[FRIAM] Curmudgeons Unite!

[glen∉ℂ]

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?