[FRIAM] labels

Sat Oct 10 02:05:30 EDT 2020

this is a bit old (2003?) and limited, but someone's attempt at doing
this analysis... 

http://politics.beasts.org/scripts/eigenvectors

On 10/10/20 12:02 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
>
>
>
>> It is the first principal component..
>
> Agreed, but is that a feature of our winner-takes-all voting system?  
> Do we *like* having our lives/livelihood reduced to such?  Do we have
> a choice in letting this projection of a "properly complex
> life/value-system" onto a pair of polarized political parties?
>
>
>>
>>> On Oct 9, 2020, at 8:40 PM, Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> I agree that the illusion of there being only the single axis of
>>> Left/Right is a travesty.  
>>>
>>> I also intuit that my own preferences for ranked-choice-voting to
>>> *allow in* more dimensions may be naive in some way I don't fully
>>> apprehend.
>>>
>>> I'd love for you (and others) here to explore the paradoxes and
>>> inconsistencies implied in all of this.
>>>
>>> On 10/9/20 9:18 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
>>>> --- reconfigure (expand) it from 9 to 15 but
>>>> *balance* the Left/Right ideology (I think he proposed 5/5) and
>>>> then  ---------
>>>>
>>>> Note that one thing both parties agree on is that we should
>>>> conceive politics as utterly and completely a choice between the
>>>> two of them. God forbid that we conceive of judges using any other
>>>> dimensions. In fact, let's enshrine it in law that we must forever
>>>> focus on exactly whether we have a "balance" of "left" and "right".
>>>> Ugh!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 4:48 PM Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com
>>>> <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Ha!  I refer to the last bit as "ok fine, TWIST my drinking
>>>>     arm!" when
>>>>     someone offers to buy me one...   the only one to twists my
>>>>     drinking arm
>>>>     this last six months has been Mary... and Maybe Stephen and his
>>>>     circle
>>>>     on "ZoomGrappaNight".
>>>>
>>>>     I don't like the language around "packing the court".   I don't
>>>>     think
>>>>     "reconfiguring the court" is the same as "packing the court".  
>>>>     Clearly,
>>>>     the (not so) loyal opposition to the Dems *would* pack the
>>>>     court...  add
>>>>     6 more justices and make sure they are ALL conservative
>>>>     leaners.   Pete
>>>>     Buttegeig was the first to speak of this in my earshot, and HIS
>>>>     version
>>>>     sounded pretty reasonable...   reconfigure (expand) it from 9
>>>>     to 15 but
>>>>     *balance* the Left/Right ideology (I think he proposed 5/5) and
>>>>     then
>>>>     leave it to the Justices themselves to fill the remaining 5
>>>>     (through
>>>>     some arcane process?).    What the Republicans have been
>>>>     building up to
>>>>     for decades is "packing the courts".   
>>>>
>>>>     Checks and balances are tricky, as is depending on social norms and
>>>>     standards, but I think it might be "as good as it gets", at
>>>>     least for
>>>>     the time being.
>>>>
>>>>     - Steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     On 10/8/20 1:36 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
>>>>     > Ha! That was the essence of one of the 538 panel member's
>>>>     phrasing suggestion for Kamala Harris in response to Pence's
>>>>     question about packing SCOTUS. The elaborated version was:
>>>>     "Because confirming Barrett, NOW, is such a horribly wrong
>>>>     thing to do, we have no choice BUT to pack the court." ... I.e.
>>>>     now look what you made me do. That was my dad's favorite phrase
>>>>     to justify whatever abuse he chose to mete out that day. He
>>>>     once ran over my bicycle with his truck. I *made* him run over
>>>>     my bike because I left it laying in the driveway. It's a
>>>>     running joke with my fellow drinkers who *regularly* FORCE me
>>>>     to drink more than I should. There is no free will. I live to
>>>>     serve.
>>>>     >
>>>>     > On 10/8/20 11:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>>>     >> Look what you made me do,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>>>>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>>     Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>>>     <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
>>>>     un/subscribe
>>>>     http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>>     <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/
>>>>     <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>>>> 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/ 
>>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>>> 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/
>>
>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>> 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/ 
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> 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/ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20201010/7adfd4ad/attachment-0001.html>