Slashdot Mirror

http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/wh...

If airplanes were willing to reduce checked-bag fees, and passengers were willing to delay boarding / disembarking, the overall process could be sped up drastically. But try to tell someone in row 20 that they have to wait to get up until someone in row 30 gets off first.

>We have already eliminated all jobs several times in human history. How many jobs circa 1900 exist today?

According to "Humans Need Not Apply":

"But if you still think new jobs will save us: here is one final point to consider. The US census in 1776 tracked only a few kinds of jobs. Now there are hundreds of kinds of jobs, but the new ones are not a significant part of the labor force.

Here's the list of jobs ranked by the number of people that perform them - it's a sobering list with the transportation industry at the top. Going down the list all this work existed in some form a hundred years ago and almost all of them are targets for automation. Only when we get to number 33 (computer programmer) on the list is there finally something new."

We have a pretty good voting system. There are some other options but each has it's pros and cons. None has a clear advantage over the other in the large scale.

This is wrong.

There are clear advantages of other voting systems over FPTP/plurality. Several criteria have been produced to compare voting systems (example comparisons here). Where criteria focus on specific (often worst-case) scenarios, voting simulations can help see the bigger picture. It can be shown that plurality necessarily devolves into a two-party system.

It is clear that plurality is a terrible system, even if there is no unanimous concensus on which replacement is the best.

People voted for Trump because they hated the idea of President Hillary. People voted for Hillary because they hated the idea of President Trump.

Our voting system produces this result. People don't care so much about finding the perfect leader, but they do want to make sure the wrong person doesn't get elected. They want an anti-vote, and it comes in the form of the most popular candidate who isn't the worst. Eventually two parties rise up with opposing viewpoints on most issues, and most people choose sides in order to prevent the most hated alternative viewpoints from gaining support.

Fixing this problem requires fixing our voting system. We must be able to simultaneously vote for the candidate we admire most, while giving a secondary vote to the other less evil candidates.

http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...

Off topic but I'll bite...

If we had a better voting system, then the party primaries wouldn't really matter all that much. There would be no more voting for the person most likely to beat the guy you hate most on the other side. Instead of literally only having the choice of voting against HRC or Trump, we might actually get to choose a candidate we want.

The problem isn't the candidates. It's the system that inevitably pits these awful candidates against each other as the only choice.

http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...

My supposition is that ALL primaries need to be open, and no parties are allowed. Why should tax payers support parties that we don't agree with? My party doesn't require taxpayer "Primary" elections ;-)

As someone already mentioned, the problem is that the "winner take all" electorial system that is baked into the US Constitution automatically creates a two-party system whether you want one or not. Trying to outlawing politics parties will not solve the problem. You need to change the Constitution to make the electorial system more fair than "winner take all".

A simple introduction to these ideas is available in a few short videos at Politics in the Animal Kingdom. We know what the problem is. We know what the solution is. The difficulty is that whoever is in power has little motivation to drastically change the system that put them in power.

The US Constitution was the prototype. Many of the Countries that followed us learned from our mistakes.

I wish there was a database to consult for complaints about the U.S. primary system, too.

The problem with the primary system is that it matters so much. It wouldn't if there were more than 2 parties (and thus 2 candidates) that counted.

To fix this we need to fix the US election system. Here's why that matters.

But if I support them, then I'd get something like an Obama

This is, of course, not how it has to be. But our voting system doesn't allow it any other way. http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...

"None of the above" is nice but doesn't really fix the problem of strategic voting. If we're going to change the ballot, I'd rather get rid of plurality voting altogether. Change it to a ranked, approval, or any of the numerous systems which are better than plurality.

My favorite site for explaining the problems and some of the potential solutions:

http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...

Democrats generally don't have great ideas, and their best ones are generally mediocre. (Not to say Republicans are any better.) And Republicans spend money just as bad as the Dems.

My point is, stop comparing bad and bad, and start opening the conversation up about how to get rid of both. Our voting system is one reason we are stuck in the two-party system that makes us vote against the worst instead of for the best: http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...

The choice you are describing is between "I want to throw my vote away" and "I want to make sure the worst person doesn't get elected". Sure, it is a choice, but it is certainly not the choice that is advertised.

I suggest watching this video series, it explains the problem and some potential solutions: http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...

If you can not find volunteers to count ballots, then your democracy is already dead.

If you can not have a fair process for the voting system, then your democracy is dangerously dysfunctional, if not totally doomed.

If your voting system is like the USA, you are stuck in the past and need to become a modern civilization (see http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...)

If you can not reasonably predict outcomes from exit polls you are heavily propagandized to the point where mathematics, science, and education have too little influence.... your democracy is going to fail.

If you think Nate Silver is a genius for simply being competent in a corrupted profession then your part of the problem.

Will of the voters, you say? Elections in the US do not provide us with that information. People don't want to throw away their vote, so most vote against the worst instead of for the best.

I suggest watching some of this series: http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...

It's a mistake to think that those on the ballet are the only ones to vote for. Write in a name. Start petitions. Voters have the power - they just don't bother to use it.

The old socialist countries are the new fascist countries.

What are you smoking? The game is stacked against us (though the Australian voting system is slightly more representative than the US):

This is a deeply unpopular idea. Only 6% of Americans opt to direct a portion of their taxes to public election funding, despite costing them nothing to do so.

I don't know about everyone else, but I don't check that box because I would rather see that $3 go toward improving our infrastructure, reducing our debt, and a host of other things before I want it to go toward a political campaign. Campaigns already have too much funding as it is, why do they need more?

But it's different when campaigns only receive funding through the general budget. The Presidential Election Campaign Fund checkbox would disappear under these new rules, because it would no longer be funded by choice.

I see. So the Nazi Party, and the "Keg Party" would get the same funding as the Democrats and Republicans. We would soon have ten thousand political parties.

Who gets to decide who is a "candidate"?

There already exist ballot access rules that regulate whether someone can get on the ballot. Only candidates who appear on a ballot would be provided with campaign funding.

(Besides, the two party system is a problem, not something to cherish.)

Why do people STILL refuse to vote for anything but a repug or demoncrat? Just keep this shit up, voting R or D and you'll keep getting more and more tyranny.

Because it's been one vote per person for a while.

My favorite explanation for those interested to learn more about what you are talking about.

http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...

(I post this pretty much every time the subject of third parties comes up, but I feel that it's really worth getting people to understand why we as a society can't get what we actually want despite society being built on the principles of democracy.)

The only thing obvious is that a third party has no chance of winning.

The most impact a third party has is to spoil the election for the closest of the two main parties.

I'd be ok if this were required learning material: http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...

Anyone who asks this question, or understands the answer but is interested in how to make things better, should watch CGP Grey's Politics In The Animal Kingdom series.

You are missing frank_adrian314159's point. Our voting system, first-past-the-post, inevitably causes the two party system we have, and there's no practical way to fix it without changing the voting system.

CGP Grey has a wonderful set of short videos explaining why first-past-the-post is bad and what alternatives exist.

/oblg.

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The Alternative Vote Explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Gerrymandering Explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Mixed-Member Proportional Representation Explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

From:
http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...

She serves as an important 'symbolic' head of state.

Yes, and we are all her "subjects", and pay for the upkeep of her properties and for state events in her honour. Most unsatisfactory.

*snip*

It's a simple deal: She gets to keep her vast country-ruling powers, on condition she never uses them.

Don't forget all the free money from taxpayers, even though she is the richest woman in the country. Not sure about her but her son is a tax dodger too.

Whenever I hear the 'free money from taxpayers' argument, I feel compelled to point to the following: The true cost of the Royal family explained. Regardless of whether the stuff the article at the end of that link says about how much money they bring in for the UK is true or not, I'd still be quite happy paying the 65p per year to have a monarchy.

Exactly, only people who already support them will watch or read. They need to debate on national TV, and it's tragic that both major parties have worked to exclude them.

Tragic or not, it's more or less mathematically dictated in a first past the post voting system. Read Wikipedia (and its references) for a technical explanation, but I've found these videos by C. G. P. Grey to be excellent for educating people from all sorts of backgrounds.

And this is exactly why first past the post voting is wrong for our country! Some jumped up Istari manages to split the vote from evil's hand picked successor (Sauron) and now look at where we're at!

C. G. P. Grey really needs to redo his explanations from a Middle-earth perspective.

The following explains this phenomenon very well, and is worth a watch
http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-alternative-vote-instant-runoff-explained/

Individual creators don't really stand to gain much by stopping piracy. It's mostly the entities to whom the creations are transferred to, meaning individuals are (typically) benefited indirectly at best.

1. This is a choice (albeit usually a steady income is chosen over trying to market and distribute material yourself.
2. I wouldn't marginalize the indirect benefit. Actors still get paid well.

our society, for the longest time, did *not* put a price tag on culture. Music, knowledge, the arts

That may be true. But piracy is not just culture items. What about software? As a software engineer it would be nice to create an Android app and sell it and not have to worry about one person buying it and then everyone else getting it for free. I deserve (maybe) more than 99 cents for the effort I put into creating the game. I agree with patent reform (the current state of software patents makes me more scared to create that Android game than piracy) and reducing copy-write limitations (great video about the history of it). 28 years is plenty for me. If people still want to buy version 1.0 of my software after 28 years, then the masses can have it!

ps. I appreciate your time in having this constructive debate.