5 ms·

Someone once said that you can fool some of the people all the time and you can fool all the people some of the time. The crowds can be fooled; worse, when they

Someone once said that you can fool some of the people all the time and you can fool all the people some of the time. The crowds can be fooled; worse, when they insist on something that isn't true, almost every public figure will give in and tell the people what they want to hear. Generally I'm more interested in questions from people who study these issues full-time, and are skilled at handling the evasiveness (and sometimes plain old deceit) of public figures. The wisdom of the crowds is a great tool, but like all great tools it's not a universal one. It doesn't replace expertise, for example. I don't want my medical condition treated or my war planned by amateurs. The public figures are professionals at this PR game. That said, the crowd-based interview may complement the professionals.

jordanpg 11y ago
I cannot agree more. The manner in which voting decisions are ostensibly supposed to be made can only be called juvenile. The questions in play are among the most complex in human history. The stakes are high. All the way high. And still decisions about how to vote are supposed to be determined by bland, simple answers to vague, generalized questions? No thanks; please just show me the analysis. Show me the graphs. Show me the track record, in writing. I care little for what politicians or their PR wings say to interviewers. I care lots about data. Aside: it's up to us (techy people), in my opinion, to find a way to jump-start this discourse.
- fleitz 11y ago
  A big part of the problem is we don't know what we even want from democracy. eg. Is the idea to select leaders who know better than us, so that policy reflects the views of the public, etc? I'm pretty sure what actually results is not unlike Douglas Adams feelings on democracy, that we mostly vote for one lizard so another lizard doesn't get elected.
  - mooreds 11y ago
    Yes, the fundamental question is do we want a trustee or delegate form of democracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_model_of_representation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_model_of_representatio...
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  "And still decisions about how to vote are supposed to be determined by bland, simple answers to vague, generalized questions?" Deeper responses are available from most candidates. It's worth emphasizing that it's YOUR (generic you, not personal) responsibility to absorb these responses when they are available. The biggest problem is that people just...don't.
  - SapphireSun 11y ago
    Most people don't take the time to find out about anything. Just because they were born with a vote doesn't mean they care. It's a failure of people who do care to inform the ones who don't. It may not be the "morally correct" failing, but you're never going to win that battle, whereas you might get a beachhead with proper outreach.
  - jordanpg 11y ago
    > Deeper responses are available from most candidates. Occasionally. Very occasionally. I would submit that these interviews are really only useful to the extent that they let candidates demonstrate their leadership style or possibly their personality.
    - waterlesscloud 11y ago
      No, quite often. Not interviews, but position papers and talks and so on from the candidates. Contrary to folk wisdom, politicians for the most part take their work seriously and have put a lot of thought and effort into issues they care about. In addition to their published material, you can always reach out to them or their staff to discuss in more detail. That is, of course, on you to take those steps, but they are available to you.
pnathan 11y ago
I believe you are advocating for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy Would that be correct?
- hackuser 11y ago
  Oops, not at all. I must have given the wrong impression. I am 100% in favor of democracy with universal sufferage and representation, both as a matter of principle and one of practicality. Those technical geniuses are still only human: They hardly can design software interfaces that work for everyone; I don't want them dictating public policy. My point in the grandparent post was that I'm much more interested in candidate interviews conducted by professionals than those by Redditers.

jordanpg 11y ago

I cannot agree more. The manner in which voting decisions are ostensibly supposed to be made can only be called juvenile. The questions in play are among the most complex in human history. The stakes are high. All the way high. And still decisions about how to vote are supposed to be determined by bland, simple answers to vague, generalized questions? No thanks; please just show me the analysis. Show me the graphs. Show me the track record, in writing. I care little for what politicians or their PR wings say to interviewers. I care lots about data. Aside: it's up to us (techy people), in my opinion, to find a way to jump-start this discourse.

fleitz 11y ago
A big part of the problem is we don't know what we even want from democracy. eg. Is the idea to select leaders who know better than us, so that policy reflects the views of the public, etc? I'm pretty sure what actually results is not unlike Douglas Adams feelings on democracy, that we mostly vote for one lizard so another lizard doesn't get elected.
- mooreds 11y ago
  Yes, the fundamental question is do we want a trustee or delegate form of democracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_model_of_representation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_model_of_representatio...
waterlesscloud 11y ago
"And still decisions about how to vote are supposed to be determined by bland, simple answers to vague, generalized questions?" Deeper responses are available from most candidates. It's worth emphasizing that it's YOUR (generic you, not personal) responsibility to absorb these responses when they are available. The biggest problem is that people just...don't.
- SapphireSun 11y ago
  Most people don't take the time to find out about anything. Just because they were born with a vote doesn't mean they care. It's a failure of people who do care to inform the ones who don't. It may not be the "morally correct" failing, but you're never going to win that battle, whereas you might get a beachhead with proper outreach.
- jordanpg 11y ago
  > Deeper responses are available from most candidates. Occasionally. Very occasionally. I would submit that these interviews are really only useful to the extent that they let candidates demonstrate their leadership style or possibly their personality.
  - waterlesscloud 11y ago
    No, quite often. Not interviews, but position papers and talks and so on from the candidates. Contrary to folk wisdom, politicians for the most part take their work seriously and have put a lot of thought and effort into issues they care about. In addition to their published material, you can always reach out to them or their staff to discuss in more detail. That is, of course, on you to take those steps, but they are available to you.

pnathan 11y ago

I believe you are advocating for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy Would that be correct?

hackuser 11y ago
Oops, not at all. I must have given the wrong impression. I am 100% in favor of democracy with universal sufferage and representation, both as a matter of principle and one of practicality. Those technical geniuses are still only human: They hardly can design software interfaces that work for everyone; I don't want them dictating public policy. My point in the grandparent post was that I'm much more interested in candidate interviews conducted by professionals than those by Redditers.