Midterm Election Gameday Thread

[BeginnersMind]

50 minutes ago, Foxx said:

put the vote on the blockchain. easy enough to do and being a public ledger, it is immutable and thereby being incorruptible.

 

I am for anything that makes voting easier, more secure (voter IDs), and less susceptible to Broward County nonsense. I am confident in vote counting in most places but we are stuck in a 1910 time warp with lots of our voting laws.

 

You can vote by mail in only 22 states, and most of those are limited. In PA, you can't do it unless you're disabled or traveling out of state.   

[TakeYouToTasker]

15 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The government uses machines to count votes, if your argument is that there should be no involvement of technology in the franchise of voting then we are far beyond that point. Having humans draw the lines based off of almost no criteria is not the solution and using technology to help implement the HUMAN parameters of how we should be drawing our representative maps isn't some handing over of sovereignty more than using machines to count votes is. 

 

If you want to fetter out corruption in this instance use the technology that is best available to humans to do so. As I said you can check each line of code and how an algorithm is programmed and challenge each and every single aspect of that in a court composed of humans. You can't have that same level of scrutiny with human subjectivity. I am not sure if you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how algorithms and the technology proposed to solve the problem is being implemented or you are just willfully ignorant of why the technology is needed and what human involvement is in the technology. 

 

To be clear, you're making an argument that because we do something a certain way now, it's illogical to do it a different way.

 

That's not a strong argument.

 

You argument that we should use technology because we have a corruption problem is a non-sequitur.  Technology is not impervious to corruption, and can actually exacerbate it because few in the electorate have a fluent understanding of code.  And even if 100% of the electorate did, would you want them to have access to that code?  And if they don't how could they verify it?

 

The technology you're discussing removes transparency from the electoral process, and that's a bad thing.  It makes it less accountable, more subject to corruption.

 

And to be clear, I'm not a troglodyte.  I have a computing background, and work in an industry that is incredibly tech forward/centric.

 

What this means is that I have a very clear understanding of the problems technology can create, and am aware that while it can improve aspects of processes, change does not come without consequence, and minimizing the truth about negative impacts is the trademark of salesmen, not problem solvers.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[billsfan89]

12 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seeing how your view of fair redistricting relies so heavily on the use of algorithms, can you explain to the rest of us how these algorithms would be developed, what criteria would be the basis for their formulation, who could be entrusted to develop and implement them, and how we can verify their accuracy? 

 

Many programmers have made prototypes for redistricting algorithms. The algorithms use public data (probably because that's the only data available to them, assuming you had "official" data available the process would improve) like census data, voter registration data, average distance between a voter and the center of their district, and other metrics involving physical location and population to draw the districts. Rather than the current model of whichever party is in charge just decides the lines with very little guidelines as to how they have to draw the lines. You can see one of the algorithms prototypes on the website below where they compare their model to the lines drawn in 2010. So these aren't exactly hypothetical ideas and you can see that the lines drawn on the site below both make more sense and the standard metrics also add up much better. 

 

As to the who develops these algorithms and sets the criteria of the algorithms I would trust independent commissions and other control mechanisms such as enforcing certain criteria that lines must be drawn on. The algorithms are just a tool to help remove some of the human element that is so easily corrupted. Its not a perfect solution as humans still have to handle and develop algorithms but the solution is much much better than what we have and much better than trusting the human element. 

 

https://bdistricting.com/2010/

[TakeYouToTasker]

12 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Many programmers have made prototypes for redistricting algorithms. The algorithms use public data (probably because that's the only data available to them, assuming you had "official" data available the process would improve) like census data, voter registration data, average distance between a voter and the center of their district, and other metrics involving physical location and population to draw the districts. Rather than the current model of whichever party is in charge just decides the lines with very little guidelines as to how they have to draw the lines. You can see one of the algorithms prototypes on the website below where they compare their model to the lines drawn in 2010. So these aren't exactly hypothetical ideas and you can see that the lines drawn on the site below both make more sense and the standard metrics also add up much better. 

 

As to the who develops these algorithms and sets the criteria of the algorithms I would trust independent commissions and other control mechanisms such as enforcing certain criteria that lines must be drawn on. The algorithms are just a tool to help remove some of the human element that is so easily corrupted. Its not a perfect solution as humans still have to handle and develop algorithms but the solution is much much better than what we have and much better than trusting the human element. 

 

https://bdistricting.com/2010/

 

There's a lot of fiat declaration in here.

 

Again, you haven't in any way addressed the complete lack of transparency this imports into an already corrupt system.

 

As to your derivative data pools:  they're all incredibly flawed for various reasons, a few of which I'll tick off:  the census itself is Constitutionally dubious in many ways, voter registration is inconsistent and easily manipulated, distance between voter and district center is irrelevant, etc.

 

Further, there is no such thing as an independent commission, and in the absence of first cleaning up corruption, algorithms simply become another tool of the corrupt, further insulating themselves from the electorate, most of whom have no idea how to read code, and wouldn't have access to the code even if they could.

 

This is a non-solution which causes more problems than it solves.

[billsfan89]

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

To be clear, you're making an argument that because we do something a certain way now, it's illogical to do it a different way.

 

That's not a strong argument.

 

You argument that we should use technology because we have a corruption problem is a non-sequitur.  Technology is not impervious to corruption, and can actually exacerbate it because few in the electorate have a fluent understanding of code.  And even if 100% of the electorate did, would you want them to have access to that code?  And if they don't how could they verify it?

 

The technology you're discussing removes transparency from the electoral process, and that's a bad thing.  It makes it less accountable, more subject to corruption.

 

And to be clear, I'm not a troglodyte.  I have a computing background, and work in an industry that is incredibly tech forward/centric.

 

What this means is that I have a very clear understanding of the problems technology can create, and am aware that while it can improve aspects of processes, change does not come without consequence, and minimizing the truth about negative impacts is the trademark of salesmen, not problem solvers.

 

I am making the argument that there is a proven non-hypothetical solution to the problem using technology. I am making the argument that there exists technology already developed that uses raw data to develop districts which results in better districts that actually make sense. Technology is not impervious to corruption but the tool of technology in this instance is more transparent and more accountable. It allows humans with political bias and motivation for corruption to be just enough removed from the process to avoid corruption even further. 

 

You said yourself that no solution is perfect but the technology proposed provides a better tool and better solution to root out corruption in a process that is integral to Democracy. I agree that the problem is corruption the use of technology to make a less corrupt process is a good solution. The only other solution is to have independent commissions as they do in California and Colorado but then you still have the same reductive questions of who is on the commission, who puts the people on the commissions, won't the people on the commissions have their own bias,. and who sets the criteria they have to follow?

 

Those same reductive questions you have about algorithms you can have about any solution to the problem. So I fail to see how using the tool of an algorithms is a non-sequitur. I also fail to see how an algorithm is less transparent and less accountable? You can check each line of code, you can check the parameters, and check the results and how they were calculated. Each party and each entity interested can challenge the algorithm with their own tech experts. 

 

What is your solution other than a general we have to fight corruption? I am proposing that you fight corruption with the use of technology, I am not sure you even have a non-generic solution. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I am making the argument that there is a proven non-hypothetical solution to the problem using technology. I am making the argument that there exists technology already developed that uses raw data to develop districts which results in better districts that actually make sense. Technology is not impervious to corruption but the tool of technology in this instance is more transparent and more accountable. It allows humans with political bias and motivation for corruption to be just enough removed from the process to avoid corruption even further. 

 

You said yourself that no solution is perfect but the technology proposed provides a better tool and better solution to root out corruption in a process that is integral to Democracy. I agree that the problem is corruption the use of technology to make a less corrupt process is a good solution. The only other solution is to have independent commissions as they do in California and Colorado but then you still have the same reductive questions of who is on the commission, who puts the people on the commissions, won't the people on the commissions have their own bias,. and who sets the criteria they have to follow?

 

Those same reductive questions you have about algorithms you can have about any solution to the problem. So I fail to see how using the tool of an algorithms is a non-sequitur. I also fail to see how an algorithm is less transparent and less accountable? You can check each line of code, you can check the parameters, and check the results and how they were calculated. Each party and each entity interested can challenge the algorithm with their own tech experts. 

 

What is your solution other than a general we have to fight corruption? I am proposing that you fight corruption with the use of technology, I am not sure you even have a non-generic solution. 

 

The solution is to craft laws explicitly and narrowly defining corruption, and assigning harsh criminal penalties, up to and including the noose, for engaging it in.

 

What you're suggesting simply places control over Representation further away from the "represented", which is always a bad thing.

 

The solution is paper ballots and purple fingers; and nooses and firing squads.

[billsfan89]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

There's a lot of fiat declaration in here.

 

Again, you haven't in any way addressed the complete lack of transparency this imports into an already corrupt system.

 

As to your derivative data pools:  they're all incredibly flawed for various reasons, a few of which I'll tick off:  the census itself is Constitutionally dubious in many ways, voter registration is inconsistent and easily manipulated, distance between voter and district center is irrelevant, etc.

 

Further, there is no such thing as an independent commission, and in the absence of first cleaning up corruption, algorithms simply become another tool of the corrupt, further insulating themselves from the electorate, most of whom have no idea how to read code, and wouldn't have access to the code even if they could.

 

This is a non-solution which causes more problems than it solves.

 

What's your solution? Other than a bland we have to fight corruption? How do you fight corruption? Who appoints the police of corruption? Who polices those police? How do you get people in power to check their own power? You can reduce anything involving humans to those types of basic questions. Fighting corruption has been the charge that dictitors have used to drive away opposition. Fighting corruption results in more problems than it solves. Now I don't actually believe those questions about corruption but I am stating that you can use that line of reductive "Who will police the police" style of questioning to make a general undermining of any argument. 

 

You stated that no solution is perfect. I am offering a better idea as to how technology can be used as a tool to better do this process. You have not provided me with a sensible solution as to how the tool of algorithms and technology shouldn't be used in the process of redistricting. You also have not provided me with how algorithms aren't transparent? If one party has questions about the algorithm they can hire their own tech experts to question and scrutinize the code and parameters. That's much more concrete process than trusting human intuition. 

[Gavin in Va Beach]

42 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Seems to me that actual election fraud is what is truly dangerous to our representative republic, not the questioning of if election fraud happened, which should happen as a matter of a verification process, but that's just me.

 

What never seems to get talked about much that is inherently dangerous to any type of government, democracy or otherwise, is the ability of a group of people totally dependent on government largesse being able to vote for politicians that promise them more largesse. 

[billsfan89]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

The solution is to craft laws explicitly and narrowly defining corruption, and assigning harsh criminal penalties, up to and including the noose, for engaging it in.

 

What you're suggesting simply places control over Representation further away from the "represented", which is always a bad thing.

 

The solution is paper ballots and purple fingers; and nooses and firing squads.

 

Who crafts the laws? Who narrowly defines what corruption is? Who enforces the criminal penalties? Who polices the police? These types of hardline corruption fights have been used to enforce one party rule. These solutions can cause more problems than they solve. Once again your reductive form of questioning can be used to undermine anything involving humans and politics. You need a more concrete and specific plan of action and better reasoning to state why the technology available to help the problem shouldn't be used. 

 

Just to be clear I agree that there is an issue with corruption in America. I am for taking money out of the political process as best we can do it and harsher penalties and enforcement of political corruption. But on this one particular issue of gerrymandering I have failed to see any argument you have put forward that isn't a general reductionist claim (that could be applied to almost anything) that actually states why there shouldn't be the use of this technology in this process. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

11 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

What's your solution? Other than a bland we have to fight corruption? How do you fight corruption? Who appoints the police of corruption? Who polices those police? How do you get people in power to check their own power? You can reduce anything involving humans to those types of basic questions. Fighting corruption has been the charge that dictitors have used to drive away opposition. Fighting corruption results in more problems than it solves. Now I don't actually believe those questions about corruption but I am stating that you can use that line of reductive "Who will police the police" style of questioning to make a general undermining of any argument. 

 

You stated that no solution is perfect. I am offering a better idea as to how technology can be used as a tool to better do this process. You have not provided me with a sensible solution as to how the tool of algorithms and technology shouldn't be used in the process of redistricting. You also have not provided me with how algorithms aren't transparent? If one party has questions about the algorithm they can hire their own tech experts to question and scrutinize the code and parameters. That's much more concrete process than trusting human intuition. 

 

You're the one looking for a change in the system.  It's not for me to tell you why you shouldn't make the change and address your concerns (which I have to a large degree).  It is for you to expel my fears about importing new layers of corruption into the system, and taking it further away from the people it is supposed to represent.

 

Also important to note:  You've admitted to inventing a system designed to serve party interests, and have constructed your model in a way that two private corporations (the Democratic and Republican Parties) are tasked with policing the system by hiring tech experts in order to protect their own interests.

 

That's about as far away from democratic principals as I can imagine, as it completely marginalizes the ability of the individual concerned citizen to exert influence, directly institutionalizes the centralization of power, and completely casts third parties out of the discussion by creating massive financial barriers into entry (turning our political process into a market even more than it already is).

 

As to who polices it?  An interested and informed citizenry.

 

If citizens can't be bothered to be interested and informed, then the problem is beyond solving anyhow.

Edited November 14, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[billsfan89]

2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You're the one looking for a change in the system.  It's not for me to tell you why you shouldn't make the change and address your concerns (which I have to a large degree).  It is for you to expel my fears about importing new layers of corruption into the system, and taking it further away from the people it is supposed to represent.

 

Also important to note:  You've admitted to inventing a system designed to serve party interests, and have constructed your model in a way that two private corporations (the Democratic and Republican Parties) are tasked with policing the system by hiring tech experts in order to protect their own interests.

 

That's about as far away from democratic principals as I can imagine, as it completely marginalizes the ability of the individual concerned citizen to exert influence, directly institutionalizes the centralization of power, and completely casts third parties out of the discussion by creating massive financial barriers into entry (turning our political process into a market even more than it already is).

 

As to who polices it?  An interested and informed citizenry.

 

If citizens can't be bothered to be interested and informed, then the problem is beyond solving anyhow.

 

First off in what most people propose the algorithms would be publicly available and free for anyone to challenge line by line. The parameters to which the algorithms work would also be available and set through a democratic process (Thus being a completely open and Democratic process.) You extrapolate that because I said either party can (keyword can) challenge the way the algorithm is written isn't to say that they are the ONLY ones who can. Any interest would have equal access to the technology. You have failed to provide me with a logical reason as to how this is less transparent and what the alternative is other than some vague generality about corruption. 

 

So this process is not about giving more power to the two party system but rather about taking out corruptible human digression as much as possible from the process or redistricting and making the process of redistricting more openly available to the public. I fail to see how you have illustrated that this proposed process is not dramatically better and addresses critical issues. 

 

Step by step I have illustrated how this process would improve a critical part of Democracy and be more transparent than any system that would rely on politicians or direct human digression. I think having publicly available technology with Democratically set parameters is much more accountable to the public. Any citizen could look up and have access to the technology and understand the parameters to which the code is set. Yes not everyone is computer literate enough to understand the code or has the time to comb through all that code but most people don't have access to the people and pols that decide the redistricting currently. You act as though every citizen has such a direct hand in the process that is currently used or that a human discretionary system would give people more access to the decision making. I have illustrated that it is simply not the case. 

 

The technology proposed is thought to be openly available to the public and open to any legal challenges from anyone, the parameters to which the algorithm is set are decided through a Democratic process. This is as open to the public as a system could possibly get.

Edited November 14, 2018 by billsfan89

[Kevbeau]

#notmyalgorithm ?

[TakeYouToTasker]

37 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

First off in what most people propose the algorithms would be publicly available and free for anyone to challenge line by line.

 

On a closed system?  How? 

 

And what percentage of the population do you think has the education and knowledge base to do so?  I understand you sort of touch on this later, but I'll address it here because it's incredibly central to the issue.

 

The answer is:  a diminishingly small amount.  Currently anyone can go to their town hall, or can write a letter their Congressman.  I've interacted directly with my Congressman three times this year, and my Governor once.  I have the ability to go to my state representative at nearly any time to be heard on nearly any issue, and they have the ear of all of my federal representation.  I can go to the state house, and can raise argument if my representative chooses to give me the floor.  I can question members of my government during open sessions, and during public events which are held often.  Anyone can do these things.  Anyone.

 

It does not require a special knowledge base, or technical training.  It does not require an education.

 

It simply requires the willingness and desire to speak to my legislators, through the many avenues available, about my concerns.

 

The realities of what you propose is that while, sure, "anyone" could (I place that in parenthesis because I don't believe that to be true within the confines of a corrupt system), that almost no one has the requisite knowledge to do so in a meaningful way.

 

This reality creates the lack of transparency. 

 

Quote

The parameters to which the algorithms work would also be available and set through a democratic process (Thus being a completely open and Democratic process.) You extrapolate that because I said either party can (keyword can) challenge the way the algorithm is written isn't to say that they are the ONLY ones who can. Any interest would have equal access to the technology. You have failed to provide me with a logical reason as to how this is less transparent and what the alternative is other than some vague generality about corruption.

 

First of all, the "vague generality about corruption" is the same one you've predicated your entire argument on, so I wouldn't be so hastily dismissive.

 

Secondly, any interest has currently has theoretical equal access to our legislators in Congress.  Yet the RNC, DNC, and special interest lobby groups enjoy access you and I don't, and write the laws we live under.

 

This is because capital barriers prevent market entry.  Access goes to the highest bidder in any commoditized system, and the system you've designed has literally been built for the purpose of being commoditized because it is not designed to serve the interests of individuals but rather to consolidate power and serve the interests of the two major political parties (who I remind you are private corporations).  I understand that this is not your desire, but it is an unintended consequence of what you are proposing, which you are attempting to minimize in your rush to justify your idea.

 

Quote

Step by step I have illustrated how this process would improve a critical part of Democracy and be more transparent than any system that would rely on politicians or direct human digression.

 

No, you haven't done that at all.

 

You've made that fiat declaration several times, but you haven't explained how in any detail.  Rather, you've dismissed concerns and counter arguments, completely ignoring any unintended consequences.

 

Quote

I think having publicly available technology with Democratically set parameters is much more accountable to the public. Any citizen could look up and have access to the technology and understand the parameters to which the code is set. Yes not everyone is computer literate enough to understand the code or has the time to comb through all that code but most people don't have access to the people and pols that decide the redistricting currently.

 

Far less, as I've amply demonstrated.

 

What percentage of the population do you think could read and understand code?  Of that group what percentage do you believe to be so mathematically literate they could break down a complicated algorithm within in order to address theoretical concerns?

 

Quote

You act as though every citizen has such a direct hand in the process that is currently used or that a human discretionary system would give people more access to the decision making.

 

Absolutely untrue as I've already laid out.

 

Quote

I have illustrated that it is simply not the case.

 

You have not.

 

Quote

The technology proposed is thought to be openly available to the public and open to any legal challenges from anyone, the parameters to which the algorithm is set are decided through a Democratic process. This is as open to the public as a system could possibly get.

 

At this point you've simply repeated yourself three times within your post.

 

That's a sales technique, not an argument.

Edited November 14, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Well, they are the meth lab of democracy after all.

[billsfan89]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

On a closed system?  How? 

 

 

The proposals for using algorithms have been illustrated to be open systems that anyone can have access to. I fail to see how that's a closed system. If you have an algorithm deciding redistricting on parameters set up by a Democratic process that removes human digression and bias from redistricting. Yes not everyone can read code and the technology solution is not perfect but I pose to you should this be in the direct hands of legislators who have a conflict of interest in deciding 10 years of Congressional elections? I have faith in the citizenry to vet an open algorithm. I don't have faith to leave the system the way it is and just go after corruption as though there isn't any inherent conflict of interest in the pols deciding the districts to begin with. Yes not everyone can read code but everyone can have their voice on how the simple parameters are set up (What are the voter registration numbers and other forms of data that should be set) those factors you can have a direct voice to your representative. 

 

I understand your concerns about technical limitations of the electorate but the code and parameters being out in the open makes it much harder to hide corruption than any system where people with little restrictions decide based off of their own digressions behind closed doors. That's why I ask what's the alternative because even if you had a hardline stance on corruption and somehow eliminated corruption you still are handing over massive power to partisan legislatures to decide Congressional districts with little guidelines on how to do so. Independent commissions are probably the best in-between but as you said there is a limit to just how "Independent" commissions can be (Although I would take the Colorado and California model over most others.) 

 

Once again I don't think this is a perfect solution as I am not sure a perfect solution exists. But out of all available options taking the drawing of the lines out of the hands of the pols who stand to benefit from how the lines are drawn and putting it into the process of an open algorithm makes it a much better system. 

[IDBillzFan]

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Something tells me that after she called Arizona a 'meth lab' filled with 'crazy' people, the people of AZ will care little to find out she's also a liar.

[B-Man]

THURSDAY MORNING UPDATE: Broward completes machine recount overnight; Palm Beach still a clown show

 

 

Palm Beach County recount update: ‘Zero machines running, zero employees visible’

 

 

 

[boyst]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

THURSDAY MORNING UPDATE: Broward completes machine recount overnight; Palm Beach still a clown show

 

 

Palm Beach County recount update: ‘Zero machines running, zero employees visible’

 

 

 

I love the one little deputy they have in there being a Barney ***** Fife using his cell phone to record the guy taking a picture.  What a douche.