3 ms·

You find it realistic. I find it another pseudo-logicical explanation for those who can't accept the fact that most voters don't agree with them. Who are tryin

You find it realistic. I find it another pseudo-logicical explanation for those who can't accept the fact that most voters don't agree with them. Who are trying to justify their own moral superiority by pretending those who don't agree with them were all scammed and cheated into that believe. Nothing personal but since we are already picking those narratives that we favor let me just pick the other extreme.

andybak 9y ago
> most voters don't agree with them Replace 'most' with 'a slender majority' if you want to retain the fig-leaf of objectivity and rationality that you seem to covet. Politics is littered with examples of groups who were deceived into voting against their own self-interest. This isn't some kind of bizarre conspiracy - it's business as usual. It strikes me as more bizarre to pretend that democracy is some kind of idealized machine that extracts considered, rational decisions from large aggregates of people. It never was and never has been. It's simply the "least worst"[1] way of choosing our leaders. [1] https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government
- 1337biz 9y ago
  I am not here to defend Democracy or 'the system'. In fact I noticed the fallback to those fundamental critique comes always up when one's own favorite did lose. How the voting system works has been known for decades. It is the job of politicians and all those trying to shape the public opinion to convince people to vote.
  - andybak 9y ago
    > In fact I noticed the fallback to those fundamental critique comes always up when one's own favorite did lose. Of course. We have vested interest in complaining when we 'lose' and praising the outcome when we 'win'. But your original post seemed to be dismissive of the idea that there is anything to be worried about. Even if we agree on the existence of a major cognitive bias here - it's irrelevant to the question of whether there is a real issue that should be addressed. The problem with a "backdoor in democracy" is similar to the problem with cryptography backdoors. You can't control who'll make use of them so everyone should be scared.
    - 1337biz 9y ago
      It is similar to the US campaign finance reform - if you want to spend money for your candidate you will always find a way to do it. For me it is much more surprising why so little money has been funneled into EU elections so far.
      - fche 9y ago
        Maybe they thought they were invulnerable.
- supremesaboteur 9y ago
  >Replace 'most' with 'a slender majority' if you want to retain the fig-leaf of objectivity and rationality that you seem to covet Would the argument still hold water if he did ? > Politics is littered with examples of groups who were deceived into voting against their own self-interest. This isn't some kind of bizarre conspiracy - it's business as usual. It strikes me as more bizarre to pretend that democracy is some kind of idealized machine that extracts considered, rational decisions from large aggregates of people Tell that to the leftists in US who go around shouting that Trump lost the popular vote
  - andybak 9y ago
    > Would the argument still hold water if he did ? Do you mean mine or his? I think his argument would lose some rhetorical force and be much less persuasive. If you mean something else then please clarify as I don't quite follow. > Tell that to the leftists in US who go around shouting that Trump lost the popular vote I'm not sure how the existence of that group is relevant here. Surely if anything they underscore my point from the other side of the fence? I'm not claiming "this only happens to the side I disagree with" if that's what you're implying.
djhworld 9y ago
Regardless of what side you are on, the interesting part is the fact that companies like CA and their subsidiaries are increasingly being used by political organisations to persuade. It's not new, but with Facebook etc and the masses of data that are out there, along with the technology to mine it, I think we're seeing a huge shift into how these things are run as people can be targeted on a much more macro level.
- 1337biz 9y ago
  I agree. Politics has always been on the forefront of using new technology. Just look at Eisenhower's pioneering use of trains for his whistle-stop tour in 1952. And that's my problem with the article - it is just a demonizing one sided narrative with no new insights on the technology.
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Who do you say is running Brexit then? In the Tory cabinet 80% (24) backed Remain including Theresa May, all Parties backed Remain except the DUP. Yet here we are the following year crashing headlong in to the hardest possible Brexit with an ex-Remainer supposedly steering the ship, destroying years of accord left and right. Somebody coordinated the campaign, somebody established writing £350M on the side of a bus was the perfect way to win people over, knowing it was a lie. Doesn't a foreign business contacting a supposed grass-roots campaign unsolicited look even a little suspicious to you? Where's the link between Farage and Trump's campaigns in your version of events.
- notahacker 9y ago
  Brexit had half the prominent figures in the Conservative party, all the largest-circulation mainstream print press and guaranteed equal airtime in television media in the build up (including equal airtime for the very small fraction of left-wing politicians willing to make a case for Leave). Not to mention that figures on Remain side of the government had been making the basic thrust of Leave's arguments: numbers of immigrants are a massive problem we need to control since the turn of the century It doesn't take shadowy foreign billionaires to figure out that promising the electorate lots of money is a vote winner The demographics least likely to be reached by Cambridge Analytica's ad-buying campaigns were also those most likely to vote Leave.
- Boothroid 9y ago
  'hardest possible Brexit' - any time the type of Brexit gets trotted out it makes me suspicious. Do you think the 52% were voting for a minor tweaking of the arrangements when they voted Leave?
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    I think the 52% were voting for a range of things. Some thought that immediately after the vote passed, for example, that all non-British residents would be deported. Others voted, expecting financial devastation, but preferring the Tory party to be in control of our destiny as a country than yielding anything to an accord of nations - as another example. Still others voted, a large proportion it seems to stop immigration; which isn't going to happen. Yet others voted because they'd been persuaded it would be better economically for them and their communities. But instead those communities will get less spending and, eventually, far worse conditions of employment too. Another large proportion voted because of the promises of funding for the NHS but the Tory plan is to run it down and bring in more and more commerce until it's effectively privatised, so even if it hadn't been a lie the Tory's weren't going to follow it through. If the voters could make their support conditional on the actual outcome then it seems like maybe 15% at most would still be supporting it. How those who stood by the "£350M for the NHS" lie, our Foreign Secretary say, weren't committing treason I don't know ... but I digress.

andybak 9y ago

> most voters don't agree with them Replace 'most' with 'a slender majority' if you want to retain the fig-leaf of objectivity and rationality that you seem to covet. Politics is littered with examples of groups who were deceived into voting against their own self-interest. This isn't some kind of bizarre conspiracy - it's business as usual. It strikes me as more bizarre to pretend that democracy is some kind of idealized machine that extracts considered, rational decisions from large aggregates of people. It never was and never has been. It's simply the "least worst"[1] way of choosing our leaders. [1] https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government

1337biz 9y ago
I am not here to defend Democracy or 'the system'. In fact I noticed the fallback to those fundamental critique comes always up when one's own favorite did lose. How the voting system works has been known for decades. It is the job of politicians and all those trying to shape the public opinion to convince people to vote.
- andybak 9y ago
  > In fact I noticed the fallback to those fundamental critique comes always up when one's own favorite did lose. Of course. We have vested interest in complaining when we 'lose' and praising the outcome when we 'win'. But your original post seemed to be dismissive of the idea that there is anything to be worried about. Even if we agree on the existence of a major cognitive bias here - it's irrelevant to the question of whether there is a real issue that should be addressed. The problem with a "backdoor in democracy" is similar to the problem with cryptography backdoors. You can't control who'll make use of them so everyone should be scared.
  - 1337biz 9y ago
    It is similar to the US campaign finance reform - if you want to spend money for your candidate you will always find a way to do it. For me it is much more surprising why so little money has been funneled into EU elections so far.
    - fche 9y ago
      Maybe they thought they were invulnerable.
supremesaboteur 9y ago
>Replace 'most' with 'a slender majority' if you want to retain the fig-leaf of objectivity and rationality that you seem to covet Would the argument still hold water if he did ? > Politics is littered with examples of groups who were deceived into voting against their own self-interest. This isn't some kind of bizarre conspiracy - it's business as usual. It strikes me as more bizarre to pretend that democracy is some kind of idealized machine that extracts considered, rational decisions from large aggregates of people Tell that to the leftists in US who go around shouting that Trump lost the popular vote
- andybak 9y ago
  > Would the argument still hold water if he did ? Do you mean mine or his? I think his argument would lose some rhetorical force and be much less persuasive. If you mean something else then please clarify as I don't quite follow. > Tell that to the leftists in US who go around shouting that Trump lost the popular vote I'm not sure how the existence of that group is relevant here. Surely if anything they underscore my point from the other side of the fence? I'm not claiming "this only happens to the side I disagree with" if that's what you're implying.

djhworld 9y ago

Regardless of what side you are on, the interesting part is the fact that companies like CA and their subsidiaries are increasingly being used by political organisations to persuade. It's not new, but with Facebook etc and the masses of data that are out there, along with the technology to mine it, I think we're seeing a huge shift into how these things are run as people can be targeted on a much more macro level.

1337biz 9y ago
I agree. Politics has always been on the forefront of using new technology. Just look at Eisenhower's pioneering use of trains for his whistle-stop tour in 1952. And that's my problem with the article - it is just a demonizing one sided narrative with no new insights on the technology.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

Who do you say is running Brexit then? In the Tory cabinet 80% (24) backed Remain including Theresa May, all Parties backed Remain except the DUP. Yet here we are the following year crashing headlong in to the hardest possible Brexit with an ex-Remainer supposedly steering the ship, destroying years of accord left and right. Somebody coordinated the campaign, somebody established writing £350M on the side of a bus was the perfect way to win people over, knowing it was a lie. Doesn't a foreign business contacting a supposed grass-roots campaign unsolicited look even a little suspicious to you? Where's the link between Farage and Trump's campaigns in your version of events.

notahacker 9y ago
Brexit had half the prominent figures in the Conservative party, all the largest-circulation mainstream print press and guaranteed equal airtime in television media in the build up (including equal airtime for the very small fraction of left-wing politicians willing to make a case for Leave). Not to mention that figures on Remain side of the government had been making the basic thrust of Leave's arguments: numbers of immigrants are a massive problem we need to control since the turn of the century It doesn't take shadowy foreign billionaires to figure out that promising the electorate lots of money is a vote winner The demographics least likely to be reached by Cambridge Analytica's ad-buying campaigns were also those most likely to vote Leave.
Boothroid 9y ago
'hardest possible Brexit' - any time the type of Brexit gets trotted out it makes me suspicious. Do you think the 52% were voting for a minor tweaking of the arrangements when they voted Leave?
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  I think the 52% were voting for a range of things. Some thought that immediately after the vote passed, for example, that all non-British residents would be deported. Others voted, expecting financial devastation, but preferring the Tory party to be in control of our destiny as a country than yielding anything to an accord of nations - as another example. Still others voted, a large proportion it seems to stop immigration; which isn't going to happen. Yet others voted because they'd been persuaded it would be better economically for them and their communities. But instead those communities will get less spending and, eventually, far worse conditions of employment too. Another large proportion voted because of the promises of funding for the NHS but the Tory plan is to run it down and bring in more and more commerce until it's effectively privatised, so even if it hadn't been a lie the Tory's weren't going to follow it through. If the voters could make their support conditional on the actual outcome then it seems like maybe 15% at most would still be supporting it. How those who stood by the "£350M for the NHS" lie, our Foreign Secretary say, weren't committing treason I don't know ... but I digress.