They can’t handle – most anything
Please go to:
They can’t handle – most anything
Please go to:
Whaaaaaaaaat? I don’t understand.
Felix just unlisted the previous discussion from the forum for being too off topic.
You can still view it here: Dmitry Orlov: How the Technosphere Threatens the Biosphere and our Freedoms
I am a retired electronics guy who’s work was largely figuring out complex system ‘tangles’ that my bosses could not deeply understand and correct. I stopped ‘loving’ electronics at about 20 years of age because it just got old quicker than I did. So I became an amateur mathematical logician, and loved higher order logic (which did nasty things to the lambda ‘calculus’ and was abandoned until recently. It’s now often called part of ‘type theory’). Meanwhile, I expanded it into ‘new classical information theory’ which is at odds in some respects with Claude Shannon’s ideas (which are much loved by the physicists). So far this only made me some enemies in linguistics departments.
I was the president of a non-profit corp that managed an actual commune. It failed partly because some wanted equalitarianism (including me), while others wanted me to be their cult Master, which is not necessarily a bad thing provided you chose the right Master. Which wasn’t me! It all ended in a shootout (with real guns and bullets). So I can claim experience as a Dictator. Dictators know a few things about democracy!
I have a very serious political side and have protested wars, surveillance cameras, and even whole elections (I was almost arrested once by a voting station constable). So I think this gives me some perspective on election systems.
I am flabbergasted that in the whole wide (yet furtive) world of ‘election method schemes’ (there are many, many little election theory mills) just about everyone has this insane fetish that the voters must always be encouraged to vote ‘honestly’. Well, hell I am far, far too jaded to fall for that sort of rectitudinousness! Let’s just say I do not wear a Boy Scout uniform.
Once you cast aside this absurdly cumbersome ‘honest voter’ fetish, all the fog lifts away, and the old scales fall from your eyes. (Actual dishonesty is impossible in a voting booth, since the vote is secret, so no fraud or deception is even possible.) Then – it becomes obvious the very most simple form of score voting, (say (1) to (10) with explicit abstention if you insist, with no averaging or ‘runoffs’) is truly the only answer. Period. You give ten votes to those you really prefer, and perhaps seven, eight, or nine to the lesser evils. To grant ten to the most preferred and explicit abstention to all the others would be a totally stupid attempt at strategy. And unlike approval voting, you are not forced to grant the same number of votes to lesser evils as you will to your truly preferreds. So your truly preferreds might actually win some day.
There is also the nifty add-on ‘proportional’ system I campaign for. If you cant stand that it doesn’t quite guarantee any strictly ‘proportional’ definition – then just call it ‘correspondent representation’ – it’s really simply and it accomplishes exactly the same things. All it needs is one number plugged in (the strongest winner). Then a very simple second degree equation calculates a sort of ‘layer cake’ (the layers are ‘tranches’), with the thickest layers closer to be bottom. Then minority candidates who simply don’t get a lot of votes can still fall into niches near the bottom. It’s almost purely random (like sortition) in the first election cycle, but then the process of ‘paladin preservation’ kicks in and it eventually loses the randomness. Imagine a system that improves with age!
I do keep harping on the point that no electoral system will be useful in the absence of proper cultural ‘tooling’. This is why I brought in Dmitry Orlov. He is not a ‘conspiracy theorist’ – he is a futurology theorist, and he is the very best. Like all the other great ones, he is certain that the United States will soon experience a far more brutal collapse than what occurred in the Soviet Union. This profoundly disturbs, and frankly frightens me. But what it means for me is that everything I write about election theory is for some time in the future, and I surely will not be present then to witness the outcomes.
One of my previous comments was much too abrasive and I apologize for it. Some people here are less than kindly at times, and it grates on me. I suffer from a terrible affliction which makes it very painful to use the keyboard. So writing these things is not at all easy for me.
It helps to have hope for some better future, eventually. So I will try to do more with my Community Survival blog.
I believe most electologists use “honest” as in “true” or “not lying”, as opposed to “wrong” or “not ethical” (which is what rectitude refers to). Honest voting by definition is voting accordingly to what your true preferences are.
Relational honesty in open dealings is a great virtue. Fetishistic (pseudo) honesty in the voting booth is a vain ritual that ultimately results in total disenfranchisement.
Thank you for respecting the desire for us to keep this forum on topic rkjoyce. We hope for any election science voting discussions you continue to return to the Election Science forum.