Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?
Owen Densmore wrote at 03/18/2012 12:02 PM: Larry Lessig apparently has two interesting views on AE 1 - Anonymous contributions: He's not bothered by them, mainly because not even the AE candidates will know who they are, thus not having power over the candidate. Re: Lessig's anonymity argument. I found this comment interesting: http://www.johnlumea.com/2012/03/the-shadow-super-pac-of-centrism.html But, for some observers, it is not down at the granular, personal level of quid pro quo that the opportunity and the risk for corruption is most evident at Americans Elect. Rather, it is up at the systemic, process level — the level that, in order to see what's going on, requires a wider-angle lens that Lessig seems unwilling to use. As I see it, this is the same extent of the disagreement between Steven Aftergood of Secrecy News and Wikileaks. They're both on the same side, but Aftergood is willing to accept a little secrecy (or bureaucratic viscosity in the flow of information) in the name of rationality whereas Wikileaks identifies secrecy itself as part of the problem. I happen to come down on the open side in both arguments. I.e. I don't buy Lessig's argument at all. There is only anonymity for the individuals, not for the _corporation_ we call Americans Elect (which has an executive team and a board of directors with powers beyond those of the delegates). In more positive news: https://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2012/03/gao_expands.html A classified GAO review of FBI counterterrorism programs has been completed, and a GAO investigation of the role of contractors in intelligence is in progress. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?
Larry Lessig apparently has two interesting views on AE 1 - Anonymous contributions: He's not bothered by them, mainly because not even the AE candidates will know who they are, thus not having power over the candidate. 2 - Occupy AE: If enough of us jump on AE, it could swing it in a favorable direction. Just google to find more. What bothers me most is that many of the initial popular supporters of AE have not said much lately: Tom Friedman for one. -- Owen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?
I don't think it would help me. An e-mail directly to me might make me feel like one of the cool kids. But my main concern is the sense that Americans Elect is a corporation, not a democratic process. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for corporations to the right purpose and context. But AECorp seems a bit shadowy to me. If I were pressed to be concrete about my feelings, I'd have to say that it's just too difficult to investigate the clique members involved. And when I do find some new piece of data about them, it's nefarious ... like the identities of the largest funders and the evolution from Unity08. I just don't get the feeling AECorp has my best interests in mind. Not that that's a big deal. The Demopublicans don't have my best interests in mind, either. But at least they admit that they're political parties, whose sole purpose is to help politicians get (and stay) elected as long as they tow the party line. That seems more authentic than a shadowy corporation that claims it's not a party, funded mostly in secret by long-term behind-the-scenes political players. These data should be prominent on their website, not hidden in PDFs I have to hunt for. And even if they privately sent _me_ all that data and it was all above board, I would still wonder why it wasn't on the website so anyone could see it immediately. Gillian Densmore wrote at 03/15/2012 06:42 PM: That might help. I know I used to get emails from them mostly about what to make there logo to look like. Part of the problem at least on my end is lac of transperency and comunication. Maybe I needed to somehow know I needed to watch the forums or something. Even then discus ala FRIAM would(V) helped at least in my case. On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Greg Sonnenfeld gsonn...@gmail.com mailto:gsonn...@gmail.com wrote: If you want I could ask the regional coordinator to give you guys an e-mail so you could discuss your concerns. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?
This article sums up my feelings on the subject: http://www.cnbc.com/id/46692982 --Doug On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: I don't think it would help me. An e-mail directly to me might make me feel like one of the cool kids. But my main concern is the sense that Americans Elect is a corporation, not a democratic process. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for corporations to the right purpose and context. But AECorp seems a bit shadowy to me. If I were pressed to be concrete about my feelings, I'd have to say that it's just too difficult to investigate the clique members involved. And when I do find some new piece of data about them, it's nefarious ... like the identities of the largest funders and the evolution from Unity08. I just don't get the feeling AECorp has my best interests in mind. Not that that's a big deal. The Demopublicans don't have my best interests in mind, either. But at least they admit that they're political parties, whose sole purpose is to help politicians get (and stay) elected as long as they tow the party line. That seems more authentic than a shadowy corporation that claims it's not a party, funded mostly in secret by long-term behind-the-scenes political players. These data should be prominent on their website, not hidden in PDFs I have to hunt for. And even if they privately sent _me_ all that data and it was all above board, I would still wonder why it wasn't on the website so anyone could see it immediately. Gillian Densmore wrote at 03/15/2012 06:42 PM: That might help. I know I used to get emails from them mostly about what to make there logo to look like. Part of the problem at least on my end is lac of transperency and comunication. Maybe I needed to somehow know I needed to watch the forums or something. Even then discus ala FRIAM would(V) helped at least in my case. On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Greg Sonnenfeld gsonn...@gmail.com mailto:gsonn...@gmail.com wrote: If you want I could ask the regional coordinator to give you guys an e-mail so you could discuss your concerns. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?
Bad as things are, now, I fear that a third party, by any name, would further divide the non crazy vote. N From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:02 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect? This article sums up my feelings on the subject: http://www.cnbc.com/id/46692982 --Doug On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: I don't think it would help me. An e-mail directly to me might make me feel like one of the cool kids. But my main concern is the sense that Americans Elect is a corporation, not a democratic process. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for corporations to the right purpose and context. But AECorp seems a bit shadowy to me. If I were pressed to be concrete about my feelings, I'd have to say that it's just too difficult to investigate the clique members involved. And when I do find some new piece of data about them, it's nefarious ... like the identities of the largest funders and the evolution from Unity08. I just don't get the feeling AECorp has my best interests in mind. Not that that's a big deal. The Demopublicans don't have my best interests in mind, either. But at least they admit that they're political parties, whose sole purpose is to help politicians get (and stay) elected as long as they tow the party line. That seems more authentic than a shadowy corporation that claims it's not a party, funded mostly in secret by long-term behind-the-scenes political players. These data should be prominent on their website, not hidden in PDFs I have to hunt for. And even if they privately sent _me_ all that data and it was all above board, I would still wonder why it wasn't on the website so anyone could see it immediately. Gillian Densmore wrote at 03/15/2012 06:42 PM: That might help. I know I used to get emails from them mostly about what to make there logo to look like. Part of the problem at least on my end is lac of transperency and comunication. Maybe I needed to somehow know I needed to watch the forums or something. Even then discus ala FRIAM would(V) helped at least in my case. On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Greg Sonnenfeld gsonn...@gmail.com mailto:gsonn...@gmail.com wrote: If you want I could ask the regional coordinator to give you guys an e-mail so you could discuss your concerns. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?
I share your (various) doubts about the people behind the AE process, but I *do* welcome the concept of a more open and engaged and egalitarian process for supporting existing politicians who are not insiders at the big show (e.g. Kucenich, Gary Johnson) and for maybe finding/exposing/supporting people who *don't* already play in politics (or at least not nationally). I'm not particulary deluded (or misiguided?) by the AE folks into believing they have my best interests at heart... I suspect they recognized that this was an inevitable development and wanted to be in control of whatever part of it they could. That alone is a little nefarious. But to be honest, the important question is what *would* be a better process/circumstance for all of this? Who *could* foster/muster something like this. I'd be equally (differently) scared if it were GoogleZon doing it... like Vote.Google.com ? Maybe someone like EFF could do something less muddied by conventional money and politics? Certainly not FRIAM or TED or ???... It is an interesting experiment even if it is openly flawed in some (not so?) obvious ways... I'm less interested in believing this will lead to first-order useful/meaningful results for the next election than I am in understanding what this class of meddling can mean for our whole process. As for Doug's article.. I'm not very inclined to like anything I hear from big-money traders about politics, if just on principle. I think the concept that putting oneself (and career) on the line by going on the ballot and risk being voted out of the process by the process is interesting but probably both not very thought through and hyperbolic at the same time. I'm hoping that this election year brings some qualitatively new things, and ideally ones I am more impressed with than the 2000 and 2004 elections. The draw of 2000 and the *re-election* of Bush in 04 were both fairly big things in politics in my opinion (not ones I welcome, especially in retrospect, but big things nevertheless). I think our only viable option at this point is to give Obama 4 more years to unlimber the rest of his skills and experience now that he's had time to settle in, learn some ropes, lay some foundations. Maybe the public are tired of their obstructionist congresspeople and will elect some more who are interested in getting things done. Or maybe the divisiveness will continue and expose itself yet more? Meanwhile, 2016 is sure to be a hoot. I predict things will have changed as radically by then as we could wish, if not neccesarily in an appealing direction. - Steve This article sums up my feelings on the subject: http://www.cnbc.com/id/46692982 --Doug On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM, glen g...@ropella.name mailto:g...@ropella.name wrote: I don't think it would help me. An e-mail directly to me might make me feel like one of the cool kids. But my main concern is the sense that Americans Elect is a corporation, not a democratic process. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for corporations to the right purpose and context. But AECorp seems a bit shadowy to me. If I were pressed to be concrete about my feelings, I'd have to say that it's just too difficult to investigate the clique members involved. And when I do find some new piece of data about them, it's nefarious ... like the identities of the largest funders and the evolution from Unity08. I just don't get the feeling AECorp has my best interests in mind. Not that that's a big deal. The Demopublicans don't have my best interests in mind, either. But at least they admit that they're political parties, whose sole purpose is to help politicians get (and stay) elected as long as they tow the party line. That seems more authentic than a shadowy corporation that claims it's not a party, funded mostly in secret by long-term behind-the-scenes political players. These data should be prominent on their website, not hidden in PDFs I have to hunt for. And even if they privately sent _me_ all that data and it was all above board, I would still wonder why it wasn't on the website so anyone could see it immediately. Gillian Densmore wrote at 03/15/2012 06:42 PM: That might help. I know I used to get emails from them mostly about what to make there logo to look like. Part of the problem at least on my end is lac of transperency and comunication. Maybe I needed to somehow know I needed to watch the forums or something. Even then discus ala FRIAM would(V) helped at least in my case. On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Greg Sonnenfeld gsonn...@gmail.com mailto:gsonn...@gmail.com mailto:gsonn...@gmail.com mailto:gsonn...@gmail.com wrote: If you want I could ask the regional coordinator to give you guys an e-mail so you could discuss your
Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?
Steve Smith wrote at 03/16/2012 10:54 AM: But to be honest, the important question is what *would* be a better process/circumstance for all of this? Who *could* foster/muster something like this. I'd be equally (differently) scared if it were GoogleZon doing it... like Vote.Google.com ? Maybe someone like EFF could do something less muddied by conventional money and politics? Personally, I think the 2-party lock-in is ensured by winner-take-all competitions. If we could move to another voting system, we'd see more 3rd party viability and more multi-dimensional choices. That would even fix, to some extent, the money problem because more bins for the money implies more distributed money. I also think it would solve some of the vitriol problem. It would be more difficult to make ad hominem attacks if there are more people to attack. Even morons like me would be forced to discuss the issues more and the icons less ... again because there are more icons. It doesn't matter where a 3rd party or lone candidate comes from, as long as our elections are winner-take-all, there will always be only 2 viable parties. You can see this to some extent in the states who allocate their delegates by percentage, rather than maximum percentage. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?
I feer the only way to 'get things' done is to convert to a technocracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracyand possible a parimenatarian one at that-but short of that--yeah my issue with AECorp is it isn't transparent-not that the democracts/repubs are but that'd be a start if possible-i'm also a little wary of having to supply my social to be involved it's bad enough that the JC wants my social for virtualy everything. But yeah- what happend to the promise by AE to be a better process and be a direct election etc. oO ? On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com wrote: I share your (various) doubts about the people behind the AE process, but I *do* welcome the concept of a more open and engaged and egalitarian process for supporting existing politicians who are not insiders at the big show (e.g. Kucenich, Gary Johnson) and for maybe finding/exposing/supporting people who *don't* already play in politics (or at least not nationally). I'm not particulary deluded (or misiguided?) by the AE folks into believing they have my best interests at heart... I suspect they recognized that this was an inevitable development and wanted to be in control of whatever part of it they could. That alone is a little nefarious. But to be honest, the important question is what *would* be a better process/circumstance for all of this? Who *could* foster/muster something like this. I'd be equally (differently) scared if it were GoogleZon doing it... like Vote.Google.com ? Maybe someone like EFF could do something less muddied by conventional money and politics? Certainly not FRIAM or TED or ???... It is an interesting experiment even if it is openly flawed in some (not so?) obvious ways... I'm less interested in believing this will lead to first-order useful/meaningful results for the next election than I am in understanding what this class of meddling can mean for our whole process. As for Doug's article.. I'm not very inclined to like anything I hear from big-money traders about politics, if just on principle. I think the concept that putting oneself (and career) on the line by going on the ballot and risk being voted out of the process by the process is interesting but probably both not very thought through and hyperbolic at the same time. I'm hoping that this election year brings some qualitatively new things, and ideally ones I am more impressed with than the 2000 and 2004 elections. The draw of 2000 and the *re-election* of Bush in 04 were both fairly big things in politics in my opinion (not ones I welcome, especially in retrospect, but big things nevertheless). I think our only viable option at this point is to give Obama 4 more years to unlimber the rest of his skills and experience now that he's had time to settle in, learn some ropes, lay some foundations. Maybe the public are tired of their obstructionist congresspeople and will elect some more who are interested in getting things done. Or maybe the divisiveness will continue and expose itself yet more? Meanwhile, 2016 is sure to be a hoot. I predict things will have changed as radically by then as we could wish, if not neccesarily in an appealing direction. - Steve This article sums up my feelings on the subject: http://www.cnbc.com/id/46692982 --Doug On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: I don't think it would help me. An e-mail directly to me might make me feel like one of the cool kids. But my main concern is the sense that Americans Elect is a corporation, not a democratic process. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for corporations to the right purpose and context. But AECorp seems a bit shadowy to me. If I were pressed to be concrete about my feelings, I'd have to say that it's just too difficult to investigate the clique members involved. And when I do find some new piece of data about them, it's nefarious ... like the identities of the largest funders and the evolution from Unity08. I just don't get the feeling AECorp has my best interests in mind. Not that that's a big deal. The Demopublicans don't have my best interests in mind, either. But at least they admit that they're political parties, whose sole purpose is to help politicians get (and stay) elected as long as they tow the party line. That seems more authentic than a shadowy corporation that claims it's not a party, funded mostly in secret by long-term behind-the-scenes political players. These data should be prominent on their website, not hidden in PDFs I have to hunt for. And even if they privately sent _me_ all that data and it was all above board, I would still wonder why it wasn't on the website so anyone could see it immediately. Gillian Densmore wrote at 03/15/2012 06:42 PM: That might help. I know I used to get emails from them mostly about what to make there logo to look like. Part of the problem at least on my end is lac of
Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?
Glen - I agree that winner-take-all system highly reinforces a (superficially) polarized 2-party circumstance... Gil - I used to be pro-Technocracy, but as a Technologist myself, I don't trust/believe in my own peers any more than than I do the *rest* of the unwashed masses. While I find the *irrational* nature of many who are not trained/educated in *some* rational system difficult to communicate with, I am perhaps even *more* frustrated/disappointed with those whose education/training *includes* a good grounding in a rational system yet still manage to transgress against that perspective at the drop of a hat.I'm not *sure* technical literacy is necessary but it *is* definitely *not* sufficient! In fact many of the biggest boneheads I know have PhDs in science or engineering! The Fascists of Hitler's and Mussolini's regimes were significantly Technocratic, totally in love with the technology of the time (who brought us the Blitzkreig and the V2, etc. ?) I'm sure there is an apt quote, but my made up version for the moment is that as sad as it is to have a heart without a head, it is much sadder to have a head without a heart... All - The 2-party system and big money has certainly kept me in the silent minority camp... voting only in 76, 80, 00, 04, 06, 08, 10 .I didn't *like* (trust?) many if any of the candidates during my 20 year hiatus and it wasn't until 00 that I came to *dislike* anyone enough to try to vote against them. By 04 I was ready to raise both hands (cast multiple votes?) if that was what it took... to no avail. I'm not sure what the money problem is exactly. I do believe we have one, and I see it manifest itself in the huge amount of campaign advertising, including nasty mudslingery... but I am sure it also finances some much dirtier tricks as well. Obama's campaign having drawn out the long tail of campaign (lots and lots of small contributors) seems in principle to help, or at least be a good start.I'd like to believe that if he kept his campaigning this round to participating in debates, he'd do fine against the opposition as it has exposed itself to be fairly lame. *someone* would take it upon themselves to recycle the mud-slinging generated by the primary candidates against their ultimately least undesirable candidate. I'm sure there are folks here who like Romney or Gingritch or even Santorum... I frankly don't get it, but I know others who either *do* like them or at least resent/fear Obama Co enough to give it back to the same party that brought us the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/etc. crowd. I'm guessing this number come November will show itself to be somewhat less than 50% of the voting public. A landslide *for* a sitting President who has barely been able to wade halfway out of a half of the swamps he volunteered to drain is a strong vote *against* his opponents. I'm probably *most* interested in what we, the people can do... what is *our* (mis)play in this ongoing debacle? Yes, a change in voting system (away from winner-takes-all) is probably critical, but *we* probably need to make that happen... the powers that be have little or no incentive to do so. Yes, money translates to political power too easily and perhaps too invisibly... but how do we contribute to that? How do we undermine or find alternatives to that? Yes, our media amplifies and distorts signals and participates in (unhealthy) feedback loops and plays into the polarization and the big-money-influence problems.. But how do *we the people* help change that? My first line of defense, which I'm not always proud of, was reflected in my lack of voting for 20 years. don't encourage the bastards! was my refrain. But a softer and maybe more effective version is don't reinforce the divisive hyperbole and rhetoric. Sure it feels good to nail the whole problem in one swift blow of our hammer-like intellect (wit?), but does it actually help solve the problem? Is our hyperbolic solution du-jour actually *doable*? Is there a path from here to there, or is it just some Utopian fantasy we have contrived to match our equally Dystopian fears? Is there even a *there* there? (apologies to fans and haters of Gertrude Stein). Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one in the canoe who knows that when it is rocking wildly, the best thing you can do if you don't want it to tip is go low and to the center while everyone else is hanging wildly out to either side screaming at the others to quit tipping the boat!. It would be nice to get back to actually paddling and steering! I'm guardedly hopeful to hear Diamandis'/Kotler's Abundance message and while it does fit into the Technocratic or more Techno-Utopian scenarios I suppose it is only *one* ingredient in the recipe... If magically our technical systems catch up with themselves and quit just pushing forward a series of unintended consequences as they handle to
Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?
That might help. I know I used to get emails from them mostly about what to make there logo to look like. Part of the problem at least on my end is lac of transperency and comunication. Maybe I needed to somehow know I needed to watch the forums or something. Even then discus ala FRIAM would(V) helped at least in my case. On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Greg Sonnenfeld gsonn...@gmail.com wrote: If you want I could ask the regional coordinator to give you guys an e-mail so you could discuss your concerns. Greg Sonnenfeld “The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.” On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:44 PM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: I'm still waiting for them to say something interesting. I'm watching some candidates. I won't commit to sending them my social security number and birth date until I have evidence that they're credible. FYI, I enjoy this website re: americans elect: http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/category/americanselect/ Steve Smith wrote at 03/14/2012 03:08 PM: What is everyone (else's) current take on the Americans Elect at this point? I just took the time to (re)sign up and go through about 100 questions and then looked at the draft candidates and at the questions being put forth for debate by the candidates somewhere down the line. Overall I was much more impressed with the situation than I was in the past. The debate questions being put forward were hampered in quality by the source... the unwashed masses are going to come up with a lot of whackadoodle things, or if not whackadoodle ideas, whackadoodle expressions of perfectly good ideas. I tried voting on about 100 of the questions (some of the most popular, but mostly the most recent. It wasn't clear I was helping... I'm hoping the questions get rendered down more (but also well) as many questions were variations on each other. I wouldn't worry about their bad questions or money requests. Just ignore those until they are fixed and vote in the primary :P Greg Sonnenfeld “The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.” On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:17 PM, gleng...@ropella.name wrote: Steve Smith wrote circa 12-01-09 01:51 PM: Isn't this what Americans Elect (among other things) trying to address? After the initial flurry of discussion about this group, I've seen nothing else here. I was disturbed by certain things about them but as an alternative mechanism, maybe they are worth more attention? I still get e-mails from them asking for money. I've answered 223 of their stupidly dichotomous questions and voted on 20 of them. I've seen nothing from them but solicitations for money. I won't give them any money. I have way too many established charities knocking. At this point, I'm inclined to write them off. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?
What is everyone (else's) current take on the Americans Elect at this point? I just took the time to (re)sign up and go through about 100 questions and then looked at the draft candidates and at the questions being put forth for debate by the candidates somewhere down the line. Overall I was much more impressed with the situation than I was in the past. The debate questions being put forward were hampered in quality by the source... the unwashed masses are going to come up with a lot of whackadoodle things, or if not whackadoodle ideas, whackadoodle expressions of perfectly good ideas. I tried voting on about 100 of the questions (some of the most popular, but mostly the most recent. It wasn't clear I was helping... I'm hoping the questions get rendered down more (but also well) as many questions were variations on each other. I wouldn't worry about their bad questions or money requests. Just ignore those until they are fixed and vote in the primary :P Greg Sonnenfeld “The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.” On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:17 PM, gleng...@ropella.name wrote: Steve Smith wrote circa 12-01-09 01:51 PM: Isn't this what Americans Elect (among other things) trying to address? After the initial flurry of discussion about this group, I've seen nothing else here. I was disturbed by certain things about them but as an alternative mechanism, maybe they are worth more attention? I still get e-mails from them asking for money. I've answered 223 of their stupidly dichotomous questions and voted on 20 of them. I've seen nothing from them but solicitations for money. I won't give them any money. I have way too many established charities knocking. At this point, I'm inclined to write them off. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?
I'm still waiting for them to say something interesting. I'm watching some candidates. I won't commit to sending them my social security number and birth date until I have evidence that they're credible. FYI, I enjoy this website re: americans elect: http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/category/americanselect/ Steve Smith wrote at 03/14/2012 03:08 PM: What is everyone (else's) current take on the Americans Elect at this point? I just took the time to (re)sign up and go through about 100 questions and then looked at the draft candidates and at the questions being put forth for debate by the candidates somewhere down the line. Overall I was much more impressed with the situation than I was in the past. The debate questions being put forward were hampered in quality by the source... the unwashed masses are going to come up with a lot of whackadoodle things, or if not whackadoodle ideas, whackadoodle expressions of perfectly good ideas. I tried voting on about 100 of the questions (some of the most popular, but mostly the most recent. It wasn't clear I was helping... I'm hoping the questions get rendered down more (but also well) as many questions were variations on each other. I wouldn't worry about their bad questions or money requests. Just ignore those until they are fixed and vote in the primary :P Greg Sonnenfeld “The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.” On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:17 PM, gleng...@ropella.name wrote: Steve Smith wrote circa 12-01-09 01:51 PM: Isn't this what Americans Elect (among other things) trying to address? After the initial flurry of discussion about this group, I've seen nothing else here. I was disturbed by certain things about them but as an alternative mechanism, maybe they are worth more attention? I still get e-mails from them asking for money. I've answered 223 of their stupidly dichotomous questions and voted on 20 of them. I've seen nothing from them but solicitations for money. I won't give them any money. I have way too many established charities knocking. At this point, I'm inclined to write them off. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?
Steve Smith wrote circa 12-01-09 01:51 PM: Isn't this what Americans Elect (among other things) trying to address? After the initial flurry of discussion about this group, I've seen nothing else here. I was disturbed by certain things about them but as an alternative mechanism, maybe they are worth more attention? I still get e-mails from them asking for money. I've answered 223 of their stupidly dichotomous questions and voted on 20 of them. I've seen nothing from them but solicitations for money. I won't give them any money. I have way too many established charities knocking. At this point, I'm inclined to write them off. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?
I wouldn't worry about their bad questions or money requests. Just ignore those until they are fixed and vote in the primary :P Greg Sonnenfeld “The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.” On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:17 PM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: Steve Smith wrote circa 12-01-09 01:51 PM: Isn't this what Americans Elect (among other things) trying to address? After the initial flurry of discussion about this group, I've seen nothing else here. I was disturbed by certain things about them but as an alternative mechanism, maybe they are worth more attention? I still get e-mails from them asking for money. I've answered 223 of their stupidly dichotomous questions and voted on 20 of them. I've seen nothing from them but solicitations for money. I won't give them any money. I have way too many established charities knocking. At this point, I'm inclined to write them off. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
