since this post isn’t getting much traction i’ll propose a different angle. most of us here are very aware of coordination problems, and those of us living in democracies are explicitly given regular opportunities to participate in a system of which one of its claims is to overcome certain coordination problems (e.g. legislate some thing which works only if universally adopted, and then force everyone to adhere to that legislation).
this particular system of democracy has its successes and its flaws, but viewing it as a tool, what’s the best way to make use of it? for example, should one simply vote for their self-interests? should one eschew voting because the time required results in negative EV? should one publicly discuss alternatives and then use their vote as a lever to direct more attention to these alternatives (think: voting for “obviously bad” nihilistic policies/representatives)?
Those are interesting questions! Perhaps you should make your own post instead of using mine to get more of an audience.
Expressing disapproval of both candidates by e.g. voting for Harambe makes sense, but I think that voting for bad policies is a bad move because “obvious” things aren’t obvious to many people, and voting for bad candidates (as opposed to joke candidates) makes their policies more mainstream and likely to be adopted by candidates with chances to win.
my first instinct is general “politics is the mindkiller” weariness, but i wonder if it’s more an issue of scope. it’s framed to be relevant only to Floridians, and relevant answers would have to be very broad with little depth (“vote A, B, … and Z”) or deep but tangential and not a direct answer (“i like candidate Q because of their proposed policy R which is good because S but has some uncertainties around T…”).
it also feels like you’re offloading too much to the reader. it’s easily mistaken as a “do my homework for me” request, even. i have no idea what’s on the ballot, and i guess if i were in Florida i’m supposed to fish out the ballot and study up on it first? just hope i happen to be near my desk or i’ll have to google around for an online version.
if you want, you might get more discussion by taking one policy on the ballot, decoupling it from the specific geography, and then identifying a few intriguing ramifications/uncertainties as starting points for a (more focused) discussion. food for thought, as i’m in no position to speak for all LWers.
Thanks for the response. Those are fair reasons. I should have contributed more.
The LessWrong community is big and some are in Florida. If anyone had interesting things to share about the election I wanted to encourage them to do so.
since this post isn’t getting much traction i’ll propose a different angle. most of us here are very aware of coordination problems, and those of us living in democracies are explicitly given regular opportunities to participate in a system of which one of its claims is to overcome certain coordination problems (e.g. legislate some thing which works only if universally adopted, and then force everyone to adhere to that legislation).
this particular system of democracy has its successes and its flaws, but viewing it as a tool, what’s the best way to make use of it? for example, should one simply vote for their self-interests? should one eschew voting because the time required results in negative EV? should one publicly discuss alternatives and then use their vote as a lever to direct more attention to these alternatives (think: voting for “obviously bad” nihilistic policies/representatives)?
Those are interesting questions! Perhaps you should make your own post instead of using mine to get more of an audience.
Expressing disapproval of both candidates by e.g. voting for Harambe makes sense, but I think that voting for bad policies is a bad move because “obvious” things aren’t obvious to many people, and voting for bad candidates (as opposed to joke candidates) makes their policies more mainstream and likely to be adopted by candidates with chances to win.
Why do you think my post is being shot down?
my first instinct is general “politics is the mindkiller” weariness, but i wonder if it’s more an issue of scope. it’s framed to be relevant only to Floridians, and relevant answers would have to be very broad with little depth (“vote A, B, … and Z”) or deep but tangential and not a direct answer (“i like candidate Q because of their proposed policy R which is good because S but has some uncertainties around T…”).
it also feels like you’re offloading too much to the reader. it’s easily mistaken as a “do my homework for me” request, even. i have no idea what’s on the ballot, and i guess if i were in Florida i’m supposed to fish out the ballot and study up on it first? just hope i happen to be near my desk or i’ll have to google around for an online version.
if you want, you might get more discussion by taking one policy on the ballot, decoupling it from the specific geography, and then identifying a few intriguing ramifications/uncertainties as starting points for a (more focused) discussion. food for thought, as i’m in no position to speak for all LWers.
I agree with all of this; if op had made more of an effort I probably would have only weak downvoted or ignored it entirely.
Thanks for the response. Those are fair reasons. I should have contributed more.
The LessWrong community is big and some are in Florida. If anyone had interesting things to share about the election I wanted to encourage them to do so.
I strong downvoted because I don’t care about Florida politics and I would like to see less (ideally none) super niche local politics posts.