Posted by
gepr on
Sep 07, 2016; 4:54pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Wisdom-of-Crowds-vs-Kenneth-Arrow-tp7587842p7587844.html
On 09/07/2016 07:39 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> It is most interesting to me how much the WTA vs the popular vote prices in the IEM diverge. It definitely supports MY (reluctant) preferences in this context, but it IS disturbing in a democracy that the representative factor (electoral college in this case) seems to either magnify a small lead, or even perhaps bias it?
I've found this graph the most interesting rendering of the electoral game:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html#explore-pathsI grew up (and still hear repeated to kids) "you can be anything you want to be". It seems clear that any "outsider" has a steep learning curve w.r.t. the complex game of getting elected. One could (I won't) argue that Trump would be a good candidate to game this system, given that he seems to have spent his entire life gaming other systems to benefit his brand. But I suspect the game is too complex. He's done a great job garnering popular support in our TV-nation. And, at this point, I'm grateful for the electoral college. It pits my naive sense of majority rule against my naive sense of an intellectual oligarchy (or perhaps a "gamers oligarchy" -- ruled by the lawyerly -- lawyerish? -- class).
To tie in the 100 years of AI, it seems reasonable to aim our induction tools at this game.
> As a side note, I am disappointed with how little traction either Gary or Jill are getting this time around. As UNpopular as both of the primary candidates are, and as relatively acceptable (both Jill and Gary seem to have serious intentions, serious campaigns and serious platforms) candidates are, why don't we see higher/growing polling numbers? Is it the ominosity of the elections themselves? Everyone is afraid of creating a "spoiler"?
I voted for Stein in 2012 because I didn't see all that much consequential difference between Obama and Romney and it seemed clear Obama would win, anyway. So, this election, I decided to check out Stein for real, to see if I could really vote for her, regardless of the consequences. I went to a local meeting of Stein supporters and was presented with (albeit trivial, partial) evidence why her campaign is such a failure. These people were flat out timid. Their only strength lies in their willingness to take abuse by police and private security. This perception was reinforced by this article:
http://www.newsweek.com/russian-green-activists-brand-us-green-party-accomplice-putin-496359?rx=usWhen I compare Stein's positions on several things against the caricatures of her opinions made by others, I like a lot of what she says. Her positions are "nuanced". But you can't win the game solely with nuance, timidity, and facts any more than you can (like Trump) solely with bluster and posturing. It requires a _machine_. And Clinton seems to have such a machine. Trump does, too, a bit Rube Goldberg, whereas Clinton's shows evidence of serious engineering (... though that's an insult to Rube Goldberg).
--
␦glen?
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen