Re mismatched expectations with voting and representation versus liberal use of
metaphor: If you agree that too much focus on metaphor *is* too much focus on
the tool, then you should agree that a focus on digital voting is treating the
symptom, not the cause. And that implies this effort of Jon's is at best
premature, at worst harmful distraction.
Re ensemble studies: I agree but would take it a notch further. One of the
flaws in most digital voting ideas is the homogenization of the tool set.
Similar to the first-past-the-post issue, which leads to exploitability, is the
embedding of fragility through critical infrastructure. We see this a lot with
the Def Con red teaming ... or in old school terms, the hegemony of Windows. We
see it in the immune system and work like Forrest's, as well as ecology. We
also see it in Facebook and other social media's tendency to exacerbate
extremism. Homogeneity causes fragility. One inference we can make is that the
popular vote, in first-past-the-post systems, is already fragile under our
diverse cumulative counting systems. Homogenize that counting system and you'll
make it even more fragile. I.e. Jon's agenda increases exploitability and
fragility.
Re refactoring "Isn't this what refactoring is about?": Refactoring (usually)
increases fragility, because it homes in on a small set of aspects or use cases. It's
akin to database normalization. My point was that the more cruft you insert between the
voter and representative, the more *gamable* the system. The *diversity* (heterogeneity,
uncertainty, variation, entropy) of the paths/aspects through the systems, however, does
increase robustness. So, there's a qualitative difference between *what type* of
technology you insert.
The different ensemble studies in absentee voting, vote integrity methods, etc.
provide different exploits a gamer might choose. And if we implement Jon's
agenda of *nationalizing*, unifying, a vote counting method, then we are
(essentially) refactoring the process, normalizing the process, homing in on a
single, homogenous, way of doing things. In either case, diverse tech or
normalized tech, you increase exploitability. In the former, you lower
fragility. In the latter, you increase fragility.
Re gamability of parliamentary systems: Yes, I agree. They can be gamed, but I
think they're more robust against simple gaming tricks like what
Trump/Bannon/Kushner/Russia pulled off in 2016, which consists primarily of
exploiting our first-past-the-post Dem/Rep, Lib/Con, Us/Them dichotomies. The
UK is a more interesting example with Brexit and the spoofing/lying they had to
do to get that to happen. What I'd like to see Biden do is start an initiative
to plug the holes Trump et al exploited. But I doubt it'll happen. We're
hoodwinked into thinking about the tools and won't be able to think about the
deeper issues those tools are meant to help with.
Re provoking violence: Agreed again. I'm a big fan of Frantz Fannon. But that's
as far as I go toward political violence. If you *must* engage in it for some
sort of catharsis, then we should all tolerate it as best we can. But if you
engage in it simply because of the rush/giggles it provides, then you're part
of the problem.
On 8/22/20 11:48 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
I do agree on this, even though (because) I resemble that
description... "when you are a navel gazer, everything looks like lint"?
Yes, this seems to be the "Hard Problem" of real-world "collective *",
and in fact I don't think studying the maps is enough in the sense that
I believe we need to *generate* a lot of these maps *in the real world*
which is why I'm a fan of the seeming disorder, for example, in global
(and even national) pandemic response. It is the real-world
realization of *ensemble studies* crossed with the ideal of the
"halting problem"? The only (or reasonably efficient) way to answer
the problem of "Life the Universe and Everything" is to let it play out,
even if we understand in advance that the Eigenvalue is '42'.
I agree with the general sentiment. Patches on top of patches on top of
patches does not yield a more robust system... at best, it circumvents
the last or most egregious breach/abuse. This is what refactoring is
all about? In a more general sense, what paradigm shifts are all
about.
> Having recently (re)watched Turn; Washington's Spies and John Adams, and
reading "Team of Rivals" (Goodwin's biography of Lincoln starting
decades before his presidency and following his frienemies and
coopetitors through the time) with Mary, I have a new appreciation for
how hard those people worked *and* how flawed many of them were, and how
flawed the processes involved. It both makes me much more appreciative
of the result and simultaneously understand how "Sacred" it isn't. My
friends in UK and OZ would all tell me that *their* Parliamentary System
is/has-been gamed badly also. But I find the accomodation of factions
and "wandering" among various semi-stable (e.g Lagrange) points a step
above.
I believe that Trump's significant contribution has been to show us how
gamed and gameable our current system has become. He said he was going
to "drain the swamps and eject the alligators", I claim he simply took
control of the levies and gates, thus "managing the swamps", introduced
his own nest of Crocodiles (who he seems not to even recognize when they
get hauled out of the swamp and into court/prison) and then presided
over the ever-more-toxic-miasmic-and-dangerous result as the Lord of the
Flies that he is.
I don't think any of this is actually a *good
idea* and apparently most others feel the same, else we *would* see more
of it?
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
