Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Q&A - 25/11

Link

[After the Paris attack, some p]eople seem concerned to make sure that Islam gets its full share of the blame, so we get the unedifying circus of neocons invoking God as much as the killers. “Well, Isis say they’re motivated by God.” Yes, and people who have sex with their pets say they’re motivated by love, but most of us don’t really believe them.

ROFL

News

Final Myanmar results show Aung San Suu Kyi's party won 77% of seats

Not surprising

The results in immature democracies are always like this - it's either 90% for the dictators, or 70-80% for the first genuine party. TR has been through this many years ago. I wish Myanmar luck.

Question

How can parties-with-quotas system be implemented?

An idea..

The existing parliamentary systems around the world are a middle ground between the wants of a party and the wants of the electorate, at regional level. Internal party politics decides on candidates who are both 1) compatible with their  party politics, and 2) have a chance to win at a certain region. As far as mass politics is concerned, this is not such a bad system.

Before our final destination direct democracy, though, if we want a system that is still elite-oriented, has stability, representative and will work everywhere (areas that are unstable, have long-running ethnic, religious divisions) we can simply swap the idea of region with the idea of "declared identity".

First, an electronic registry is built that allows citizens to declare their political identity. Someone might chose that identity to be gay, someone else liberal, someone else conservative, or Shite, atheist. Then, let's say 6 months before an election, a snapshot of the existing identity allocations are tallied up - i.e. 30% conservative, 30% liberal, etc..

There are only two parties. For a parliament of, i.e. 300 members, each party appoints candidates internally according to the allocations; 30% of 300 = 90 liberal candidates, same for liberal, 90 ppl, then maybe 10 gay, etc, from each party. Parties also assign a rank to each candidate within each identity group.

Primaries: each party holds "identity group primaries" where every identity group can downvote any candidate put forth by either party. Let's say even 20% of nays would be enough to knock out any candidate from any party's list. This way only genuine representative for each identity blocks are represented in each party.

During the election day the voters would naturally try to strike a balance between the candidates they see from each party that fits their identity best, and also try to judge the greater party's merits. So they cast their vote - party A or party B.

After the election, all votes are counted, say 60% for party A, 40% for party B. Then top 60% of 90 liberal candidates, of 90 conservative candidates, etc. go to the parliament from party A. 40% of each allocation goes to parliament from party B.

This way the make-up of the parliament reflects the identity allocations exactly. Both within each party, and in the entire parliament overall.

People would have a strong incentive to declare their identity correctly, since the allocations would effect the make-up of each party, as well as the parliament.

The word "registry" might irk some, maybe ppl would not like the government to know they are gay, or Shite, or atheist, whatever. These are implementation details - allocation records could be based on pseudoanonymous identifiers, which can somehow be tied to an individual through an encryption mechanism, that allows the election commitee to ensure everyone votes only once, and the person voting is elligable, but the government cannot tie an individual to an identity directly... There are ways to implement this. 

Comment

Success is so important.

To whom? 

I'd suggest everyone who likes to give such wide-ranging self-help suggestions to filter it through their personal make-up first. I was reading an interview with the famous actor Ethan Hawke once; he was asked about success, he was irked by the question because he cared so little about it, at least about the way it is traditionally defined. So I profiled the man, turns out Hawke is an High Horse . Same type as Putin :) albeit Hawke is more in the positive.

We covered this type before: Their life journey is about seeing the equality in men, experimenting with unorthodox ideas. Others in this group are Elon Musk, Thomas Friedman, Marc Andreessen, to name a few. In the negative they want to be at the center stage, all the time, with morons clapping all around them, for all they do,  they want to bask in this glory, bathe in this shit. What they need to do however is support others to gain their success. Hawke for example, seems to have formed a symbiotic relationship with a director Richard Linklater (very good, less me, more us) and together they've done some freaky-ass unorthodox movies, even one, Boyhood, that many years to complete, showing its actors age inside the movie! I bet Hawke loved that, that is a HH being in the positive. Big time.

Andressen is the best example of supporting others - his investment firm AFAIK takes great care to coach, nurture the start-ups they take under their wing.

Of course, the positives take a while to develop since they revolve around the weakest parts of a man's psyche; for example Leave the Child Behind types must take responsibility, manage things better, but the "positive negative" of this type is becoming controlling intead of managing. For HH, they need to deal with unorthodox ideas, but things can get superfreaky, or freaky for the sake of being freaky to the point it becomes mindless, inane non-sense. But they will, as each type does, get feedback from others on that stuff immediately.