55 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2019
    1. To make governance more accessible to users, voting canbe delegated by anyone to other users or groups of users,such that if a user places no vote on a speci c proposal,their designated delegate's vote will be used in place oftheir own.
    2. These user classes are not mutually exclusive. There-fore, if a user has earnings and/or holdings that fall intomultiple classes, their vote can be counted in multipleclasses.
    3. Pro-posals also include a block count at which point they gointo e ect; this e ectiveness date must be at least 1 weekin the future at time of proposal submission to give usersample time to review and vote on the proposal.
    4. Participation in governance creates value in Audius,and should be rewarded

      Voting should not be rewarded. Apathy should be penalized.

  2. Sep 2019
    1. Merrill’s utility based substudy is suspicious be-cause it was unable to detect the fact that, e.g. 2-candidate majority vote is non-optimal from a util-ity standpoint, i.e. has nonzero Bayesian regret.(All his data for 2-candidate elections had “100.0%social utility efficiency,” in his terminology.) Thatsuggests that Merrill’s computer program had bugs.

      This isn't due to any bug. Merrill's study uses normalized utilities, so in the 2-candidate case, the majority vote always goes to the utilitarian winner.

  3. Feb 2019
    1. Any election system that favors extremists would be considered unreasonable; the same rationale must be applied to moderates.

      Utter nonsense. To paraphrase:

      Any election system that favors unrepresentative candidates [like IRV] would be considered unreasonable; the same rationale must be applied to one that favors representative candidates.

      Uh, no. That doesn't follow.

      FairVote starts from the conclusion that IRV is the best voting method, and then works backwards to try to justify it, in this case arguing that a flaw of IRV is actually a feature, by making a false equivalent between a voting system that favors unrepresentative candidates and one that favors representative candidates.

      The whole point of an election is to find the most-representative candidate.

    2. Agreeing that the Condorcet criterion is desirable is equivalent to saying that moderate candidates should always win.

      Yes, candidates who are moderate relative to the voters should always win.

      The goal of an election is to find the candidate who best represents the electorate. If the electorate is left-wing on average, the winner should be too. If the electorate is "strong on both personal freedoms and economic freedoms", then the winner should be too.

      Anything else is undemocratic.

    3. Condorcet winners are centrist by nature, regardless of the preferences of the electorate.

      This isn't true. It's possible for a Condorcet candidate to be extremist relative to the other candidates or the electorate, since weak preferences are given equal weight to strong preferences. Simple example here: Condorcet winner is not utilitarian winner

    4. not necessarily liked more than other candidates

      This is true, but IRV doesn't choose the candidate who is most-liked (the "utilitarian winner"), either.

  4. Nov 2018
    1. Under range/score, the best strategy to promote the election of a preferred candidate is always to give that candidate the maximum score and then give every other competitor the minimum score.

      Yeah, this is false.

      If you have perfect knowledge of how everyone else is voting (and you usually don't), then the best strategy is to give a maximum score to the frontrunner that you prefer, and also to everyone you like more than them, and to likewise give a minimum score to the other frontrunner, and to everyone you dislike more.

      This is not bullet voting; it's equivalent to Approval Voting, and leads to more moderate winners who are good representatives of the electorate.

      Real-world Score elections don't show this behavior, anyway, because polls are imprecise and the consequences of voting honestly under Score aren't as dire as they are under FPTP or IRV.

    2. Rebuttal to [the original version of] this page at https://www.equal.vote/fv

    3. unlike RCV, it would be subject to tactical voting

      This is nonsense. All voting systems are subject to tactical voting.

    1. On the theoretical front, approval and score voting fail a critical test that voting theorists call the majority criterion.

      "Failing the majority criterion" is actually a good thing, because these systems find the candidate who is most acceptable to the entire population, rather than the candidate who is most acceptable to half of the population.

      Majoritarianism that ignores the desires of half of the population leads to adversarial politics, polarization, and eventually even to violence and civil war.

    2. and works well in practice

      ...which is why it subsequently gets repealed?

  5. Sep 2018
    1. Snap is also confident that it can reach a high amount of new voters: 80 percent of its users are over 18, so this campaign won't just fall on well-meaning (but still too young) thumbs.

      Each vote counts and our votes determine our future. If we all vote for what we want we can have a better future and not complain about why our community is bad.

    2. being a registered voter and an active participant in democracy is an important part of one's identity.

      It's as if Snapchat is popularizing being politically involved, it is helping young people to want to vote by making it "cool" and a part of their profile. It also has a community aspect to it, like snapchat is building a network of young voters

  6. Jul 2018
    1. Calls to work on behalf of the community or to the community’s values wind up not only, as I noted in my last post, ignoring community’s supplementary role with respect to capital but also essentializing a highly complex and intersectional set of social relations.

      This reminds me of some studies in psychology about why people vote and for whom they vote. It's not always who they would vote for individually, but who would a group of people like them vote? This makes the "community" portion far more complex than it would appear.

      I should track down the original references, but I think I remember reading about them via either George Lakoff or possibly Malcolm Gladwell.

  7. Jun 2018
    1. To address the problems of serialized aggregation of input among large-scale groups, recent advancements collective intelligence have worked to replace serialized votes, polls, and markets, with parallel systems such as "human swarms" modeled after synchronous swarms in nature.
    2. While modern systems benefit from larger group size, the serialized process has been found to introduce substantial noise that distorts the collective output of the group. In one significant study of serialized collective intelligence, it was found that the first vote contributed to a serialized voting system can distort the final result by 34%
    3. Condorcet, whose "jury theorem" states that if each member of a voting group is more likely than not to make a correct decision, the probability that the highest vote of the group is the correct decision increases with the number of members of the group (see Condorcet's jury theorem).
  8. May 2018
  9. Oct 2017
    1. DEFCON, the world’s largest hacker conference, will release its findings on Tuesday, months after hosting a July demonstration in which hackers quickly broke into 25 different types of voting machines.

      ...

      Though the report offers no proof of an attack last year, experts involved with it say they’re sure it is possible—and probable—and that the chances of a bigger attack in the future are high.

      “From a technological point of view, this is something that is clearly doable,” said Sherri Ramsay, the former director of the federal Central Security Service Threat Operations Center, which handles cyber threats for the military and the National Security Agency. “For us to turn a blind eye to this, I think that would be very irresponsible on our part.”

  10. Jul 2017
    1. The GOP intends nation-wide voter suppression.

      • The House Appropriations Committee voted to defund the Election Assistance Commission, which helps states protect voting machines from hacking.
      • The DOJ sent a letter to all 50 states, essentially instructing them to purge voter rolls.
      • The White House commission on election integrity sent a letter to all 50 states, asking for detailed voter data including political party.
  11. Jun 2017
    1. The Council decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus for one year by a vote of 18 in favour, eight against, with 21 abstentions. The Council adopted a resolution on the human rights situation in Syria, by a vote of 27 in favour, eight against, with 12 abstentions, in which it demanded that all parties work urgently towards the comprehensive implementation of the Geneva communiqué, including through the establishment of an inclusive transitional governing body with full executive powers.  It also urged the Syrian authorities cooperate fully with the Human Rights Council and the Commission of Inquiry by granting it immediate, full and unfettered access throughout the country.  In a resolution on cooperation with and assistance to Ukraine in the field of human rights, adopted by a vote of 22 in favour, six against, with 19 abstentions, the Council recognized the continuing need for ongoing reporting, including on the most serious human rights problems within Ukraine and their root causes.
    2. Belgium, Croatia, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United States of America.
    3. The United Kingdom regretted that amendments were rejected by many countries and was concerned that certain elements of the text suggested that the reference to the protection of the family could be used as a justification for human rights violations such as female genital mutilation. 
    4. protection of the family: role of the family in supporting the protection and promotion of human rights of older persons, adopted by a recorded vote of 30 in favour to 12 against with 5
    5. Against (13): Albania, Belgium, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United States of America.  
    6. the contribution of development to the enjoyment of all human rights, adopted by a recorded vote of 30 in favour to 13 against with 3 abstentions, the Council calls upon all countries to realize people-centred development of the people, by the people and for the people, and also calls upon all States to spare no effort in promoting sustainable development, in particular while implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as it is conducive to the overall enjoyment of human rights. 
    7. All types of loving families should be taken into account, be it a family composed of a single mother or a same sex couple.  The resolution failed to provide sufficient protection to all types of families.
  12. Apr 2017
    1. qualified voters

      "Qualified voters" meant almost exclusively white men. As the former colonies began the process of writing state constitutions, debates over who should be included as a "qualified voter" often divided conventions. Vermont and Pennsylvania had two of the most liberal constitutions. Vermont permitted all men, regardless of color, to vote, while Pennsylvania permitted all white men to vote regardless of income. Other states, like Maryland, had much more restrictive qualifications for voting and required that free white men also hold property.

    1. The ACLU of Iowa reports that 11 percent of eligible Iowa voters--260,000 people--don’t have a driver’s license or non-operator ID, according to the US Census and the Iowa Department of Transportation, and could be disenfranchised by the bill.

      ...

       So far in 2017, 87 bills have been introduced in 29 states to restrict access to the ballot, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. (And that’s on top of the 21 states that already passed new voting restrictions since 2010.)

  13. Jan 2017
    1. There is evidence, although far from certain, that there were hundreds of thousands of votes cast illegally for Hillary, Plus there is Podesta's statement that if a person has a photo ID and claims to be a citizen they should be able to vote, a standard that would allow millions of illegals to vote illegally, and Obama's statement to Gena Rodriqez that there would be no punishment of illegal's voting.

      This is presumably the research which was posted and trashed by WaPost linked to by me on Hypothes.is previously

  14. Dec 2016
    1. For most of my friends on the Left, the argument against Trump is about fitness: Trump, they say, is not fit to be President. I agree with this claim.

      But that claim has been rendered democratically irrelevant. 62 million Americans heard that argument, and disagreed with it. That doesn’t make the claim “Donald Trump is unfit” false. But it does render it unusable by an elector as a reason not to vote for Trump. Whatever they were meant to be originally, we cannot now see electors as democratic guardians of our Republic. They cannot be entitled to second guess the judgment of the people with respect to an issue the people can reasonably be said to have considered.

      I disagree with this. The very purpose of the Electoral College is to judge the candidate. That can mean telling the majority that their choice was stupid. (And depending on how many Electors think so, the House is still likely to consider the issue yet again.)

    1. Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroit’s precincts

      More evidence that the mainstream media's claims there is no illegal voting are nothing but "fake news".

    1. This is particularly difficult when a simple conspiracy theory is offered as an explanation for a complex phenomenon. Sometimes the world is messy, and ― Occam’s Razor notwithstanding ― simple explanations can be a cop-out.

      Ironically, dismissal of Trump's ties to Putin strikes me as an instance of gaslighting -- while demonstrating that it's not always intentional. ("Oh, that's just a conspiracy theory." "There's no evidence of that at all." "What do you think this is, a James Bond novel?")

      There are very close ties between Trump and Putin.<br> They need to be thoroughly investigated.

      Another instance of gaslighting is the suggestion that those who want the election audited are merely sore losers, or paranoid. Never mind the probing of voter registration databases. Never mind the vulnerable voting machines. Never mind the mismatch between exit polls and counts. Never mind that Republicans brazenly conspire to disenfranchise minorities.

  15. Nov 2016
    1. numerous studies have found such voter fraud is virtually nonexistent.

      This is a classic case of dishonest factchecking.

      I have read multiple articles from multiple different types of news sources that cite occasions instances of votes being cast for dead people. And these are only the cases that are caught -- there is very little checking for such abuse, and Democrats generally oppose efforts to remove dead people (or non-citizens, for that matter) from voter rolls. So the total number of fraudulent votes could be much larger.

      So dead people voting is more than" virtually existent".

    1. Donald Trump's "lies about voter fraud are a prelude to massive voter suppression." This has become typical of the Republican party. But Trump and his staff are sure to make it worse, and they're already showing it.

    1. A statement from Marc Elias, general counsel to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. They've been watching the vote counts closely, and will continue to do so. They "had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter voting technology."

    1. J. Alex Halderman, Professor of Computer Science at U. Michigan, says yes, it's possible that the election was hacked. We should audit the results. And paper ballots should always be used in future elections.

    1. Jill Stein filing for vote recounts in MI, PA, and WI. Needs to raise $2.5 million by Friday afternoon.

  16. www.electiondefense.org www.electiondefense.org
    1. National Election Defense Coalition - a nonprofit that fights for fair elections and voting rights.

  17. Apr 2016
    1. true liberal democracy

      A “well-informed citizenry” require journalistic assistance. Which is why US elections are such a neat context to discuss literacy, public opinion, agency, representativeness, and populism.

  18. Nov 2015
  19. Oct 2015
    1. a web-wide ‘Like’ feature could just be implemented as a special kind of annotation

      Unlike some other approaches to development, this acknowledgment that usage can push innovation could help expand Hypothesis beyond a core base of “annotation geeks”. Document-level annotations can serve to classify or evaluate, like social bookmarking. What’s wrong with that?

  20. Sep 2015
    1. Each group watched a series of images and the individuals in the group voted for which ones they found most attractive. The results: The oxytocin-influenced participants tended to go with the flow of their group, while the placebo-dosed participants hewed to their own individualistic path. The implication: Oxytocin is great when you’re out with friends or solving a problem with coworkers. It might not be so great when you need to pick a leader or make some other big decision that requires independence, not conformity.
  21. Apr 2015
    1. The children who thought that having a black president, despite the fact that he was, on domestic policy, worse than EVERY other democratic nominee, are why the US is so fucked right now.

      Wow. Hadn't heard it put so bluntly before.