[FRIAM] Ranked Choice Voting app

[cody dooderson]

I think that ranked choice is the best bet to escape from the horrible two
party system. That being said there is not much insentive for the GOP or
the DNC to adopt what could be enable competition.  My friend Greg once
said both parties are basically just advertising firms, and I still believe
it.
Also the idea of voting from a personal computer or phone really interests
me. If someone could figure out how to overcome it's flaws it would be
awesome. From what I understand the issues are, correct me if I'm wrong,
* Anonymity while still providing some sort of record so one can verify
that the vote was cast correctly. Equivalent to a paper ballot. There must
be some math/ encryption trick for this.
* How to verify that the person voting is who they say they are.


On Mon, May 4, 2020, 10:31 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, the usual caveats apply. I really have no idea what I'm talking
> about. But that's never stopped me before.
>
> My intuition is given unlimited campaign funding (as free speech), really
> really long campaign seasons, and influence ops (ala Russia), 1st past the
> post 2 party systems foment false dichotomy and hyper-partisanship. I'm a
> big fan of dialectic (which I regard as installing false dichotomies -- or
> falsely disjoint sets for more than 2 positions -- for the sake of
> argument). But everything in moderation. When a (false) dichotomy is taken
> seriously, it loses its rhetorical power.
>
> IRV and RCV seem to push people toward mediocrity. Of course, I'm no fan
> of popular music (or popular novels, or popular TV shows, etc.). But if
> every time I turned on the radio they were playing extreme noise, Yanni, or
> black metal, I'd be similarly Disturbed (ha! get it?).
>
> So, I see IRV and RCV as a potential solution to finding compromise in our
> elections instead of electing people by hyper-partisan elections, then
> expecting them to do all the compromising after they're in the new
> position. My criticisms of it would obtain after a few political cycles
> when *all* we get are the Bidens/Clintons/Bushes and the AOCs/Yangs/Bernies
> have no chance. It disgusts me to think a reasonable political strategy is
> "play to the middle". But at this point, I think we need a little of it.
> How can we mitigate against it later, though? I have no idea.
>
> Maybe there's some efficacy in slicing out types of elections (which I've
> already tried to do by saying "IRV and RCV", recognizing they're not quite
> synonymous). Maybe Congress needs IRV, whereas the Executive needs 1st past
> the post? Or maybe the House needs 1st-past but the Senate needs IRV and
> the Executive needs RCV (and the top 2 get P and VP)? I don't know. But
> sometimes, a little mediocrity helps us identify where our tastes really do
> and don't diverge.
>
> On 5/4/20 9:00 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> >> https://rankit.vote/
> >>
> > thanks for bringing the topic up again.   I know you have made (mildly?
> > obliquely?) disparaging comments about ranked-choice voting before.
> > Rather than my trying to summarize (or impute) your real intention,
> > maybe you could comment on how you think ranked choice voting fits into
> > the bigger picture?
>
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
> .... . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200504/057507dc/attachment.html>