-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy path190007205_thread.json
34 lines (34 loc) · 12.6 KB
/
190007205_thread.json
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
{
"id":"190007205",
"name":"Warren Koch",
"screen_name":"cacophonicadent",
"tweets":[
{"id":"1206798158564429824","timestamp":"1576558076","retweet_count":"3","favorite_count":"34","in_reply_to_status_id":"null","in_reply_to_user_id":"null","in_reply_to_screen_name":"null","text":"Group Decision Making\n@vgr 1 like = 1 opinion\n\nI am by no means an expert, but I can talk for hours on this, so hopefully I have enough crystallized opinions in me to keep up. \n\nCovering all Decision Making with a focus on Group Decisions (e.g. Voting, Recommendation, Consensus)"},
{"id":"1206800960212721666","timestamp":"1576558744","retweet_count":"1","favorite_count":"4","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"1. I'll start off with an obvious fact that is hopefully well-known now in internet circles: First Past The Post (FPTP), the most common voting system in Western Democracies, is a giant burning trash pile - and at this point, that's no accident. TPTB want FPTP to keep power."},
{"id":"1206827312538210305","timestamp":"1576565027","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"2","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"(Wow holy shit thanks guys I already have way more response than I expected. Will try to keep up. ATH Tweet already, sadly)"},
{"id":"1206827659751084033","timestamp":"1576565110","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"3","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"2. FPTP proponents like it because they think it creates strong majorities in parliament elections with clear mandates. They are wrong. Any mandate comes at the cost of removing any choice from voters except the 2 main parties. 3rd party = useless protest vote split, or worse"},
{"id":"1206828134500192257","timestamp":"1576565223","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"1","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"3. UK 2019, 2016 Republican primaries leading to Trump, Bush-Gore-Nader just the most recent big victims of FPTP. Yet we can't get rid of it - every referendum is met with huge misinformation/confusion campaigns and change unwanted by both major parties. No duh why."},
{"id":"1206828475337736194","timestamp":"1576565304","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"7","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"4. But there are great easy alternatives. Approval Voting = \"you can just tick multiple boxes, most votes wins\". Way better. Simple, statistically represents voters better, doesnt kill 3rd parties - path to a better world! <3 Learn & support here: <3 https://t.co/Eon9KGbEph"},
{"id":"1206829250101145605","timestamp":"1576565489","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"4","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"5. Range Voting (=\"5 star ratings\") is more mature, since it gives more expression, allowing ppl to rank votes. Even highly strategic votes just become Approval (0 to enemies, 5 to favorites). Based on utilitarian measures of voter satisfaction, Range wins out, (& FPTP is last)"},
{"id":"1206829770471641088","timestamp":"1576565613","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"5","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"6. P.S. Warren D. Smith, inventor of Range Voting, is a gruff old curmudgeon who hates academia and has spent decades piling up evidence for the best voting systems. (@vgr you might love him) Those utilitarian VSE scores are here: (Warning: rabbit hole)\nhttps://t.co/vYwYfiRKBc"},
{"id":"1206830409402576897","timestamp":"1576565766","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"2","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206829770471641088","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"6B. Scores since replicated/improved by: \nhttps://t.co/jdMQtJxcna Lesson is: maximizing overall Voter Satisfaction is a very good metric for picking the best system. As is comparing pathologies between the various systems. It's all a tradeoff of course, but there are easy wins"},
{"id":"1206831957218168832","timestamp":"1576566135","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"1","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"7. But voting systems are BORING. This debate is BORING. Because it is Solved. Anyone who studies this at all knows we can't go wrong by replacing FPTP with anything else & (imo) ideally going towards Approval/Range (or PR - will get to that later as I run out of opinions...)"},
{"id":"1206834634186612736","timestamp":"1576566773","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"2","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"The problem isn't academic consensus here, it's that we need political power to fix the system deciding political power, and anyone with power will lose it if they change said system. So we're trapped. Another world problem put on hold by TPTB, with no end in sight."},
{"id":"1206835257980248065","timestamp":"1576566922","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"3","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"9. \"So why not just bypass government? Vote online!\" Thanks younger self. Unsolved problem so far, though TBF we're getting close. Online Voting is just super insecure. Harder problm than online payments cuz if you can verify your vote you can sell it. Major no-no for voting"},
{"id":"1206867185974435841","timestamp":"1576574534","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"0","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"10. Another problem is Proof of Identity, where verifying 1 human = 1 vote is difficult online. Solutions without authorities (govs) are tough - tho maybe possible, using a mix of gov IDs, Social media, activity, bio credentials, social vouching etc. If we solve this it's Big"},
{"id":"1206868679645810688","timestamp":"1576574890","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"0","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"11. Final major hurdle is trust - how do you get people to trust an online system that can be hacked by anyone vs a gov [that can be hacked by those you know well]. I'll just leave this at: this is a crypto problem to solve."},
{"id":"1206869631882809344","timestamp":"1576575117","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"0","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206868679645810688","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"12. Trustless decentralized systems capable of gathering votes and counting them/tying them to outcomes in a completely objective, rule-based way either exist now or are incoming. So the infrastructure for decentralized voting is [almost] up. Will anyone use it though?"},
{"id":"1206870223002845184","timestamp":"1576575258","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"0","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"13. And again, actual use is a crypto problem - we need a killer app for voting. People like big symbolic federal elections, but we could literally collectively democratically run pools of money the size of cities right now if we wanted to. Food for thought."},
{"id":"1206870509847076864","timestamp":"1576575326","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"0","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"(I'll try not to focus too hard on crypto right now tho. Save it for the upper double digits heh)"},
{"id":"1206881549037129728","timestamp":"1576577958","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"0","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"14. Fundamentals pre-crypto tho, before Bitcoin reared its ugly little head, was something called the Byzantine Generals Problem. Basically if you want to trust people online, if less than a third of them are lying hackers you can still talk to the others via broadcast safely"},
{"id":"1206881846316781568","timestamp":"1576578029","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"0","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"15. That's IF you're all on the same wavelength, expecting to agree on obvious things (e.g. earth is round vs hackers trying to convince flat) Soon as you get into opinions like votes, fault tolerance goes down."},
{"id":"1206882225448374273","timestamp":"1576578119","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"0","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"15. A two-party election via web broadcast needs to have a majority of 2/3 if you fear that 1/3 of voters could be DDoSed. 4/5 if you fear 1/5 could be hacked entirely OR DDoSed (best we can do for that). This gets worse with more parties. So yeah, we need message resistance"},
{"id":"1206885978134069248","timestamp":"1576579014","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"0","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"16. You get message resistance by giving up something. Either time - synchronizing votes (brings tolerance back to 1/4 for 3/4 majority). Or by making messages really expensive (literally) to compute so the hackers won't spoof them all in time. (Again, Bitcoin approach)"},
{"id":"1206892311491170305","timestamp":"1576580524","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"0","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"(Didn't expect to get that technical, but I'm leaning into the strip-mining for opinions here.)"},
{"id":"1206892771677593600","timestamp":"1576580634","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"0","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"17. But - this shit's important because it underlies why we have ugly slow, centralized systems for group decisions. We're scared of hackers. If the whole internet just wanted to choose \"X or Y\", pretty sure some botnet could take out 1/5th of voters and decide either way."},
{"id":"1206892907174625280","timestamp":"1576580666","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"0","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206892771677593600","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"(1/3rd and they can decide \"Z\")."},
{"id":"1206901326459723779","timestamp":"1576582674","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"0","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"18. And any smaller voting group, or more choices, gets way easier to hack. Point being anything moderately important we'd want to decide online has a fairly high risk. So we try to do it all inside walled gardens - which are themselves prime hack/corruption targets."},
{"id":"1206901628403453953","timestamp":"1576582746","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"0","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"19. Meanwhile in the real world - voting machines are being put up left and right, breaking the only thing reality has going for it: the security of paper. Seriously, paper ballots are so much more secure than any other invention we have right now."},
{"id":"1206903539550670848","timestamp":"1576583201","retweet_count":"0","favorite_count":"0","in_reply_to_status_id":"1206798158564429824","in_reply_to_user_id":"190007205","in_reply_to_screen_name":"cacophonicadent","text":"20. Voting machines are just an awful idea too. Definitely corrupted AF. Should be treated with as-much-if-not-more skepticism/scrutiny as Gerrymandering - and I hope that's a well-known nefarious exploit favored by Republicans by now"}
]
}