[HN Gopher] Modeling suggests friendships may lead to lopsided e...
___________________________________________________________________
Modeling suggests friendships may lead to lopsided elections
Author : rustoo
Score : 45 points
Date : 2021-11-29 15:23 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (news.cornell.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.cornell.edu)
| literallyaduck wrote:
| Democracy is unrecoverable. Imagine for a moment that the
| employees of McDonald's get to vote for a CEO every four years.
|
| A bunch of employees get together and vote their friend Reggie
| in. Reggie doesn't do anything crazy, but his supporters now all
| are promoted to management, he signs a bunch of contracts to
| supply things from his brother in law and he takes the company
| jet to Thailand and never leaves.
|
| Reggie gets voted out and Sally gets voted in.
|
| The company is making a little less money but it is her turn and
| she throws out all of the Reggie followers in management and
| promotes the Sally followers to management, voids the contracts
| causing costly lawsuits and gives a bracelet for free McFlurries
| for life.
|
| She then mandates that Wendy's employees get a vote. She takes a
| flight to Thailand and stays for two terms thanks to the Wendy's
| vote.
|
| Dave III takes over and promises to heal the burger divide and
| promises that Wendy's employees votes will count double because
| they have been disenfranchised for years, he voids all Sally's
| contracts once again a costly move that almost bankrupts the
| company. He leaves her employees because of the Wendy's deal.
| With new brother in laws and new contracts signed, Dave rallys
| the voters and tells them he is going to protect their future by
| putting their pensions and retirement into the company's trust,
| and appoints his wife as trustee. They take the remaining money
| and retire in New Zealand.
|
| Every shift in power weakens the company. Every clean out and
| replacement of staff is a huge cost to the company.
|
| Common people can never exert enough influence to better their
| situation beyond short term nepotism.
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| I will make an'unacceptable' proposal.
|
| Tie voting to some citizen benefit(s).
|
| (Note that I am not defining any mechanism, and the dependencies
| themselves.)
|
| Prove my _core_ conjecture wrong (or right).
| techbio wrote:
| Sure it gets more people to vote, but for whom, and how are the
| benefits distributed, and by whom?
|
| Not proof, and I may not like the inevitable conclusion, but
| this would be immediately corrupted by the democracy it intends
| to improve, if not sooner.
| klyrs wrote:
| Not sure what your conjecture is, but it's illegal to not vote
| in Australia...
| nickff wrote:
| > _" Prove my core conjecture wrong (or right). "_
|
| What is your core conjecture? You seem to be presenting a
| proposal, not a conjecture.
|
| What is your objective? Improved voter participation? Resident
| engagement? Political discourse? Citizen informed-ness?
| dillondoyle wrote:
| There is also some research showing this 'wisdom' of crowds in
| polling that theorizes if you ask someone who they think will win
| - versus who they support - the result will be more accurate
| prediction [1]
|
| This article mentions "complacency" and "dejectedness" which are
| so sad to me and so prevalent among people under 40
|
| I work in politics and hear online: why vote it doesn't matter,
| all politicians are bought for corporate stooges there are no
| differences between R and D.
|
| There are valid critiques on these issues, but from my
| perspective this attitude is a cancer which benefits a
| conservative minority.
| deburo wrote:
| I don't know why you say conservative minority. I'd argue that
| it benefits whoever the majority is.
|
| In Quebec, Canada, it's the liberal party. A blend of
| progressives and conservatives, but it seems to me they are
| more progressive than not. Imagine voting for conservatives
| here during the federal elections, when you know that the
| province just doesn't like conversatives that much. They only
| have a chance when the liberals get the people very mad.
|
| In the USA, I think there're plenty of conservatives still, I
| wouldn't call them a minority.
| golemiprague wrote:
| Why it benefits a conservative "minority" and why it is
| problematic? If people don't vote to either side how does it
| benefit one side more than the other and even if it does why is
| it a problem? Some side win at the end anyway and since those
| people don't care why would it matter which side won?
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| Are US democrats _actually_ progressive?
|
| Why would I support any politician when the available choices
| do not line up with my views and desires _in almost any
| fashion_
| sushisource wrote:
| Even ignoring the other quality replies to this comment, this
| just seems to me an insane viewpoint.
|
| It's kinda like saying "I'm starving, but I won't eat any of
| the food on this table because I don't like it".
|
| What?
|
| I can maybe see how this is reasonable if you don't vote but
| _also_ spend significant time /money investing in trying to
| bring about candidates who you feel _do_ represent what you
| want. But, most people with this opinion seem to simply do
| nothing. That 's a pretty childish stance to take, it seems.
|
| As much as you might not like it, the reality is that you
| only have so many ways to influence things, so you should
| probably at least put the bare minimum effort in and vote. If
| you can't be assed to do that, well, I think you forfeit your
| right to complain about the situation.
| Miner49er wrote:
| This isn't an accurate analogy. I'd say people who have
| this viewpoint view both parties as poison, not food. Maybe
| one is slightly less poisonous, but we'd rather have
| neither.
| sushisource wrote:
| Sure it's a loose analogy, but keeping with it: You're
| gonna starve either way. Might as well try to do
| something about that.
| [deleted]
| foobar2021 wrote:
| "Eat our poison. It's better for you"
| Fnoord wrote:
| But you're gonna have to eat one of these two dishes, and
| you can help deciding which ones best, even if both are
| terrible.
|
| Its like saying: I hate getting vaccinated but I'm not
| gonna join take part in a society being unvaccinated. But
| there's only these 2 practical choices. The other ones
| are niche (e.g. leaving society living in a treehut or a
| tundra, committing suicide, going to Mars for science --
| these kind of extreme outliers).
|
| If I were American (ie. read US citizen), I'd never
| discount any of the dishes. After all, there's only two
| practical choices...
|
| ..which, despite all the current issues, makes me happy I
| got more than two in The Netherlands. But it also gives
| me compassion that Americans, given they only got two.
| What a system...
| n8cpdx wrote:
| Democrats just passed the largest infrastructure spending
| bill in ages (including a huge push to get everyone
| broadband, among other great programs), are actively working
| on a massive boost to social spending, accomplished a
| trillion dollar relief package (direct payments) early on,
| and cut child poverty by nearly half (projected), all while
| dealing with a paper-thin majority in the senate.
|
| Within the realities of how the political system works,
| that's pretty progressive.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/25/us-
| parents-c...
|
| https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
| releases...
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Rescue_Plan_Act_of_.
| ..
|
| ------
|
| I was going to comment about how that's a bad attitude and
| toxic approach to voting that gets us presidents like Donald
| Trump, which is all true. But I am starting to be really
| frustrated by the progressive meme that democrats haven't
| accomplished anything and are just slightly less bad than
| republicans. Good stuff is happening, and you can choose to
| ignore it at the country's peril. #Trump2024
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Democrats just passed the largest infrastructure spending
| bill in ages
|
| The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal is not progressive; the
| progressive goals were either in BBB and require both BBB
| and BID, and center-right Democrats (including the
| leadership, by accommodating the more visibly hostile party
| members) threw away BBB by pushing BID separately contrary
| to commitments to do them together.
|
| > But I am starting to be really frustrated by the
| progressive meme that democrats haven't accomplished
| anything
|
| Democrat have accomplished a lot recently that would have
| been no controversial during the peak of the bipartisan
| center-right neoliberal consensus, but very little--and
| arguably negative value--from a progressive standpoint.
|
| They've been significantly _less_ negative than Republican
| domination would be, but even with the "significantly"
| qualifier, "not as bad as the people who goaded, aided, and
| continue to pander to the mob who stormed the Capitol
| chanting for the head of the VP from their own party for
| not being sufficiently supportive of arbitrary
| authoritarianism" is a pretty low bar.
|
| I mean I am a progressive Democrat whose first election was
| the first one Bill Clinton one, so I have the perspective
| of having seen quite a significant erosion of the power of
| the center-right power bloc in the Democratic Party in my
| period as an active participant in the process, so I am not
| going to argue against electoral engagement by
| progressives. But I am also tired as _fuck_ of the center-
| right corporate conservatives in the Party trying to sell
| every success in advancing their agenda won by pulling the
| rug out from under progressives as somehow a win _for_
| progressives.
| clairity wrote:
| the build back better (bbb) act is _decidedly_ not
| progressive. it aims to spend lavishly, entirely funded
| by debt with no hope of positive return, so that that
| spending can be captured by the already wealthy. the only
| bit of that bill that could be considered progressive is
| the change in tax rate for the wealthy /corporations, but
| that's such a tiny band-aid on a huge gaping wound,
| that's it's not even really worth mentioning.
| clairity wrote:
| none of that is progressive. progressive policies would
| increase fairness, first and foremost, rather than simply
| spending lavishly to buttress a top-heavy, growth-at-all-
| costs economy. all of those Democratic bills worsen
| fairness, often intentionally and deceptively. you've been
| entirely captured by mediopolitical propaganda if you
| believe that's what progressiveness looks like.
|
| real progressivism would dismantle policies that serve to
| concentrate money and power (like our highly regressive tax
| policy), because progress depends on dynamism rather than
| ossification, and none of these blls even pretend to do
| that.
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| Including getting rid of the insane drug laws and
| regulating substances for use rather than putting
| shitloads of people in jails or prisons
| allemagne wrote:
| We do not have to wait for a perfect political system in
| order to express the small amount of political power we have
| in this one.
|
| I simply do not believe you if you think literally all
| politicians you can vote for are equidistant from your views
| and desires.
|
| Nobody is smart, careful, or powerful enough to wholesale rig
| elections in the U.S, if that's what you're going to say
| next.
|
| If you really care about changing the politicians you get to
| vote for, then the easiest way to help change that is to hold
| your nose and vote in every election.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Are US democrats actually progressive?
|
| US progressives that aren't alienated from the political
| process tend to be Democrats (by voting behavior if not
| identity), but the reverse is not true; Democrats as a whole
| are a coalition of (mainly) progressives center-right
| corporate conservatives, the latter being somewhat more
| dominant, and many of them (Manchin and Sinema get a lot of
| attention recently, but the problem is much deeper) regularly
| ally with Republicans against progressives.
|
| > Why would I support any politician when the available
| choices do not line up with my views and desires in almost
| any fashion
|
| Engagement alters the available choices; engagement by
| (frequently disappointed) progressives has reduced the
| center-right domination of the Democratic Party from its peak
| in the 1990s.
| amalcon wrote:
| Because the available choices change their platforms in
| response to the voting public to some degree. By not voting,
| you send the message that they don't need to care what you
| want, since you don't vote. It's the same reason that it's so
| hard to get permission to build new housing in some places:
| the people who would most directly benefit don't vote
| (because they don't live there yet).
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| There's no way for me to give them feedback and tell them
| their views are shite by voting That doesn't make sense,
| votes are binary and do not contain any other information
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| To add to this point, voting for someone I don't support
| seems (from my perspective) to send a message that I _do_
| agree with them and support their views, even if I think
| they 're just slightly less shitty than the other option
| amalcon wrote:
| Is that a better or worse message than "You don't need to
| care what I think"? If you think it's significantly
| worse, then fine, we disagree on that premise. If you
| think it's equal or better, then not showing up seems
| like an inefficient use of a rare resource (your vote).
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > There's no way for me to give them feedback and tell
| them their views are shite by voting
|
| Yes there are; voting isn't limited to general elections
| (or even primaries/caucuses for particular public
| offices.)
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| And what, the good options are there? Not in my locales
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > And what, the good options are there?
|
| Yes.
|
| > Not in my locales
|
| Running for public or party office, or recruiting others
| to do so, is also an available form of engagement.
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| You are correct, but for someone who is heavily involved
| in academia I don't have the time to do so at the moment.
| It is something I consider periodically
| amalcon wrote:
| The vote itself might not contain other information, but
| there are plenty of out-of-band ways to convey this
| information. The opinion you express when you call,
| write, answer a poll, or really any other public activity
| is stronger if it's backed up by records that you
| consistently vote.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| I had also written this longer bit but felt more political, and
| less political science, then top comment so separated it.
|
| Would be hard to build into this model, but it would be
| interesting to see how powerful self reinforcing voter
| suppression has been in driving this anti-turnout group bias.
|
| The more they suppress the vote and play games the more people
| feel it's rigged and don't participate.
|
| Social media both amplifies and provides a platform for
| campaigns to weaponize.
|
| Deliberately targeting voters on FB to enforce messages of
| black complacency - using BLM as 'dejectedness' and
| 'complacency' of no change so that their vote doesn't matter.
| [2,3].
|
| Lots of instances of targeting black and brown voters with
| calls giving wrong info on when or how to vote [4]. Russia
| copied this race baiting and they also targeted conservatives
| [5].
|
| This past election saw targeted Hispanic voters, having
| candidates change their names in Florida to confuse the ballot.
| I can't find a quick source but one of these spoiler candidates
| even shaved their head lol to have a more similar look so far
| as I can remember.
|
| To be fair there is also a history of similar racist push
| polling by Dems in the south during primaries too but the
| overwhelming suppression of voters is perpetrated by
| conservatives.
|
| [1] https://theconversation.com/election-polls-are-more-
| accurate... [2] https://www.npr.org/2020/11/24/938187233/trump-
| push-to-inval... [3]
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/09/28/trump-electio...
| [4]
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/03/robocal...
| [5] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49987657
| lionkor wrote:
| That makes a lot of sense. Still, risky click as I misread that
| last word very much.
| Gwarzo wrote:
| Lol, lopsided erections?
| meepmorp wrote:
| Electrons?
| sva_ wrote:
| _> And most surprisingly, _
|
| I don't think that it is surprising at all. I wouldn't call it
| friendship, but if a group of people who share a common political
| goal that opposes others, thinks that their group is a majority
| who will win a vote by a big margin, then those people are less
| likely to vote. See Brexit. Or maybe even the 2016 US election,
| where most people seemed assured that Clinton would win, and
| perhaps because of that didn't vote (also because they didn't get
| Bernie as a candidate.)
| Invictus0 wrote:
| The author of this paper, Steven Strogatz, is also the author of
| Nonlinear dynamics and Chaos. This is a seriously good math
| textbook, and really accessible to beginners. I highly recommend
| the book.
| amelius wrote:
| If the minority is sufficiently large, say 40%, is it really that
| bad if their preferred candidate wins?
|
| And if the minority is small, say 10%, then does this research
| still apply?
| amalcon wrote:
| If it happens once in a century, by some fluke? Probably not.
| If it happens with any consistency (say, 20% of the time,
| favoring a particular side) over a long enough time period, the
| majority is going to become disillusioned for obvious and
| frankly good reasons. A disillusioned majority is not good for
| a democracy.
|
| Edit to add: Of course, with this particular effect, it is not
| necessarily clear to the demographics whether they are in the
| majority or the minority. This can lead to the paradoxical
| situation where everyone believes they are in the majority, and
| still get their way less often than they should. I think this
| is the case in much of the world today.
| p_j_w wrote:
| If the loser of a 60/40 split wins, yes, that sounds pretty
| bad. Those kinds of majorities don't happen very often.
| svachalek wrote:
| Yup, 40% is not a "large" minority. It's a landslide loss.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Give the gerrymandering time to work its magic, wont be long
| now until those sorts of results at least in the US house are
| not uncommon.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Well, at 60% turnout, you've got a true distribution of:
|
| 1. 36% unfairly unhappy
|
| 2. 24% unfairly happy
|
| 3. 40% meh as intended
|
| Honestly, that places it at 64% meh-to-happy vs 36% unhappy
| vs. it going the other way as 76% meh-to-happy vs 24%
| unhappy. I think that's a pretty big improvement in happiness
| but I can see why the question was asked.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-29 23:02 UTC)