Posted by Bill McGonigle
Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:03:00 GMT
It is often opined that term-limiting elected officials is the only way to reduce corruption in politics. This analysis misses the obvious problem of lame-duck representatives, with fully one third of an elected body having perhaps no incentive at all to please its constituents. This makes a representative ripe for purchase with no recourse for the body politic.
Yet the problem remains, how does one keep career politicians from subverting the democratic process? As I write this, the Federal Congress is trying to ram through legislation, perhaps even avoiding Constitutional requirements, that polls show a majority of Americans are strongly against. Clearly the 'representative democracy' is not functioning as such. A better system would require a four-step change:
First, end gerrymandering of Congressional districts. Everybody knows that districts are drawn to favor the incumbents unfairly and the two-party system, neither of which is healthy for the free-exchange of political ideas. There have been proposals for fair redistricting for more than half a century - any of them are likely superior to the brazenly corrupt method currently in place.
Second, implement a modern voting system that takes into account voter preferences and reduces strategic voting for non-preferred candidates. The best of these is probably the Schulze Method but any one that satisfies the Condorcet criterion is probably acceptable (the system must pick the candidate who, when compared with every other candidate, is preferred by more voters). The Schulze method was only discovered in the last decade, and is markedly superior to previous voting-system reform attempts, such as instant-runoff voting in the 1970's which produced abysmal results. Organizations are rapidly and overwhelmingly adopting the Schulze method, and governments are now beginning to as well.
Third, end the political primary process. Only in Plurality Voting, the system we've been saddled with since the 18th Century, is such a process even necessary. In a Condorcet election, voters with a political party affiliation could simply rank all of their party's candidates first, in their preference order, to maintain their strategic advantage. But a Republican who favored Democrat #4 over Republican #2 could also express that preference. Our current system does not allow this. This also gets local governments out of the business of supporting the private organizations called political parties for free (though certainly not free to those government's tax base - how does an Independent feel about being forced to pay for primary elections?).
Fourth, require incumbents to achieve a threshold in the Condorcet election to stay in the race. If the first three steps aren't enough to guarantee that a Congressman will pay attention to his electorate, requiring a majority preference (for example among the top half, though more thought needs to be paid to the exact level) certainly will. Without the preceding three pieces, though, this criterion simply re-enforces the two-party system.
Given all of these criteria, the winner of an election will best represent the people who elected him, and, if an incumbent, he will have broad support from among his constituency. This does not guarantee a corruption-free government, but it does provide strong incentives for a representative to represent, offers a broader variety of candidates to the People, and provides an outcome that will maximize the happiness of the voters while avoiding the danger of unaccountable representatives under a term-limits system.
Posted in Government, Philosophy, Science | 1 comment | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:26:00 GMT
Once upon a time there were three little groups of pigs. No, not those pigs, this is a slightly different world.
In this world, most pigs lived in straw houses. A few pigs had started to figure out that twig houses were an improvement but they were relatively few.
Most of the straw-house pigs were quite happy. Their houses kept them dry most of the time and rarely did the gentle winds in this valley do enough damage to the straw houses to be much of a concern. Of course, it did happen on occasion, but most of those pigs chalked it up to bad luck and re-built their straw houses, though a few did see the wisdom of the twig houses and became Twig Pigs.
The Twig Pigs could not understand how the Straw Pigs could accept their straw houses. The Twig Pigs did what they could to try to tell the straw pigs what kind of trouble could be in store for them. Some did so gently, some were more obnoxious about it. Some even tried to huff and puff on the straw houses to make their point. But alas, pigs cannot blow down houses, that's a different story.
The Twig Pigs became more strident, warning of an impending storm that would take down all of the straw houses, yet the Straw Pigs didn't listen and went back to their food and their games. This only frustrated the Twig Pigs, and many of the Twig Pigs eventually gave up trying.
Then one day came a strong and frightful storm. Thunder and lightning, gales and hurricane-force winds whipped the valley. Straw house after straw house was destroyed. And so were the twig houses. The Straw Pigs were too disinterested and the Twig Pigs were too busy trying to convince the Straw Pigs that they failed to notice that a few of the Twig Pigs thought long and hard about their situation and decided to build brick houses. The Brick Pigs were well-protected from the storm, and invited in all of the Straw Pigs and Twig Pigs who could make it to the brick houses.
Once the storm cleared, the valley had no more Straw Pigs and no more Twig Pigs, for they were all now Brick Pigs. The first Brick Pigs had accomplished what the Twig Pigs could not, and then some.
Posted in Government, Philosophy, Local | 2 comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:44:00 GMT
Dear Mr. Hodes,
I'm writing to describe a problem the federal government is causing in the current economic environment, and to offer a suggested solution.
As you know, due to tough economic times, many are un- or under-employed, even if they've had very good jobs in the past. Those who fall into this category are likely to have amassed substantial 401(k), 403(b), or IRA savings. However, making a withdrawal against these savings can incur a 40% tax hit, that is, a penalty paid to the federal government for accessing one's money.
Taking this kind of money from people who are struggling to meet monthly bills, keep their houses, and even buy food is immoral. What's worse is it's putting an additional burden on social welfare programs for people who otherwise would not need to partake. This causes a further hit to local, federal, and state budgets. The money to avoid these problems exists, but is inaccessible by federal regulation.
I'd like to see you introduce legislation that would allow individuals in this kind of situation to withdraw a portion of their retirement savings each year without penalty. By setting limits (e.g. taxable income under 2x the federal poverty limit, $20,000 per year maximum, etc.) abuse can be avoided.
Thank you for your consideration of this pressing matter.
-Bill
Posted in Government, Economics | 8 comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Wed, 09 Sep 2009 03:25:00 GMT
Sometimes automated keyword-based ad-selection heuristics aren't alone sufficient.
Posted in Government, Quirky, Humor, Media | 1 comment | 1 trackback
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Tue, 01 Sep 2009 02:16:00 GMT
Posted in Government, Media | 67 comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Tue, 01 Sep 2009 02:08:00 GMT
I saw the Mouse laughing with delight, the day that Marvel died.
Posted in Fiction, Media | 10 comments | 20 trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Tue, 02 Jun 2009 05:40:00 GMT
If I were going to start a car dealership here in the wilds of New Hampshire it would be called "The 4-Wheel Warehouse". OK, so I'd actually spend some time thinking up a less terrible name, but I'd just sell four-wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive vehicles. I won't buy anything else living here, so why would I sell anything else?
Well, with the current model, that means I'd pretty much have to be a Subaru dealer because nobody else makes a full line of AWD vehicles. Subaru's are great, don't get me wrong, but not everybody wants a Subaru.
The only way this would make sense to me would be for me to carry an Impreza, an Outback, and a Forester. I don't imagine many WRX's sell up here, and nobody likes the Tribecca. But Mercedes also makes some good 4Matic vehicles, and Lexus makes an AWD sedan now, as well as their SUV. Honda still makes a Minivan, and Toyota has the Matrix. Honda also has the Element, which is also cheap and quirky. Maybe I don't care for the RAV-4 or the CRV or the 4-Runner. But I definitely want to carry the Tundra, but the Ridgeline I don't think has great market appeal.
What am I doing here? I'm thinking like any normal retail business owner, choosing to sell the products that make sense in my market. Creating a place of commerce where customers can find, review, and compare the products they're interested in. What do I have to do now if I'm interested in getting an all-wheel vehicle? Drive all over creation and spend days test driving, talking to salesmen who know even less about the competition than I do walking in, and perhaps their own products. There's no value-add there, and my dream car dealership would create great value in a largely undifferentiated market. Every salesguy would know alot about car traction and be able to help people pick the right car for them. I think I could even command a market premium for the service.
Pick just about any other store that's not "an X dealer" and that's how they work. I can walk to the tool aisle of Home Depot and compare a DeWalt to a Milwaukee to a Bosch, and yes, even a Rigid. It's true Home Depot doesn't handle tool repair, but every corner garage manages to repair all kinds of cars, so it doesn't seem plausible that a dedicated dealer would have any trouble at all, unless the manufacturers purposely impede.
But the current model makes selling cars the way my market would prefer impossible, or next to it. Maybe there are too many car dealers out there, but perhaps our countryside is just littered with inefficient, irrelevant car dealerships that are relics of a time gone by. Instead of bemoaning the loss in quantity, perhaps it's time to start addressing quality.
Posted in Government, Economics, Driving, Local | 55 comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Fri, 22 May 2009 22:11:00 GMT
A comment I left on Bob Cringely's WAAS Up article:
Whenever I’ve been interviewed for a newspaper, words and facts have been twisted and/or just gotten wrong. Whenever I read a popular press article in an area where I have in-depth knowledge, it’s wrong, at least in the details.
So, I just assume that’s true all the time and go to specialists for real news reporting. I haven’t checked, but I’d assume a place like Jane’s would have a good article on this GPS thing.
How about this business model: be a journalist who’s a bona-fide expert on GPS. Write completely accurate, insightful, and helpful news articles on GPS happenings. Charge alot for them.
The last part is the trick of course. But how many GPS journalists does the world need? No more than a handful. With the Internet it should be possible to greatly reduce the number of generalist journalists and start making ‘newspapers’ much better with experts. There’s probably too much inertia at established papers but a disruptive model seems possible.
It’s not ‘mere blog aggregation’ because most bloggers aren’t writing in the form or quality required, but some scheme with writers, aggregators, and integrators could get it done. I don’t see the value in local newspapers doing anything but inserting their local stories into layout and selling ads these days - find an integrator that matches your editorial values and outsource it.
Posted in Economics, Media, Local | 5628 comments | 1 trackback
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:18:00 GMT
This blog used to be called, "Resigned to the Bittersweet Truth". Now it's called "Untrain Your Mind".
I'm feeling less resigned lately, so the title ought to reflect that. I'm learning that much of what I've been taught over the years simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. So, the new title reflects that.
I was surprised to not find the phrase in use by any blogs to date, though there is one other use as a proper phrase (in the World According to Google), to which I must give credit: an album by Erin Wood who was at Longwood University as of 2006. Our inventions were independent, but obviously she has a knack for the phrase. :)
Posted in On Second Thought | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:53:00 GMT
It appears now that the plane that went down over Buffalo was covered in ice and on autopilot. The FAA warned against this in 1994, and it was since airline policy not to do so.
A bit of research quickly finds the Smart Icing Systems Project from the
Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics Group at UIUC, which has been studying this problem since 1996, and in 2003 developed a set of algorithms to allow autopilot systems to handle icing conditions.
So, that leads then to the following lines of questioning:
- when was that airplane's autopilot system last updated?
- is it updatable?
- does the airline do updates, if it is?
- has the manufacturer implemented ice-condition algorithms?
- how is icing reliably detected?
- how can I know, as a customer of an airline, if the plane I'm going to be on has the best possible autopilot? (without market demand the tendency is towards cost minimization)
- should incorporating best practices into air flight software be mandated by certification bodies or governments?
In general, automatic systems do better than human pilots. The navy has automated landing systems for aircraft carriers that can hit the cable on the deck under full steam in high seas. They do better than the Navy's human pilots do, so I think I'd rather have that system landing me at O'Hare than a human. Collisions often happen when pilots ignore warning systems. The latest fighter jets can't even fly without computer control. However, problems like the one in Buffalo will only tarnish public perception of automated aircraft systems.
It appears this incident actually proves that we can't rely on human judgment in dangerous conditions, but I expect it'll be spun the opposite way.
Posted in Government, Traffic, Science | 3 comments | no trackbacks
