: 75% of their manifesto is becoming Government policy, compared to 60% of the Conservative manifesto (http://guildfordlibdems.org.uk/en/article/2011/486213/75-of-...). Of course, the remaining 25% matters a lot more to many people than the 75% they implemented...

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#67

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, May 05, 2011, 2:32 PM UTC

seabee wrote: post #60

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of assumtions I didn't quite grasp. What is the distribution of voters? Some uniform space? The voters are rarely distributed that way. So I don't know what I learn from those graphics.

It's described under the 'simulation method' heading. Unless you have a reason to suggest otherwise, it's reasonable to assume voters' preferences follow a normal distribution.

Voters get polarized. In fact that's what All the candidates try to do. Are any elections normal?

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#68

Post by afterburner » Thu, May 05, 2011, 2:34 PM UTC

rossriley wrote: post #28

corin_ wrote: post #16

(I voted "Yes" at 8am.) If I didn't have any views on which system is better, I would have been pursuaded to vote Yes by the "Vote No" adverts, such as http://i.imgur.com/yCyLv.jpg Admitedly, the campaign for "Vote Yes" has frankly been terrible as well, but in a way that makes you think they don't have a clue about marketing, rather than a way that makes you want to strangle whoever came up with the adverts.

I think the yes campaign must go down as one of the worst I've ever seen. The big budget media campaign was based around the 'Make Your MP Work Harder' campaign. That's such a vague idea to base a campaign around, especially in light of the attack tactics the No campaign were using.

This is typical of Yes campaigns for vote reform in Canada as well (at the provincial level). They tend to be poorly funded, and afraid to tackle it head on out of fear of scaring people away (might be true). And the No campaigns tend to be pure fearmongering and misdirection, but well funded. There are sometimes allegations that the Yes campaigns are sabotaged by No supporters working for the Yes campaign (rumour level allegation).

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#69

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, May 05, 2011, 2:35 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #57

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of assumtions I didn't quite grasp. What is the distribution of voters? Some uniform space? The voters are rarely distributed that way. So I don't know what I learn from those graphics.

Each point in the image corresponds to an election with the center of opinion located at that point. For every point, we simulate an entire election by scattering 200000 voters in a normal distribution around that point and collecting ballots from all of the voters; then we colour the point to indicate the winner.

So, still confused. How is the voter ballot simulated? From a point on a normal distribution? How does that translate to their vote? Especially with some of the esoteric schemes - is their any attempt to distribute the voters' comprehension of the candidate position? Or is that folded into the voter position in the distribution? What is the width of the distribution?

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#70

Post by JeremyBanks » Thu, May 05, 2011, 2:35 PM UTC

johnfrank2011 wrote: post #31

hello sir. how are you? I'm john frank i very interesting about hacker but i don't know how can i hack. Do you have a idea could you give me some software i wanna hack to something. Thanks

You misunderstand the meaning of the word "hacker" in this context. If you wish to understand, it is explained in this essay from the founder of this site: http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html

This site focuses on interesting and clever use of technology as well as on business, typically with respect to technology start-ups. I have no doubt that there are members of this community who are capable of "hacking" in the sense that you mean, but unlikely to help you. Furthermore, there is probably not a simple piece of software you can just point at what you want and have it "hacked".