I propose that voting should be required of every adult. Then the math would make more sense. It is the sample size that gives us a race the the LCD instead of the mean.
What are your comments on this idea?
Thank you. Mark

这是一个好节目。

I am both relieved and alarmed by the recent national, local and even state elections here in Portland Oregon. This makes this show timely to boot. Now in the lull of unfortunate gridlock in the case of our nation and group think in the case of my city is a good time to think about the philosophy of democracy. Now is the time to think about what is best, not based on outcomes, but on representation of what we saw in the recent elections. That so much of my recent philosophical thought has been based on alarm harkens back to the fact that all philosophy is personal on a certain level. Maybe this show and post will lighten that load... probably not.

文在寅提出了问题;60年代创立的一人一票，打包/破解，阿罗的不可能定理，对任何一件事的多种方法，效率差距和数据透明度。甚至还涉及到基于随机彩票的系统和命名约定。当然，排名投票是完善我们现行制度的关键改革。即使是简单的两名候选人的排名也会大大降低在戈尔竞选总统时被剥夺的纳德效应。

Ranked voting can also be manipulated. Michigan and Nebraska shared a college football championship when one coach manipulated his ranked voting to give Nebraska the coaches award. This sparked reform that we endure today.

并非所有的选票都具有同等的价值。不是所有的选票都应该得到同等的重视。考虑到最近入籍的美国公民，大部分美国公民不会通过测试。作为投票的标准，能力被低估了。除此之外，能力测试也被用来剥夺选民的选举权，尽管不公平。

《联邦党人文集》对选区划分的反思早于美国的政党制度。政党政治改变了所有与那些假设了一种地理和社会现实的论点有关的一切，而这种地理和社会现实从一开始就根本不存在。

Hmm... what is best? Reversing Citizens United would seem first and foremost on my list. Regardless of competency we should not allow commercial entities suffrage on any scale. Money drives politics. Wealth inequity drives injustice.

Topology would seem to be the best approach if the spaces of interest could be defined in all the correct dimensions and to the proportions of opinion. Then the edges of this space could be minimized to allow the best reflection of democracy. It is likely that ultimately we are all best organized into water conservation districts than any math driven social or political network.

I like Moon's understanding. The Republicans won seats in the House and lost seats in the Senate and the Presidential election. Some might say this is democracy working. It is the government itself that is failing. It would be good to quantify the debates in our society so we all could understand each others thoughts better, if not our own. Data transparency with a nod to data privacy would go along way to getting our government and lives working again.

The revival of Conundrums in remote and interactive space was interesting. I wouldn't have been able to represent as well as George did to Ray and Josh. I thought that more a continuation of the discussion of Democracy as economic boycotts have their own reality. Early on, Conundrums were taken by one of the philosopher hosts, explicated and advice dispensed. This format was much more inclusive, back and forth and directed to the folk. Let's get that spirit back into our Democracy.

这是一个好节目。在看雷的博客或听这个节目之前我不知道绿箭侠。

Posted to Ray's Blog as well... which offers good foundation for this show and links for further thought.

//m.f8r7.com/blog/mathematics-democracy#comment-6779

As a matter of temporal proximity, there was no other current post where I might mention the following. Inasmuch as we have a new president, there is no further need to belate the sins of the former. On this date, at this time, we are, allegedly, getting some additional financial help. Good job, Joe. There will also be additional emphasis and resources regarding the global plague. So far, so good.
现在，政治总会有小故障和意外事件。因此，我不会把任何救助资金算作我的，我会等待，同时继续承担财政责任。任何其他的假设或结论都是。我希望拜登先生是出于好意。他似乎。但总会有一些小故障和意外，不是吗?

The question was: how can we make elections in the US more fair? I think this question is like the dog chasing his own tail. Here''s what i mean: the effect of having one person, one vote, along side an 'electoral college' cancels out one person, one vote. If anyone was unconvinced by the outcome of Bush-Gore, the 2016 election proved this decisively, IMHO. ( come on, now. the very idea of having the Supreme Court decide or rule upon the outcome of a presidential election is just wrong on its face! And, an election won by popular vote while that winner lost in the 'college', is equally ludicrous.)

I have heard all the reasons; all the excuses. The existing system, features of it anyway, negates chances for fairness. Solution? Change the system. If one person's vote counts, all persons' votes count. You can't have it both ways. Not unless you care nothing for appearances. I have claimed there is form and there is substance. And, therefore, when the first is paramount, the latter cannot stand. I stand by that. As a boss I once had used to say: you have to stand for something. You may know the last part of that counsel?

Oh, alright then. Use your search engine/browser. I did, and got to a book title. Old sayings get recycled. Again and again. Especially by opportunists who are trying to be somebodies.