Ranked Vote: How To Restore Meaningful Civil Discourse

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Meta777, Jul 25, 2018.

  1. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    20,754
    Likes Received:
    8,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Moms have been trying to do it for centuries.
     
  2. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Fix the system to alleviate the two-party stranglehold problem and watch Americans at large settle down again. It's this winner-take-all, two-parties-for-all system that is poisoning our politics.
     
    Meta777 likes this.
  3. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hard to argue with this. It used to push the system toward moderation, as both parties fought for the middle. But now the parties have discovered that polarization makes for safe seats.
     
    Meta777 likes this.
  4. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A profound thought. I think this goes back to what I was saying earlier.

    What exactly is the purpose of a forum like this? Or what should the purpose be?

    There are some people who think the purpose should be for some kind of fun or entertainment that comes from deriding one another.

    And there are others, myself included, who think that the purpose of a forum like this,...
    or of discourse in general, ought to be more meaningful than that.

    That this should be a place for the civil sharing of ideas, if not to change anyone's mind, at least such that we might better understand each-other. Maybe even that we might get one another thinking about things in a different way, or that together we may happen upon some new and or unique solution to one of the many societal problems we all share.

    Of course, none of that means that discourse can't be fun as well, but imo entertainment shouldn't be the priority, and especially, we shouldn't allow a particular brand of 'fun' which is known to come at the expense of being able to civilly talk to one other or engage in the previously mentioned sharing of ideas. That sort of fun is detrimental to our society as a whole.

    -Meta
     
    Seth Bullock likes this.
  5. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Plus we have the example of European democracies, where the multiple parties better represent a broad range of interests and ideologies, and so they all work to compromise and form coalitions for the common good. Here, as you say, we've devolved into polarization which, I would argue, mirrors the basic two-party model on which it is based. No one has any real control over it, either - voters and politicians alike move one way or another collectively and dynamically, like a great game of Ouija.
     
    Meta777 likes this.
  6. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yep, that is the question. I sincerely hope the answer is not "it's just for fun, a place for tribal insults and nothing more." Not only is that shallow, but as you note it is actually detrimental as well.

    I'm not sure if this has already been proposed, but we could reverse the idea of a Master's forum, and instead have a "Thunderdome" forum, where you exile people who can't post without insults. There the monkeys are free to fling poo to their heart's content, without bothering the rest of us.

    One way or the other though, we need a way to separate the substantive posters from the poo flingers.
     
    Meta777 likes this.
  7. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I've been leaning this way in recent years. I used to point out that the parliamentary system's greatest strength -- a relatively accurate representation of the voting populace, where small parties can thrive -- was also it's greatest weakness, in that it contributes to government instability (through governments collapsing when a coalition breaks down) and also allows small parties to wield outsized power by threatening to leave a narrow coalition (as happens quite frequently in places like Israel).

    But those critiques seem almost quaint now. I'd rather have something like that than the current polarization.
     
    Meta777 and Durandal like this.
  8. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    12,832
    Likes Received:
    5,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The whole problem is the mainstream media. They'v taken it upon themselves to champion the counter culture movement rather than report the news. This is the division. They are at war with America.
     
  9. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Um ... no.
     
  10. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed. And good point, we don't need to be thinking of ourselves as divided into yet another set of categories (the civil vs the uncivil), there are enough artificial categorizations as it is. The truth is, like you said, we all have the capacity for either, the question is how can we help ourselves and our fellow citizens so that we all show the best of ourselves more often?

    Yes, though we do have to start somewhere, right?
    There likely isn't one single thing than can fully solve an issue like this one, no magic bullet...
    but we'll never get anywhere... will never move forwards... unless someone takes the first step.

    -Meta
     
  11. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, also... credit for the sub forum idea should go to @Seth Bullock and @Lee S
     
    Falena likes this.
  12. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly!!

    I think the closest options to that would be B and M.

    B. Avoid Binary Thinking and Partisan Finger-Pointing
    M. Embrace Respectful Disagreement/Learn More About Your Rival

    -Meta
     
    Falena likes this.
  13. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are better ways of putting a spotlight on misinformation.
    If someone says something wrong, and you go out of your way to make them feel extra bad about it,
    it may help them learn their lesson, but more likely it'll just lead to them fostering negative feelings towards you,
    until they get to thinking that you're a bad teacher, and are then less willing to consider anything you might have to say in the future.

    This is part of what creates the division in our country. And besides, didn't you yourself say that verbal bullying was bad?
    If you're going out of your way to, not just correct someone, but to humiliate them, then that is the definition of verbal bullying.

    -Meta
     
    Falena likes this.
  14. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed! And hopefully, we can do both! :)

    -Meta
     
  15. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    according to the American founding fathers, lawful duels were apart of meaningful civil discourse.

    civil comes from civilisation, and england is where American civilisation originates.

    if freedom of speech is unable to be honoured on any forum, lobbying duly elected representatives for duel legislation is required.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr–Hamilton_duel
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2018
  16. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed! Couldn't have said it better myself.
    BTW, you should cast a vote. Option E. Reduce Partisanship by Improving Our Election System[1][2-Summary]
    seems to be right up your alley.

    -Meta
     
  17. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly!!
    That's precisely why I push so hard for us to replace Plurality election systems with Ranked systems like Ranked Pairs or Instant Runoff.
    If we want people to care about the middle again, we should change the system so that the middle actually has a fair shot at winning.
    A fix to gerrymandering would help as well.

    -Meta
     
  18. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  19. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To vote, just list the options/their labels out in your order of preference,...
    You don't have to rank them all, but the more options ranked, the more chances your ballot has to impact the final results.
    To vote for anything not on the list, just add it into your rankings list as a "write-in".


    Here are some examples:
    Example 1
    Example 2

    You don't have to format it exactly like we did,
    just as long as I can tell what your order of preference was.

    -Meta
     
  20. Doug1943

    Doug1943 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,741
    Likes Received:
    1,748
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oi, oi, oi! Please think again.

    I'm a teacher too, and my own First Commandment is: avoid sarcasm.

    There are many good reasons not to denigrate, insult or humiliate even the stupidest, most malevolent, most ignorant of your students.

    For one, you have a privileged position, as the teacher. You're in the position of power. It's not a debate between equals. So you have to restrain yourself. And remember that your ignorant student is young, inexperienced -- he or she has not had the years of education and experience that you have had.

    In a debate forum like this one we're all probably pretty insensitive, hardened bruisers, but students are vulnerable. You can do real psychological damage to them..

    For another, it's not the best way to refute someone. Yes, it's pleasant to get everyone laughing at some stupid person, but ... how many of them are laughing because they're persuaded by your argument, and how many because they just want to side with Power -- not just yours, but the power of the laughing majority?

    We want to teach our students to stand up for their ideas, even when they're unpopular. The 'tyranny of the majority' is the most insidious tyranny of all. You need to always say to your students, "This is what I believe, but ... I could be wrong. You must decide for yourself." If your politics are correct, then, in the long run, getting young people to think for themselves is far more effective than convincing them (or seeming to) of the correctness of this or that point.

    For a third, you lose all chance of persuading the person you've denigrated and ridiculed. They will become not just an intellectual opponent, but a personal enemy. You will cement them into their wrong belief. People don't change their opinions on the spot. You want to plant seeds of doubt, and if the person you're arguing with hates you, that's almost impossible to do.

    This is sometimes hard for a teacher to do ... I understand that. I tutor kids in mathematics, and sometimes, when I pose a question, the answer I get is so obviously wrong ("If it takes two cups of sugar to make 3 cakes, how many cups of sugar will it take to make nine cakes?" "Uh ... 2/3?" ) that I have to consciously control my facial expression so as not to reveal my disbelief that anyone could be so dense. Anyway, they're not dense, usually, just mis-educated by a system that rewards rote learning rather than deep understanding.

    But I've heard over and over again from my tutees about maths teachers who have ridiculed them and put them down in front of the class ... and it does NOT help learning. It makes them hate and fear the subject.

    One exception: if you're pretty good, and enrolled as a student in a 'hard-core' subject, like university physics, then passing a course from a notoriously sarcastic prof can be a mark of pride, like surviving Marine Boot Camp. I still recall a physics professor who yelled at me, for some dumb order-of-magnitude error I had made involving air pressure and friction and force, "What?!!!, [MY SURNAME], the wind can't blow away boulders!" But he could get away with it because he wanted us to be perfect, the same way your DI is hard on you in Boot Camp because he wants you to be able to make the other guy die for his country and not have you die for yours.

    If you just must refute someone in a way that also shows them up as stupid -- to do as George Bernard Shaw said that Trotsky did in political debate -- not only cut off his enemy's head but then hold it up to show that there are no brains inside -- there is usually a way to do it using subtle irony, too subtle for your opponent to understand but comprehensible to the intelligent reader. But only in a debate forum, not in a classroom.

    This is not goody-goody soft-headed liberalism. It's smart teaching.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2018
    Meta777 likes this.
  21. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    12,832
    Likes Received:
    5,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Um yes. They are doing exactly what the Russians want them to do. It took about fifty years. But it seems to have worked.
     
  22. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well certain posters do seem to think that's what a forum should be for.
    But based on the votes that have come into this thread so far, that isn't a majority opinion.

    Something like that has been suggested, although before its been suggested that such a forum would be an optional sort of thing, as opposed to forcefully sticking posters there who can't follow the rules of the regular forum. Option R of the poll is sort of a combo.

    But anyways, I believe both Falena and the site owner have voiced opposition to those sorts of ideas and have indicated that nothing like that'll ever be implemented here at politicalforum. One of the problems with having a free-for-all (that's what I call it) type sub-forum is that sludge that gets flung around in there can leak out into the main forums. Someone gets their feelings hurt in a forum like that, and then next thing you know they're out in the main forums holding vendettas and bringing it up in unrelated threads.

    And on top of that, like some posters have pointed out, if certain people really want to sling poo at each-other so badly, there are forums out there which specifically cater to that type of posting, so if they don't like moderated forums like this one, why exactly are they sticking around? They are free to go to one of those civility-not-required forums and sling away.

    -Meta
     
  23. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You should check out Single Transferable Vote (STV), aka, the winner of the Gerrymander Ranked Vote.
    It doesn't quite make for a parliamentary system, though there are certainly some similarities.
    Like Ranked Voting, of which STV is a form of (just for electing multiple congress folk instead of a single candidate),
    STV tends to lead to more moderate candidates getting elected (as opposed to just having a mixed variety of less moderate reps).

    BTW, you should also check out Ranked Voting (assuming you haven't already).
    Particularly the following two types:
    Instant Runoff, a fairly straightforward and simple form of Ranked Voting which is easy to understand.
    Ranked Pairs, a Condorcet form of Ranked Voting which is slightly more complex, but also completely eliminates the possibility of spoilers, making for somewhat of a "perfect" voting method when it comes to accurately representing the views of the voters and encouraging moderation.

    In fact, there's a whole series going on using Ranked Voting to make decisions on different issues here on the site.
    This thread is actually part of the series. But there are a bunch more past, current, and future votes:
    Ranked Vote: Discussion Thread (includes schedule: See Bottom of Post)

    -Meta
     
  24. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yep, been promoting IRV for years. I’m a member of FairVote.org here in Minnesota.

    Hadn’t heard of single transferable vote. I’ll have to look into that.
     
    Meta777 likes this.
  25. Doug1943

    Doug1943 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,741
    Likes Received:
    1,748
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

Share This Page