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 obvious, the mundane and the consequences of the last round of
*solutions* (and I don't discount the possibility... ) *how* do we (WE,
the entire global multi-cultural population of humans and any other
sentients we recognize... Cetaceans, Aliens-among-us, whatever) quit the
nonsense we have come to embrace as our birthright (various forms of
arrogant ethno-culturo-centrism, etc.) and truly begin to engage in
*enlightened self-interest*?
A phrase like "Enlightened Self Interest" is diabolically hard to
realize... I've been seeking it personally for most of my self-aware
life and not only do I have huge questions about my own success, I find
few of those who claim to have succeeded to be further from it than
those who are not even actively seeking it!
As I remember the line from the movie (after Tom Wolf's novel) "Bonfire
of the Vanities": "JUST GO HOME AND BE GOOD PEOPLE!". If only it were
as easy to do as to say...
- Steve
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.
============================================================
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
