Aaron and I have shaken hands, he's been around for dinner and we've polished off a good red. He drinks like a fish btw.

Now on to the issue/s at hand.

P: Stating that all SMP threads should be formed in terms of PPPC is unnecessarily limiting and that useful and complex threads can (at times) be commenced with an honest and open question.

“Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.” ― Voltaire

C: Provided the question is engaging it should not be frowned upon as a thread starter in SMP.

It seemed like a good place to come and ask a question. The cries of dismay that I may be idle pondering or speculating seemed rather odd tbh. To have an actual argument, I'd need to form an opinion. To have that opinion matter, I'd need to understand the question considerably better than I did at the start of this thread. Chicken, egg.

But you've asked for an opinion, and in among picking up sticks and stones and throwing them back at Aaron, I think I've actually formed an opinion on this topic that might amount to more than idle pondering. I don't profess that this was my opinion at the start of this thread, but that's precisely my point (above). Questions might lead to better opinions.

So here's oldsilver having an actual opinion.

P1: In the future we will record and count votes via some computerized means.

It wasn't too long ago that the idea of purchasing product on the internet was inconceivable. Now it's commonplace. Given the cost savings, accuracy and instant results, the capture and tabulation of votes via some (initially electoral booth, then online) application is inevitable. It may take years, but it will happen and it will be guaranteed secure. Security is not the issue.

P2: The proven savings in election costs will be extended to invite the voter to update personal details at the same time as voting. "Do you need to change your place of residence, have you changed your marital status in the past four years" a little more data at every election.

P3: The voting process and census process will eventually be combined. Governments govern better if they know their electorate better. Computers make that easy. Let's get the census data each election. So much more convenient for the voter. Such taxes saved. "Are you still a Klingon..?"

P4: Once census and vote data is gathered via the same application this data will be combined. Though individual anonymity will be retained, parties and candidates can drill down into relationships between vote and demographic data. Supermarkets will lose their data-miners to government and supermarket shelves will be less optimally stocked as we run endless statistical analysis on the correlation between these votes and that demographic.

P5: Some of the data mining exercises will involve vote weighting by particular demographic information. 'Filling in the gaps' of non-voters by re-weighting the votes of people who fit the same precise demographic to estimate a compulsory vote. Disqualifying some votes based on 'anomalies' and 'errors'. Finding a fairer representation of the whole country's intention than ballot papers can possibly provide.

P6: It will actually happen. Votes will be weighted and adjusted to provide a fairer, more representative and more rational election outcome.

C: We'd better decide what 'fairer', 'more representative' and 'rational' means.

To the question of whether a competency test would change the outcome of the election I think the answer is clearly yes, depending on the test. And I think my post speaks to that question as well as the natural follow up question of whether that would be a good thing.

PairTheBoard

[My bold]

See link below. By the U.S. constitution a census is taken every 10 years only. So an amendment to the constitution would have to be passed to establish the above. Also the information below clears up what may have been a misstatement made earlier in this thread.


Article_1_Section_2, US Constitution

As to the part I bolded: This requires some evidence. My premise is that governments/politicians, in general, are better at manipulating their constituents the better they know them. It is wrong to assume, as you do, that it will lead automatically to a better outcome.

Do you want someone that doesnt know where Afghanistan or Syria are or what is climate change or if the age of earth is older than 10000 years or more or less what the population of the country is and the planet to have the same weight as yourself in an election (and of course add to that all kinds of local measures that they have no idea what they decide and they flip coins or listen to their party line how to vote no questions asked) ?

I sure hope not if it was possible and any defense of the equality here is impossible without violating the very reasons we like democracy (a weak voting population that can be manipulated based on ridiculously poor knowledge of important topics that determine the direction of the country is the best friend of an effective oligarchy that will rise under the illusion of democracy assisted by money and media that are controlled by few individuals).

I would prefer if that guy had 0.5 and you had 1 or better.

Also i am completely happy with me scoring also 0.5 because i didnt educate myself on local issues voted this time around if asked to vote on them and i still wanted to vote for some irrational reason (or if it was compulsory to vote as it is in many countries). I am not trying to put myself somewhere i dont belong as a responsible citizen. Let me work on it and then i will be 1 also.

I would then do my best to bring that person (and myself) as a state up to passing the test as my priority educating all those that scored low on basic knowledge that is important in making decisions that affect eg the direction of the country's military, foreign policies, energy policies , environment, clean water , sustainable agriculture and all kinds of other things.


It is unethical to be deciding some of the most important things of our future with uneducated and irresponsible individuals. Especially since we will be constantly doing our best to bring all to 1.

And that 1 is not some stupid pc conformity level of alliance to some narrow political viewpoint like a dictatorship test of the faith of the citizens to the leaders or status quo. No this is about basic fundamental indisputable knowledge topics that are important in making decisions and choosing who will handle them in office in today's complex world that is no longer a small town where all know each other and the major issues are not that difficult to understand.


PS: Before we get into any practical issues of course i am aware any such proposals (that vote weight is only a tiny part of) would be voted by supreme court or others before them as unconstitutional etc. But never forget that the founding fathers that created that Constitution had also to make hard novel choices (and still left African Americans and others out) and innovate at some point and we are no different in principle if the times demand it and they do. There is such a thing as amendment too as our world demands more complexity or responsibility.

Do you know what "P" stands for and what "C" stands for in this structure? I don't see how your C follows from the Ps.

Your response to my post was not responsive to my post.


PairTheBoard

Why, i asked you a question. Are you happy with people that are easily manipulated because of lack of fundamental knowledge of current topics having the same vote weight as a person that has invested time to be aware of what is happening around them in their world? Isnt it harder to take democracy to an effective oligarchy if the voters are better educated about current problems/issues and what they vote for? What is asked in these tests is very basic that most kids at school would know anyway at age 17-18.

Is a world where we weigh their vote and then make an effort to bring it to 1 anyway a worse elections result world? You think a person that thinks we never went to the moon or that earth is flat is making the world better when there is a decision with an equal weight?

What does local issues and subcultures have to do with the above? Local issues will be also part of the test if they vote on them. When you vote for a president you vote for the direction the country will take. You need to know what are the major issues the president will face. It affects your local issues as well. I am not asking you to know what is going on in Maine when you vote in California. This is not a test on cultural aspects of any kind.

I'm sorry, is Queen Victoria still on the throne?

Actually, there is one competency test that does make sense. When most laws are passed or signed, or foreign policy is made, there are a relatively few people whose vote carries all the voting weight. The competency test they passed to be awarded that weight was getting elected. It's called representative democracy.


PairTheBoard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy (the first democracy in history)


"Before the first attempt at democratic government, Athens was ruled by a series of archons or chief magistrates, and the Areopagus, made up of ex-archons. The members of these institutions were generally aristocrats, who ruled the polis for their own advantage. In 621 BC Draco codified a set of "notoriously harsh" laws that were "a clear expression of the power of the aristocracy over everybody else." This did not stop the aristocratic families feuding amongst themselves to obtain as much power as possible.[5]

Therefore, by the 6th century BC, the majority of Athenians "had been 'enslaved' to the rich", and they called upon Plato's ancestor Solon, premier archon at the time, to liberate them and halt the feuding of the aristocracy. However, the "enfranchisement of the local laboring classes was succeeded by the development of chattel slavery, the enslavement of, in large part, foreigners."[6]

Solon, the mediator, reshaped the city "by absorbing the traditional aristocracy in a definition of citizenship which allotted a political function to every free resident of Attica. Athenians were not slaves but citizens, with the right, at the very least, to participate in the meetings of the assembly." Under these reforms, the position of archon "was opened to all with certain property qualifications, and a Boule, a rival council of 400, was set up. The Areopagus, nevertheless, retained 'guardianship of the laws'".[7] A major contribution to democracy was Solon's setting up of an Ecclesia or Assembly, which was open to all male citizens. However, "one must bear in mind that its agenda was apparently set entirely by the Council of 400", "consisting of 100 members from each of the four tribes", that had taken "over many of the powers which the Areopagos had previously exercised."


Never forget why democracy began in the first place. The real question is if we simply want to go back there gradually and still call it Democracy. I let you decide what happens when Musk owns Mars or Google owns Venus etc.



Time to wake up maybe to the fact that the system is already weighted but not in the best manner. It is easily bought by those that can manipulate millions of clueless weak people into a direction of voting that has consequences they are unable to understand. We do not have a democracy if you can essentially buy a better campaign and control with media the perception of the population that is vulnerable.

This system can only be liberated by giving back the power to those that are responsible and care for their world. And that should be all people (or most people anyway). If it is not then it is their problem to get rational about it. Otherwise we are digging a grave for the future generations with the ineptness we have the audacity to call Democracy today, unable to remember precisely why Democracy is important.

Democracy in present condition of the world can only work if the state cares for the people (mostly ethical politicians and state functions) and the people care for the state and prove responsible when they are voting and deciding the future. Otherwise give all the same weight (as it is now on paper but not in reality) but block any individual usage of money and any private media from controlling public opinion or funding campaigns.

Is it too hard to understand that when you do not really have a proper choice of candidates because the system is managing in a dirty manner who is allowed to get there, you can scream all you want that your votes count the same for all but you are actually voting in a restricted range of options among whatever the few like you to vote on and not all that you would possible deserve to be able to vote about to really impact your future democratically.

If you want to write a C that does follow from my Ps be my guest, but i'm not going to defend that post too strongly. Was getting my head around Ps and Cs.

What I want is for you to keep your hands off of my vote. I don't want you deciding what matters to me. You can't know what matters to me like I know what matters to me and I want the right to express what matters to me with my vote. Take it away and I assure you there will be hell to pay.

PairTheBoard

I don't have a good C for you. I find the Ps to be not sufficiently well connected and not sufficiently well justified for me to feel comfortable with the chain of reasoning.

It feels like you're trying to use data about a person to infer what their preferences are, and use that inference to replace the act of a person actually just stating their preferences. I find that to be a bit of a slippery slope with regards to a democracy.

But if you're not actually interested in a democracy, then there could be some way to support such a system.

Sorry its not me deciding what matters to you. You decide that with your vote and life and the corruption of the current system. The system decides what you vote on and you are delusional (but i know you are not of course just play that way now) if you think you are able to vote on the true spectrum of choices that you should be able to vote if this was a free system (as free as you want to fight to death to keep it but ignore how enslaved it is already).

Since when it is a freedom worth fighting for the lack of knowledge that earth is older than 10000 years or that in order to vote for people that want to fight wars out there you need to know where the wars are taking place or sorry 50% score here if clueless.

We already have decided what is important for you because we have laws. It is important that a doctor treats you if you are sick not a charlatan. Oh but its ok if it is a charlatan deciding about all other more important things including medicine, war, peace, energy, environment, etc.

I didnt ask you to tell me if you like capitalism or socialism or anarchy or if you are Christian or Jewish or Atheist. This is not a test of character or culture etc.

I didnt ask you to vote against or for polluting environment. All i asked you is if you know what eg pollutes environment.


I dont see where your reason is against qualifying a weight for all people voting based on what the hell they know about basic things that matter in a declared way to the candidates according to their own statements.

By definition what matters to you is what the choices you have have declared matters to them. So you are not exactly free to decide with your vote what matters to you, only what is offered to you as choices. And we are here at this predicament because idiots have been manipulated to vote corrupt politicians for decades to create a rigged system over time that doesnt offer true free choice. So the freedom is already taken from you by someone else, not me the system asking you if you know what on earth is going on all around you. It was taken precisely by you and I not knowing what is going on around us long ago for decades.

Obviously this is a proposed new system and whoever doesnt like it is free to not join. Plus citizens can vote the test out if they dont like it.

What is a given is that current system cannot survive long without massive collapse everywhere under the problems that the "free" "idiot" people didnt want to have dozens of experts from all parties that composed the questions tell them implicitly they are important.

I find that a decent proxy for a person's preferences are that person's stated preferences.

They might not be correct about their preferences, but even with a decent knowledge of behavioral economics/psychology, the best available proxy for any individual preference is their stated preference.

(But, like everyone, I'd prefer it if you just let me make your political decisions for you)

I believe that, other than adding a bit about the state of the current science, we are in agreement.

I think they know the constituents quite fine by seeing the votes.

Benevolent dictator would be best, but that is an impossibility.

I am not an impossibility. What is an impossibility is getting a bar built on the moon without paying taxes.

As to the first quip; it reminded me of Ralph Nader. Rudders go on the stern of a boat, not the bow. Ralph always was a bad engineer.

New proposed space tax haven law. If you create an operation outside earth that benefits mankind in a meaningful manner you owe no taxes on profit.

In this case the Zeno bar and grill on the moon would offer a refuge to all the hard working scientists and technicians mining lunar regolith for He3 on behalf of the fusion industry.

Yeah, I choked. I admit it. It was late. Was actually quite annoyed I'd posted it when I re-read this morning. Que sera.

The point I should have made is much simpler:

P1: online/computerised voting may make it impossible to vote informally
P2: the people who historically have voted informally in the past have a lower IQ than those who have voted formally (purely anecdotal, I have no evidence, seems reasonable)
C: votes from people with a lower IQ will carry a higher weight in deciding the result

Probably the exact opposite of what we need. Or alternatively, and more contentiously:

P1: online/computerised voting may make it impossible to vote informally
P2: the people who historically have voted informally in the past have a lower IQ than those who have voted formally (purely anecdotal, I have no evidence, seems reasonable)
P3: votes from people with a lower IQ will carry a higher weight in deciding the result
C: we should decrease the weight of voters with low IQs to restore the balance

But that wouldn't be my actual opinion. I'm simply being argumentative.

I nearly completely disagree with the notion, but high school diploma voting requirement popped in my head to be openly viewed.

The emphasis on a tremendous responsibility to provide a modern quality education for everyone, rather than a drive to control who votes is the angle I like about the proposition.

Is it possible to influence smart people not to vote? Well yes. May be a sort of informal intelligence test, as is it really that smart to be easily persuadable to give up your vote in such a wild information environment as we have?

I may find some love for age adjusted voting given recent events

Not the tie-dyed, flower power, universal peace and acid generation? They're not at heart really a bunch of backwardass-looking nationalists. Ed Sullivan was right about those ****ers. They should be less than 0.5.

Grunching here:

There is an old (first I heard of it was in Mill's Principles of Political Economy) voting system that is finally staring to gain popularity.

Single transferable vote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

As an aside, precisely why voting should be compulsory and why non-compulsory voting is a particular and at times pernicious form of weighting: http://beta.theage.com.au/world/youn...27-gptat5.html