8 ms·

If you pay a man by the hour, he'll work a lot of hours. If you pay him by the brick, he'll lay a lot of bricks. These "games" are basically the equivalent of

If you pay a man by the hour, he'll work a lot of hours. If you pay him by the brick, he'll lay a lot of bricks. These "games" are basically the equivalent of counting lines of code or checkins. We're measuring poor proxies instead of the things we're actually interested in. The solution isn't an arms race to build bigger and better proxies, the solution is to measure real things instead of artificial ones. Here's just one example of what I mean by "measure real things". Electing representatives every X years to decide the laws of the land was once upon a time the fairest and best way to have the voices of the masses heard. Today it is feasible to directly poll everybody about every issue, so we no longer need the proxy. If you say everyone cannot be educated about every issue, fine, I can "follow" PG's votes on wall street reform and grellas's votes on IP tort reform and Schneier's votes on TSA etc just by copying their votes on those issues into my ballot, a permission which I can revoke at any time or on a vote-by-vote basis, as easy as unfollowing them on VoteTwitter. This is better than the proxy of professional politicians deciding every issue with fixed terms.

sendos 15y ago
I love the idea that electing representatives every X years to decide the laws of the land may not be the best way forward, and a new approach that takes into account modern technology may be a better way to go about this. However, based on human nature, I think that given long enough time of your proposed system in place, some people will overlearn it and find a way to exploit it, e.g. to gather tons of votes for their favorite cause. We may even see 'vote consultants/strategists' that guarantee a huge increase in the votes for the cause you want to pursue.
- roel_v 15y ago
  Of course, you already see this in indirect form in professional PR firms whose sole job it is to influence public opinion on a narrow issue, and in direct form in places where 'direct voting' is implemented in some form, like in California's referendum system for which on almost each issue specific lobbying groups have a major influence on the outcome. I'd argue that referenda are more even susceptible to the problems described in the article than transparent representative democratic systems are; laymen are easy to influence, and groups of laymen even easier. In the end it depends on the population that is being ruled though - people get the rulers they deserve, and blaming the elected people while still participating in bribery, nepotism etc (while rational! classic prisoners dilemma!) is useless. But of course somebody needs to step up, like the Indian guy is doing now.
jacques_chester 15y ago
The idea of directly polling everybody is not new -- that 'everyone' could vote on everything was at the core of Athenian government. The US founders specifically rejected that system because it leads to majoritarianism. And it would do so again, if you let it.
- drewcrawford 15y ago
  > The US founders specifically rejected that system because it leads to majoritarianism. It would be wonderful if you could cite a few primary sources discussing a direct vs indirect legislative branch as leading to majoritarianism, whether a longitudinal study or quotation of the appropriate historical person. You can still have separation of powers, judicial oversight, bills of rights, local governments, federalism, and all the checks we have today against majoritarianism within a direct legislative system. Direct legislature doesn't mean only one branch of government. To put it another way, I don't believe the solution to the "tyranny of the majority" is to set up little tyrants to rule over the majority instead. Even if those were the only two options (and they're not), I would prefer majority rule to what we have.
  - jacques_chester 15y ago
    > You can still have separation of powers, judicial oversight, bills of rights, local governments, federalism, and all the checks we have today against majoritarianism within a direct legislative system. This doesn't change the fact that legislation would still take on a majoritarian tone. You'd need even more circumscription of the powers of the legislature for it to work at all; history suggests that it's at best a partial solution. > I would prefer majority rule to what we have. I saw majority rule in high school. No thanks.
    - r00fus 15y ago
      > This doesn't change the fact that legislation would still take on a majoritarian tone. It's not clear that this is substantially worse that legislation written for/by lobbyists. The current process is thoroughly corrupt.
Prisen 15y ago
The problem with this is that all issues regarding taxation/government spending are non-orthogonal, and can't be uncoupled easily (or at all).
erikb 15y ago
It is just very hard to measuer real things. One program is not like the other. How do you want to measure success in a software project, where the result is actually not even clear to the customer?
- danmaz74 15y ago
  The real problem with measuring real things is that real things have infinite dimensions. You can only measure along a limited number of dimensions, and if you want to make a ranking you can only directly compare one (scalar) dimension at a time. So in the end you will always get overoptimization over those dimensions you are measuring, to the detriment of the other dimensions. I don't think there is a better solution than continuously changing the dimensions of measurement.
pyrhho 15y ago
> Today it is feasible to directly poll everybody about every issue, so we no longer need the proxy. If you say everyone cannot be educated about every issue, fine, I can "follow" PG's votes on wall street reform and grellas's votes on IP tort reform [...] You'd love Hyperarchy (http://blog.hyperarchy.com/2011/07/19/hyperarchy-democracy-for-the-digital-era.html http://blog.hyperarchy.com/2011/07/19/hyperarchy-democracy-f...)
adrianN 15y ago
This would not work in practice at all because it assumes that most people are sufficiently well educated, informed and interested to make a sound decision. I for one would not want to spend much time on reading new law proposals and thinking about their exact meaning and implications, that's the job of a politician who is actually paid to do that.
redthrowaway 15y ago
As you allude to, the problem with direct democracy is that people are stupid. Not all people about all things, but most people about most things. The realm of human knowledge is simply too vast for anyone to have a broad command of, so we specialize. This means that, for any given issue, the vast majority of people are ignorant about its specifics. Thus we cannot expect the masses to make wise decisions about most issues. The obvious counter-argument to this is education, that educating the public on the issues at hand would lead to better decisions. However, that would fall victim to the same demagoguery and corruption that we see infecting politics today. By way of illustration, think of an issue that you care deeply about and are well-informed on. Now ask yourself if you would trust the public at large to make policy on it. For every pg, grellas, or Schneier, you'll have far more popular Becks, Palins, and Bachmanns. Direct democracy would be inherently susceptible to such demagogues, and as such cannot be seen to be any more reliable, or likely to produce wise policy, than the current system.
- seats 15y ago
  >> The realm of human knowledge is simply too vast for anyone to have a broad command of, so we specialize. This statement could actually be used just as easily against voting for representatives as we do today. The real question is do you trust public at large to make a better or worse opinion than <name your representative> on some issue you are deeply informed on? In other words the comparison should be versus the existing system as a whole, not versus an expert on a single topic. My perception of the demagogue is that their power comes from railing against the current authority. So while I can agree that it seems likely that a 'true democracy' would instantly prop up the Becks and Palins of the country, who do they blame when a majority of people vote that they are wrong? Or maybe even more extreme who do they blame when their views and proposals are voted for but still fail? There is no longer a 'bad guy' to blame and arguments put forth by a demagogue will have to deal with two new realities- 1- They can no longer claim they are part of the majority opinion in an effort to gain further support. It'd be hard for Sarah Palin to keep up her 'regular joe' persona and reconcile it with being in major disagreement with a majority of the country 2- They can no longer claim obstruction by some authority steam rolling them in legislature. It would become pointless to argue about which pundit supported which policy or law in the past, because every individual would have their personal voting record.
stretchwithme 15y ago
We should at least be able to select who represents us. Think proportional representation. I think its crazy that we can hire a lawyer or auto mechanic that must do what we ask, but we cannot be represented by someone that shares our perspective. I don't think direct voting on every issue is the answer. Having the ability to pick our own delegate and change our selection any time is better. I really don't have the time to read every bill. But we can read people and share information with others that share our perspective. Right now we must accept representation by whoever gets the most votes. And it doesn't even have to be a majority of the votes. We also have a big cost shifting problem. People and states seek to shift costs to the larger country. That destroys any ability to weigh costs and benefits. Pushing such assessments down to as local a level as possible improves decision making.
uses 15y ago
I can see it now: "And make sure to VoteFollow us at #GlennBeck. Our research team carefully picks the right votes on all the issues."
learc83 15y ago
I'm in favor of ending the cap on representatives in the House. The House was never meant to be capped at 435.
Greedy_Fools 15y ago
That would be an actual representative government. A good way,logical and efficient and there are others. None of which will ever happen because government cannot be representative, no one will give anything up and inequality cannot be represented. You know the saying, if voting changed anything they'd outlaw it. We don't need a better way to communicate individually with our governors, we need better minds holding power.

sendos 15y ago

I love the idea that electing representatives every X years to decide the laws of the land may not be the best way forward, and a new approach that takes into account modern technology may be a better way to go about this. However, based on human nature, I think that given long enough time of your proposed system in place, some people will overlearn it and find a way to exploit it, e.g. to gather tons of votes for their favorite cause. We may even see 'vote consultants/strategists' that guarantee a huge increase in the votes for the cause you want to pursue.

roel_v 15y ago
Of course, you already see this in indirect form in professional PR firms whose sole job it is to influence public opinion on a narrow issue, and in direct form in places where 'direct voting' is implemented in some form, like in California's referendum system for which on almost each issue specific lobbying groups have a major influence on the outcome. I'd argue that referenda are more even susceptible to the problems described in the article than transparent representative democratic systems are; laymen are easy to influence, and groups of laymen even easier. In the end it depends on the population that is being ruled though - people get the rulers they deserve, and blaming the elected people while still participating in bribery, nepotism etc (while rational! classic prisoners dilemma!) is useless. But of course somebody needs to step up, like the Indian guy is doing now.

jacques_chester 15y ago

The idea of directly polling everybody is not new -- that 'everyone' could vote on everything was at the core of Athenian government. The US founders specifically rejected that system because it leads to majoritarianism. And it would do so again, if you let it.

drewcrawford 15y ago
> The US founders specifically rejected that system because it leads to majoritarianism. It would be wonderful if you could cite a few primary sources discussing a direct vs indirect legislative branch as leading to majoritarianism, whether a longitudinal study or quotation of the appropriate historical person. You can still have separation of powers, judicial oversight, bills of rights, local governments, federalism, and all the checks we have today against majoritarianism within a direct legislative system. Direct legislature doesn't mean only one branch of government. To put it another way, I don't believe the solution to the "tyranny of the majority" is to set up little tyrants to rule over the majority instead. Even if those were the only two options (and they're not), I would prefer majority rule to what we have.
- jacques_chester 15y ago
  > You can still have separation of powers, judicial oversight, bills of rights, local governments, federalism, and all the checks we have today against majoritarianism within a direct legislative system. This doesn't change the fact that legislation would still take on a majoritarian tone. You'd need even more circumscription of the powers of the legislature for it to work at all; history suggests that it's at best a partial solution. > I would prefer majority rule to what we have. I saw majority rule in high school. No thanks.
  - r00fus 15y ago
    > This doesn't change the fact that legislation would still take on a majoritarian tone. It's not clear that this is substantially worse that legislation written for/by lobbyists. The current process is thoroughly corrupt.

Prisen 15y ago

The problem with this is that all issues regarding taxation/government spending are non-orthogonal, and can't be uncoupled easily (or at all).

erikb 15y ago

It is just very hard to measuer real things. One program is not like the other. How do you want to measure success in a software project, where the result is actually not even clear to the customer?

danmaz74 15y ago
The real problem with measuring real things is that real things have infinite dimensions. You can only measure along a limited number of dimensions, and if you want to make a ranking you can only directly compare one (scalar) dimension at a time. So in the end you will always get overoptimization over those dimensions you are measuring, to the detriment of the other dimensions. I don't think there is a better solution than continuously changing the dimensions of measurement.

pyrhho 15y ago

> Today it is feasible to directly poll everybody about every issue, so we no longer need the proxy. If you say everyone cannot be educated about every issue, fine, I can "follow" PG's votes on wall street reform and grellas's votes on IP tort reform [...] You'd love Hyperarchy (http://blog.hyperarchy.com/2011/07/19/hyperarchy-democracy-for-the-digital-era.html http://blog.hyperarchy.com/2011/07/19/hyperarchy-democracy-f...)

adrianN 15y ago

This would not work in practice at all because it assumes that most people are sufficiently well educated, informed and interested to make a sound decision. I for one would not want to spend much time on reading new law proposals and thinking about their exact meaning and implications, that's the job of a politician who is actually paid to do that.

redthrowaway 15y ago

As you allude to, the problem with direct democracy is that people are stupid. Not all people about all things, but most people about most things. The realm of human knowledge is simply too vast for anyone to have a broad command of, so we specialize. This means that, for any given issue, the vast majority of people are ignorant about its specifics. Thus we cannot expect the masses to make wise decisions about most issues. The obvious counter-argument to this is education, that educating the public on the issues at hand would lead to better decisions. However, that would fall victim to the same demagoguery and corruption that we see infecting politics today. By way of illustration, think of an issue that you care deeply about and are well-informed on. Now ask yourself if you would trust the public at large to make policy on it. For every pg, grellas, or Schneier, you'll have far more popular Becks, Palins, and Bachmanns. Direct democracy would be inherently susceptible to such demagogues, and as such cannot be seen to be any more reliable, or likely to produce wise policy, than the current system.

seats 15y ago
>> The realm of human knowledge is simply too vast for anyone to have a broad command of, so we specialize. This statement could actually be used just as easily against voting for representatives as we do today. The real question is do you trust public at large to make a better or worse opinion than <name your representative> on some issue you are deeply informed on? In other words the comparison should be versus the existing system as a whole, not versus an expert on a single topic. My perception of the demagogue is that their power comes from railing against the current authority. So while I can agree that it seems likely that a 'true democracy' would instantly prop up the Becks and Palins of the country, who do they blame when a majority of people vote that they are wrong? Or maybe even more extreme who do they blame when their views and proposals are voted for but still fail? There is no longer a 'bad guy' to blame and arguments put forth by a demagogue will have to deal with two new realities- 1- They can no longer claim they are part of the majority opinion in an effort to gain further support. It'd be hard for Sarah Palin to keep up her 'regular joe' persona and reconcile it with being in major disagreement with a majority of the country 2- They can no longer claim obstruction by some authority steam rolling them in legislature. It would become pointless to argue about which pundit supported which policy or law in the past, because every individual would have their personal voting record.

stretchwithme 15y ago

We should at least be able to select who represents us. Think proportional representation. I think its crazy that we can hire a lawyer or auto mechanic that must do what we ask, but we cannot be represented by someone that shares our perspective. I don't think direct voting on every issue is the answer. Having the ability to pick our own delegate and change our selection any time is better. I really don't have the time to read every bill. But we can read people and share information with others that share our perspective. Right now we must accept representation by whoever gets the most votes. And it doesn't even have to be a majority of the votes. We also have a big cost shifting problem. People and states seek to shift costs to the larger country. That destroys any ability to weigh costs and benefits. Pushing such assessments down to as local a level as possible improves decision making.

uses 15y ago

I can see it now: "And make sure to VoteFollow us at #GlennBeck. Our research team carefully picks the right votes on all the issues."

learc83 15y ago

I'm in favor of ending the cap on representatives in the House. The House was never meant to be capped at 435.

Greedy_Fools 15y ago

That would be an actual representative government. A good way,logical and efficient and there are others. None of which will ever happen because government cannot be representative, no one will give anything up and inequality cannot be represented. You know the saying, if voting changed anything they'd outlaw it. We don't need a better way to communicate individually with our governors, we need better minds holding power.