US politics: Heil to the Chief :(

[Mudguard]

2 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

Halderman is not a moron, and his argument is not moronic. I don’t think there is anybody on the planet who I trust more in e-voting questions than Alex. (Also, nice guy.)

Voting machines are a bad idea because they are very easy to manipulate. (Alex himself has demonstrated that many time.) Recounts are a good idea because they increase trust in the electoral process, which is the most important aspect of the voting system.

(There is a mini-course in political philosophy and democratic theory here, which I won’t bore you with.)

Many democracies have routine recounts built into the process. (As opposed to recounts that are triggered by a formal protest, like the US.) This is a good idea. Many countries eschew voting machines (mechanical or electronic) and use paper ballots and transparent hand-counting. This is a good idea. These systems enjoy very high trust. 

The US is currently experiencing a (completely correct, predictable, and democratically healthy) decrease of trust in the voting process, to some extent motivated by the increase of opaque (machine-based) voting processes that are not routinely audited. This problem can be addressed exactly in the way that Alex (and many other experts in voting systems, including me) advocate. Risk-minimsing audits are a tiny step in the right direction (and very far from the systems routinely employed in many other countries).

This is not a principled criticism of US democracy, but a correct, constructive, and highly welcome suggestion of an incremental change toward a somewhat better system.

Suggesting, without any evidence of hacking, that widespread hacking in three states may have stolen the election from Clinton and given it to Trump is not only moronic, it's irresponsible.  Just a month ago Democrats were outraged that Trump was suggesting that the elections might be rigged because that would undermine the legitimacy our election.  Now we have an electronic voting expert calling for a recount in 3 states because he thinks it's possible that the election may have been rigged to steal the election from Clinton, even though he lacks any evidence.  

Fraud can occur in any voting mechanism, including paper ballots.  Even though we have no evidence of fraud, it's possible that fraud occured.  Why not do a recount for paper ballots too just in case?  May as well recount every single vote cast in this year's election, because recounts are good right?  If we don't find any evidence of hacking or other forms of voter fraud in the first 3 states, isn't it possible that other states were hacked or targeted for mass fraud instead?  Might have chosen to look at the wrong states.  Only way to be sure is to recount the votes in all 50 states.  

If the argument was that the voting mechanisms in the US could be improved, such as including random auditing of the ballots, I would say you have a good point.  But that's not the issue here.  The issue is whether there is a rational and principled justification for requesting a recount in these three states when there is no evidence of hacking.  The argument that a recount would restore confidence in the results rings hollow when the person arguing for the recount is responsible for causing the lack of confidence.  There was no serious talk in the media or the general public that the election might have been rigged or that the voting mechanisms were untrustworthy until Halderman put forth his unsupported allegations.

 

[Werthead]

Quote

Except that this New World Order is based primarily on respecting the distinct and separate interests of each nation state first rather than blurring the lines between nations in pursuit of some borderless global village.

Indeed. Watching Russia respect the distinct and separate interests of Syria, Georgia and Ukraine is very inspiring.

Quote

It was wasted because Putin did a much better job of it. 

In PR terms, yes. In terms of the damage wrought to the Russian economy, not so much.

A former member of the Alt-Right, or someone who used to write for Breitbart anway, discusses the movement's ideology or rather its lack of one and its rather confused attitude to anti-semitism (he suggests it isn't anti-semitic, but it has embraced people who are to bolster its numbers). Interesting, especially his views on how both the left and right need to cope with the challenge.

[Jaxom 1974]

I think I might respect Hillary even more because she hasn't called for any recounts in those pretty tight races in PA, WI, and MI.  I mean, Donald was soooooo certain this election was rigged...but she continues to respect the actual procesd...

[Happy Ent]

48 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Suggesting, without any evidence of hacking, that widespread hacking in three states may have stolen the election from Clinton and given it to Trump is not only moronic, it's irresponsible.

He did no such thing. https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.9gl8wvma9

“That article, which includes somebody else’s description of my views, incorrectly describes the reasons manually checking ballots is an essential security safeguard (and includes some incorrect numbers, to boot). Let me set the record straight about what I and other leading election security experts have actually been saying to the campaign and everyone else who’s willing to listen.”

[Happy Ent]

49 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Fraud can occur in any voting mechanism, including paper ballots.  Even though we have no evidence of fraud, it's possible that fraud occured.  Why not do a recount for paper ballots too just in case?  May as well recount every single vote cast in this year's election, because recounts are good right?

Yes, let’s.

This is exactly what many countries do, as a matter of routine. The election night count is preliminary (and optimised for speed), then there is an official “recount,” which is the one that is binding. Of every single vote. All of which were cast on paper. When I (this morning, on Swedish TV) explained this to a journalist, she was honestly surprised that the US does not do this. 

The slow, transparent count of paper ballots increases trust in the election. If an election system (such as the US) sees that trust is eroding, a risk-limiting auditing process is the standard, un-exciting, age-old way of incrementally improving a system. This is the right thing to do, in particular in a relatively untrustworthy system like the American one, to make it a bit better. Not perfect (perfect systems don’t exist). There are many other aspects of the US system I’d like to see improved, just like there are many aspects of the Swedish system. The only way democracy progresses is by well-reasonsed, incremental improvement to the democratic institutions. (Popper, popper, popper, broken record.)

[Rippounet]

5 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Except that this New World Order is based primarily on respecting the distinct and separate interests of each nation state first rather than blurring the lines between nations in pursuit of some borderless global village.

May I be a bit cheeky here and point out that these populist leaders (Farage, Trump or Le Pen) don't actually care about the "separate interests of each nation state" ? I mean, this is all political posturing. It's extremely doubtful that Brexit was, and ever will be, in the best interest of the UK. Trump's domestic politics seem to be primarily aimed at helping the wealthy 1%, and I doubt that pulling out of free trade agreement is really in the US's best interest (in fact, I'd say that these agreements have helped US corporations immensely, if not US workers and consumers). As for Le Pen... Don't even get me started. Her economic platform is ludicrous, and if she sticks to it it has greater chances of sinking France than anything else.
Of course, globalism and neoliberalism hurt the working class. But they also tend to favour strong economies like the US's or Europe's. There's no guarantee that pulling the plug on global economic agreements will improve the life of citizens. At least not without considerable investment in infrastructure and welfare.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

16 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Any chance she could raise the needed funds by the deadlines?

She's already raised the 2.2 million she needs for the 3 states in question.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

39 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

May I be a bit cheeky here and point out that these populist leaders (Farage, Trump or Le Pen) don't actually care about the "separate interests of each nation state" ? I mean, this is all political posturing. It's extremely doubtful that Brexit was, and ever will be, in the best interest of the UK. Trump's domestic politics seem to be primarily aimed at helping the wealthy 1%, and I doubt that pulling out of free trade agreement is really in the US's best interest (in fact, I'd say that these agreements have helped US corporations immensely, if not US workers and consumers). As for Le Pen... Don't even get me started. Her economic platform is ludicrous, and if she sticks to it it has greater chances of sinking France than anything else.
Of course, globalism and neoliberalism hurt the working class. But they also tend to favour strong economies like the US's or Europe's. There's no guarantee that pulling the plug on global economic agreements will improve the life of citizens. At least not without considerable investment in infrastructure and welfare.

Well I think as you mentioned, what is good for the country isn't always what is good for its citizens. A free trade deal might help big business and the 1% but has very little effect on the average worker, in fact the competition and wage stagnation might actually hurt them. 

These are populist policies for people to get into power, but thats because lots of people feel they are not being listened to. I agree they might not be best for the state overall, or the GDP, but your average person doesn't care.

[Rippounet]

13 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Well I think as you mentioned, what is good for the country isn't always what is good for its citizens. A free trade deal might help big business and the 1% but has very little effect on the average worker, in fact the competition and wage stagnation might actually hurt them.
These are populist policies for people to get into power, but thats because lots of people feel they are not being listened to. I agree they might not be best for the state overall, or the GDP, but your average person doesn't care.

My point is that while what's good for the economy isn't always good for the people, what's bad for the economy is almost always bad for the people. The real problem lies in redistributing the wealth when things are -kind of- working -at least. And in that respect, Trump's policies seem to be a dismall conceptual failure since he's going for less redistribution at a time hen the US economy seems to be recovering rather well.

[Kalbear]

18 hours ago, Altherion said:

What do you base your "reality" on? Studies by people who (at best!) barely grasp the idea of a systematic uncertainty?

I base it on math. Do you? So far you appear to be basing your reality on a fictional mayor.

18 hours ago, Altherion said:

Quimby is the mayor from the Simpsons whom I borrowed to illustrate an example of how one might get 70% based on trivialities. Your link provides a different example: they base their calculation not on instances of successfully addressing a problem, but on attempts to address it (even if these attempts actually make things worse).

Yes, I understand. My point, which you missed, is that using a fictional non-president to illustrate your point doesn't do any real favors to you basing your claims in reality. And given that presidents don't try to fix problems, they specifically state policies and then execute them, your argument appears to be nonsensical. 

18 hours ago, Altherion said:

It has already started changing. These are not laws of nature; they may work for a very long time... and then suddenly stop. It's difficult to predict so of course I could be wrong, but I believe my way of thinking is more rational.

Most everyone does believe their way of thinking is more rational. Most everyone is very, very wrong. 

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I base it on math. Do you? So far you appear to be basing your reality on a fictional mayor.

No, you most certainly do not base it on math. An argument based on math must be rigorous: every step must follow from the previous step according to the system you are using. A useful argument about the world can at best use a mix of math, clear definitions and a detailed understanding of every parameter which affects the issue. What you have is a mix of math, ambiguous definitions and not even an attempt to fully describe the parameter space. This is problematic not just because you're quite likely to be wrong, but because repeated usage of this technique discredits valid arguments which use math.

Quote

Yes, I understand. My point, which you missed, is that using a fictional non-president to illustrate your point doesn't do any real favors to you basing your claims in reality. And given that presidents don't try to fix problems, they specifically state policies and then execute them, your argument appears to be nonsensical.

It's called a thought experiment. I'm trying to describe how arguments such as "politicians usually keep their promises" can go wrong using non-controversial examples. And if presidents don't try to fix problems, then there is no point in discussing them keeping their promises. It's the problems which motivated their election; to speak of policies as the parameter of interest is sophistry and few people are going to tolerate it for long.

For example, if Trump manages to generate substantial numbers of decent jobs, it won't matter that he didn't try to jail Clinton or deport all illegal immigrants or whatever else he has already flip-flopped on.

[The Fallen]

On 11/23/2016 at 4:00 AM, mormont said:

Yeah, Donald Trump's going to be great for science in the US.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-meets-with-creationist-jerry-falwell-jr-about-possibly-becoming-next-secretary-of-a7430261.html

 

This is what all the Democratic idiots (and those who would've voted for Hillary had they turned out) don't seem to understand. Conservatives are trying to turn back the clock to the 1800s.

On 11/23/2016 at 9:48 AM, Maithanet said:

Evidence that votes were tampered with don't really pass the sniff test.

Basically, Clinton did worse in areas with electronic voting, because those are overwhelmingly the more rural areas that she did badly in across the country. 

Why would rural areas have the more technologically advanced equipment? Maybe because they're easier to manipulate - the equipment, although you can make a case for the people also.

[Werthead]

5 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

She's already raised the 2.2 million she needs for the 3 states in question.

She's now at $4.1 million. That's five hours after she was at $2.2 million.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Werthead said:

She's now at $4.1 million. That's five hours after she was at $2.2 million.

Very cool. I don't think this is likely to change the result of the election, but I see no negative in rechecking the result, particularly in states where the counts are so close. Seems to me a recount should be automatic when the difference is less than 1 or 2 percent. 

[ThinkerX]

While she has many severe flaws, the recount makes for a second point in Steins favor.  The other being her willingness to get arrested in the great pipeline fiasco for her beliefs. 

 

I'm not saying she is a great leader, just that on these occasions, she did the right thing.  And again, she has severe flaws.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

9 hours ago, Mudguard said:

Suggesting, without any evidence of hacking, that widespread hacking in three states may have stolen the election from Clinton and given it to Trump is not only moronic, it's irresponsible.  Just a month ago Democrats were outraged that Trump was suggesting that the elections might be rigged because that would undermine the legitimacy our election.  Now we have an electronic voting expert calling for a recount in 3 states because he thinks it's possible that the election may have been rigged to steal the election from Clinton, even though he lacks any evidence.  

Fraud can occur in any voting mechanism, including paper ballots.  Even though we have no evidence of fraud, it's possible that fraud occured.  Why not do a recount for paper ballots too just in case?  May as well recount every single vote cast in this year's election, because recounts are good right?  If we don't find any evidence of hacking or other forms of voter fraud in the first 3 states, isn't it possible that other states were hacked or targeted for mass fraud instead?  Might have chosen to look at the wrong states.  Only way to be sure is to recount the votes in all 50 states.  

If the argument was that the voting mechanisms in the US could be improved, such as including random auditing of the ballots, I would say you have a good point.  But that's not the issue here.  The issue is whether there is a rational and principled justification for requesting a recount in these three states when there is no evidence of hacking.  The argument that a recount would restore confidence in the results rings hollow when the person arguing for the recount is responsible for causing the lack of confidence.  There was no serious talk in the media or the general public that the election might have been rigged or that the voting mechanisms were untrustworthy until Halderman put forth his unsupported allegations.

 

The only evidence at this point is that exit polling in those close states was significantly out of line with the result. That's enough for me to take a closer look. Not sure why folks are upset about a potential recount. 

To the bolded part, the winner of this election was bandying about charges of fraud weeks before the election was held. Trump stated that he wouldn't accept the results of the election unless he won.

[Yukle]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Very cool. I don't think this is likely to change the result of the election, but I see no negative in rechecking the result, particularly in states where the counts are so close. Seems to me a recount should be automatic when the difference is less than 1 or 2 percent. 

To the best of my knowledge there is a 30 statute of limitations in the USA for disputed elections, isn't there? Probably a bit late now.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Yukle said:

To the best of my knowledge there is a 30 statute of limitations in the USA for disputed elections, isn't there? Probably a bit late now.

Not sure about the limitations regarding how many states, but if you could flip the three states in question (Penn/Mich/Wis) you would flip the election.

 

/Oops, misread the word statute. The cut-off for disputing the Wisconsin totals expires on Friday. I believe the cutoffs for Michigan and Pennsylvania expire next week.

[Jace, Extat]

43 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

While she has many severe flaws, the recount makes for a second point in Steins favor.  The other being her willingness to get arrested in the great pipeline fiasco for her beliefs. 

 

I'm not saying she is a great leader, just that on these occasions, she did the right thing.  And again, she has severe flaws.

 

I still regard her candidacy with contempt but I am appropriately impressed by this move. She is doing the right thing, taking one for the team. I expect nothing, but I am still impressed.

[LongRider]

4 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I still regard her candidacy with contempt but I am appropriately impressed by this move. She is doing the right thing, taking one for the team. I expect nothing, but I am still impressed.

If nothing else, it should provide some irritation to the orange shit stain, which would be worthwhile.