Political Stock Market Simulation

Elphaba Thropp writes "Zack Coburn (of ArsDigita fame) recently released Politics on ZackCoburn.com, a political stock market simulation in which 'political figures are the symbols. The price of each symbol will fluctuate as users rate it either positively or negatively.' Each user starts with $1,000,000, and can rate a symbol's performance every twenty-four hours. The site also offers user blogs, and contains a unique statistics page, in which the top users and symbols are shown, as well as the most liberally-owned and most conservatively-owned stocks are shown (based on a political survey each user can take). Interestingly enough, George W. Bush currently has the most liberal ownership."

Comments

Wow.

[Sheetrock]

Remember when politics was about trying to figure out the best guy for the job?

We've sure gotten away from that. The whole Swift Boat thing has made a great distraction from any meaningful issues that could be raised. And now a 'political stock market simulation'?

What's wrong with politics that we do everything we can to stop from looking at it objectively? Why make it a game?

Re:Wow.

[Doobian Coedifier]

I agree with your message, but I do not agree with your sig. I was going to mod, but I decided to reply.

You are absolutely right that politics is, for the most part, not about real issues. Things like SBVFT and Bush's (non-existant) Alabama National Guard record are supposedly character issues. But they're from 30-40 years ago. Why is the validity of Kerry's purple hearts an issue, but the fact that Bush was on coke as recently as 1991 (See Kitty Kelley's new book) not an issue?

Kerry is trying as hard as he can to focus on important issues, but the media, and the (lazy and/or uninformed) American voter are bored by issues. They would much rather just believe what they hear, regardless of the source. Which is why you've got Cheney saying a vote for Kerry is a green-light for terrorist attacks, or Bush saying that a $422 B deficit proves his tax cuts are stimulating the economy, because the deficit was originally predicted to be $480 B. It completely avoids the real issues, and is even misleading, but people buy it because it's easier to take it at face value than to actually think about who's saying it and what their motivations are. Anyway, that's about enough for today.

Oh, the reason I take exception to your sig... normally, I would agree with you, a viable third-party candidate would be wonderful. Honestly, I would much prefer we had a multi-party system like Canada or the UK. But this year, aside from the fact that Nader has been accepting all kinds of support from republicans... every vote that is taken away from Kerry will help Bush be re-elected, and there will be zero positive change in the next four years.

Re:Wow.

[DAldredge]

Well, if you listen to some of the DEMS, even bring up Kerrys senate record isn't right. Hell, what has he done in the Senate?

Re:Wow.

[DAldredge]

First, the fact that you thought about moding a person down because you do not agree with them shows why the political section of /. will be a major fuckup.

Second, why doesn't kerry run on his senate record? Could it be that he hasn't done much in the 16+ years he has been in DC?

Lastly, both major sides do not want to talk about the issues because both have a public record of what they have done, and it ain't much.

Re:Wow.

[OldMiner]

I think you misread the grandparent. My impression was that he was about to mod the great grandparent up, but then saw the sig. He decided to respond instead of mod because he thought that the sig meritted a dialog. Obviously, the original poster had been up modded now anyhow.

Re:Wow.

[DAldredge]

I don't. The /. moderation system has turned into a weapon that is used against people one the basis of who they are and what they think. It isn't being used for the purposes that it is intended.

If it was I would not be mod bombed when I post unpopular ideas as I do not think it is a coincidence that multi posts of mine, on totally different topics, get modded down with in minutes of each other.

Re:Wow.

[4of12]

What's wrong with politics that we do everything we can to stop from looking at it objectively?

Politics is inherently subjective; you're choosing someone to govern, to give authority over yourself to some degree. Like any human relationship, you'll need to establish trust with that person before you choose them.

And the candidate will do everything to convince as many as possible that such trust is well placed.

Unfortunately, well-developed deception skills can sell "I'm trustworthy" to many people.

Big disaffection by people who feel that a candidate has deceived them has a strong counter effect. You get the same strong opinions from people who have just gone through a bitter divorce.

As far as games go, if there were good software for creating and propagating delegation of authority through a web of trust, that would be interesting to see.

I would venture that several degrees of separation would be enough so that I would trust by proxy (my most trustworthy friend's trustworthy friends most trustworthy friend) someone that I wouldn't think of trusting directly.

Re:Wow.

[Doobian Coedifier]

You are correct, DAldredge is mistaken. I was gonna mod him up, but I decided to discuss instead. Stop the hate, child!

Re:Wow.

[Doobian Coedifier]

Actually, I was going to mod him up, but decided to discuss instead. I don't really have time to get into Kerry's senate record, but here's a good article:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/08/10/ker ry _record/index_np.html

Re:Wow.

[DAldredge]

Then I appoligize, I guess their are still a few good mods left.

Why is Kerry trading at 3x Bush's value?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And what is that supposed to mean in comparison to actual votes at the end of the race?

Re:Why is Kerry trading at 3x Bush's value?

[martianpenguin]

Obviously there are no Bush supporters signed up yet. Or at least they didn't sign up before the price changed. There are not nearly enough people signed up yet to show a representative value.

no real moey behind this!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is absurd. To expect simulation participants to put any effort into it without trying to game the system is ridiculous unless there's real money in it, like London bookmaker's odds or the Iowa Futures Markets.

Huh

[c0dedude]

Why play for fake money when you can play for the real thing? Check this out.
Disclamer: Not associated with this site, just remember it from a /. story.

Re:Huh

[Dan Grossman]

Why? Because it's real money! Spend that on a couple shares of Google instead.

Re:Huh

[SeniorDingDong]

I recall an interview of somone that had been polled 6 times and said he had intentionally misled the pollsters so as to throw off those changing their politics based on those polls. With this in mind, I can think of a few things that would make such a device a better predictor. First, it's voluntary. Second, if one is playing with their own money, there's a real incentive to contribute honestly. Third, as there must surely be a continum of reasoning behind one's vote, a poll could tend to oversimplify responses subject to the poll maker's presuppositions. Forth, the lure of making money could tend to increase participation.

Now that said, at least one disadvantage is this does not measure the tendency for someone to vote a certain way, but rather how he thinks everyone will vote and is thus a measure of our ability taken in the aggregate as analysts.

Bush's liberal ownership

[Malfourmed]

Interestingly enough, George W. Bush currently has the most liberal ownership.

Maybe they're trying to short the stock?

Re:Bush's liberal ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh?

Shorting the stock means to borrow it and then sell it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price.

I don't think they are shorting it, just betting that he is going to win (I would bet on that myself. The polls show Bush in the lead right now).

Re:Bush's liberal ownership

[Malfourmed]

Shorting the stock means to borrow it and then sell it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price.

Yeah - I was hoping the comment would be funny even with the inaccuracy. Going by the moderation I was wrong. :(

liberal stock

[dncsky1530]

Interestingly enough, George W. Bush currently has the most liberal ownership.

Well as a democrat, I would love to see George Bush lose. As a rational person I know he will probably ending winning, due to big business, or the senior vote which usually goes overwhelmingly to republicans. Combined with the fact that Kerry's war record is in doubt, and how Nader is gaining more votes. I really dont want bush to be president and I will vote against him, but I would also put my money on Bush

Re:liberal stock

[Dan Grossman]

I don't think Bush has won yet. Kerry has gotten some good advice from the new campaign team and Clinton, and they're all telling him to ramp it up and start talking about the domestic issues instead of Vietnam. His latest website entries and commercials are about domestic issues instead of the war, so if he can ramp it up, he has a chance of coming back. I think the debates will help as well. Bush really didn't live up to the promises he made 4 years ago for economy, employment, healthcare, or education. If Kerry debates it right he can make himself look a lot better to more than 50% of Americans that don't really know his plan now. Bush will probably try to push for only two debates instead of three (Clinton did it, so the democrats would have a hard time saying anything about that), hopefully we'll see three.

Re:liberal stock

[DAldredge]

Clintons team, isn't this the same team that 'helped' gore so much? Hell, the best thing that could happen to H Clinton is for Kerry to lose so she can run in 2008.

Re:liberal stock

[tr33limbz]

i agree with the "flamebait" mod of this post, but there is some truth to the statement, especially during this presidential election. according to my uninformed opinion based on news reports and political discussions with friends, countless people are voting for the candidate that is "Not Bush."

Vote Nader

[genrader]

Nader is amazingly awesome. What I hate about Bush, I like about Nader. What I dislike about Nader, I like about Bush. All in all, Nader >> all 3.

Re:Liberal Ownership

[genrader]

I don't get where people think he is a right-wing nutcase. I am a right-wing nutcase and my policies would benefit everyone. Bush is some kind of off the wall moderate that doesn't really know what he is doing. Kerry and Clinton are Communists out to get the most for themselves.

Taxation with representation

[leviathanap]

And Democrats opposed the repealing of the dividend tax.

I'm sure they're pleased with freedom to trade in this market...

Re:Taxation with representation

[DAldredge]

And republicans opposed the lessing of the payroll tax. What is your point?

Re:Liberal Ownership

[zCyl]

There is a difference between being socially conservative and economically conservative. Bush is socially conservative, and the closest he comes to being economically conservative is cutting taxes for the wealthy. But his spending has been kept high enough to result in a massive debt.

What the country needs is for one of the two political parties to shift its platform to being socially progressive and fiscally responsible. Bush opened the door for the Democratic party to choose this by taking the exact opposite stance, but the Democrats were so afraid of Bush that they just voted for the guy they thought everyone else would be most likely to vote for.

Bad Design

[Anonymous Coward]

The users vote to upgrade or downgrade their own stocks, without needing to cite any events to explain their decision. IOW, people buy a load of stock and vote its price up based on their partisan opinion and the fact it'll give them a higher score, then vote down the price of what they didn't buy. Hmm.. maybe that does correspond to politics somewhat.

Also, there appears to be an infinite surplus of stock, so there are no market effects in this stock market.

Hot tip: Afghan elections to be held next early next month.

Shorting the Stock

[Izaak]

OK, so how do I go about shorting this political stock so I can make a killing when one of the candidates crashes and burns... oh never mind.

Re:Liberal Ownership

[RWerp]

Being socially progressive in America means pissing off a large portion of the nation. It easier to push controversial economics policies then controversial social policies, because people tend to be more reasonable in economical matters than in social ones. Can you imagine a democratic president declaring he will do away with death penalty?

Re:Liberal Ownership

[baldass_newbie]

Figures the AC is getting his insights from Pat Buchanan.
Methinks Pat Buchanan took a wrong turn somewhere...

I want a Michael Badnarik symbol

[JohnnyX]

Where is the Michael Badnarik symbol. Ironic to have a market without a Libertarian, non?

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...curious...

Re:I want a Michael Badnarik symbol

[Chaotic Evil Cleric]

What's worse is that Slashdot has a Republican topic, a Democrat topic, but no Libertarian topic. I wrote a letter to Taco, hopefully he'll make one (Statue of Liberty would be nice).

p.s. Keep the faith. I like your blog.