Here’s an entertaining explanation of why winner-take-all voting procedures generally evolve into two-party systems, typically forcing most voters to support candidates they don’t always agree with.
But vote anyway! (If you are a US citizen, or a citizen of another municipality which happens to be voting today.) You never know when you might cast the deciding ballot.
I have to go figure out the jillion (okay, eleven) ballot initiatives we have to deal with in the barely-functional direct democracy called California. One of them — Prop 37, which requires labels on certain genetically modified foods — poses an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, the science seems to indicate that genetic modification doesn’t introduce any special health risks. (At least not to individuals; there may be deleterious effects on the diversity of food sources, but that’s a different issue.) On the other hand, giving consumers more true information is generally a good idea. Is it a weird kind of reverse-paternalism to not give people correct information because they might take the wrong message from it?
p.s. At the end of our Moving Naturalism Forward workshop, Jerry Coyne offered “I think the best someone can do to move naturalism forward is to vote for Obama.”
@Woody #24
It’s not the food labeling itself which I mind, it’s the fact that so many silly people are behind campaigns for GM labeling, especially with their unreconstructed genetics = nazis type ideas, and clearly in your case, modern medicine = evil drug companies type nonsense.
Why can’t you people just be sensible, chillax a bit, you know?
I’m off to see if Romney gives up his religion after the humiliating defeat he’s about to suffer, so won’t be able to reply to any more of your funnies.
“This would allow us to get at the root of what lots of people dislike about Monsanto without the anti-science mentality of GMO labeling.”
Max, I think you’re making the same mistake as James, here. What these people want to know is whether or not the food product has been produced in whole or part by genetic engineering. It’s kind of hubristic for you to say that what they should really want is something other than what they say they want. Because, frankly, while some want to know about pesticides, not all of them do, and many of them don’t at all, but do want to know which food products are produced in whole or part by genetic engineering for other reasons.
Nor is wanting such labeling “anti-science.”
“It’s not the food labeling itself which I mind, it’s the fact that so many silly people are behind campaigns for GM labeling,”
And you present yourself as the voice of reason… so are we supposed to conclude that if a lot of silly people were behind a campaign to eradicate polio, you’d be against it?
“especially with their unreconstructed genetics = nazis type ideas, and clearly in your case, modern medicine = evil drug companies type nonsense.”
Keep fighting those strawmen, James. One day, you’re bound to win.
“Why can’t you people just be sensible, chillax a bit, you know?”
Ha! Let’s see, there’s a simple proposal that calls for a label on food that you are free to simply ignore to your heart’s content, but some people would find helpful to them. You’re reaction is to, essentially, say they are anti-science and are going to bring progress to a halt, are scaremongerers and you have the nerve to say that someone else needs to chillax a bit???? Oh, that’s right, you’re the master decider who is in a better position to make decisions for everyone else than they, themselves are.
Woody @27 Looking at the legislation, it’s not clear that it really addresses what “these people” want. If they don’t understand the broad spectrum of what GM means then they’ll be alternately panicked and lulled into a false sense of security by mislabelling and misrepresentation. My guess is that “these people” really want a label that says “this product is 101% safe and has been blessed by angels”, because for a lot of their concerns they may as well have a label that says “was transported in a blue truck” because of the lack of relevancy to their real concerns.
I don’t think I did say what other people want. I said what I want. Would you not want to know what pesticides are in your food? There’s nothing stopping us from having both pesticide and gmo labeling (except of course big ag, money, technical feasibility…), but I personally care more about the former.
Woody Tanaka – your arguments are awesome, sane calm and logical – I cannot believe you have the stamina for this thread but I am so glad you do. A million thanks.
A note on the GMO safety issue – namely, how difficult it is to get independent scientific tests done when the Monsantos and Du Ponts have patented the seeds, and must give permission for studies on them – please read the following article from Yale 360, it’s also awesomely fact based and logical:
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/companies_put_restrictions_on_research_into_gm_crops/2273/
Cheers!
In case I was not clear, for the California voters like me:
YES on 37.
Right to know what we are eating. Especially important for me because I hate GMO produce and the companies that produce the produce.
Cheers.
p.s. what max said. well, part of what max said.
@ Jennifer
“hate” – very scientific, kinda making my point above about the type of people supporting the GM labeling (which isn’t in itself a bad idea)
What exactly would you do with the precise scientific evidence – have you studied genetics for long enough to make you competent to assess scientific papers in agricultural genetics?
Do you think drug companies and similar should make all their research public for lay people like you? Do you see why that might make it less likely for them to ever be able to afford to do the research? If their competitors can steal all their ideas how would they fund their operations?
Do you not trust private (market funded) scientific research?
Do you not like the market and capitalism generally?
And your scientific friends who might pretend they are competent had better show some proven record. I would respect the analysis of two or three well-proven researchers in the field – ie people who have actually produced something worthy rather than just spent their post-graduate years carping about stuff.
You know – just find some non marxist decent scientists who have a proven track record and agree that GM crops are dangerous – rather than the usual failed scientists who never published anything worthwhile.
Prop 37 is nonsense. Assume you were an organic tomato producer and had to label all your product in big letters with the words “Containing hydrogen dioxide”.
You would instantly lose 20% of your customers and you would cry foul at government regulation that forces you to label your food, when it is clearly and scientifically verified to be safe.
The converse is fine imo. Its ok to label your food “organic” if the producer chooses.
I am a fan of thinking about voting in an analytical manner, but the expected value calculation in the cited blog post is quite ridiculous! The assumtions made are unrealistic, to say the least…and lead to a completely differenct conclusion than what is normally found.
@Haelfix:
Now if you label your food “organic”, does it not implicate that all other products are “inorganic” or even “anorganic”?
How silly can this get?
On the other hand, label your product “DOES NOT CONTAIN SULPHURIC ACID” and you’ll win some 20% of customers :))
Then, label it “DOES NOT CONTAIN SULPHURIC ACID, has been GENETICALLY MODIFIED” and your customer will be able to decide whether to buy it or not, on the basis that he/she has all the relevant information available. In accordance with the above quotation of Carl Sagan’s.
No, if you label food “organic” it means it was produced in a similar way to how people did things in the middle ages.
Are you saying that organic producers should be allowed to hide this fact from customers? (by not labling their food as “organic” ~ “same as in the middle ages”)
A producer should be able to label whatever they want on their goods, provided that it is scientifically accurate.
The FDA does not count GM crops as ‘organic’ (which is bizarre, but ok a word is whatever you want to define it as). Consequently if the consumer does not want to buy GM crops, then they may look for the word ‘organic’ on their label and purchase that instead. That is as it should be.
What would be crazy is if the government arbitrarily FORCED a random subset of producers to label all their foods as containing ‘carbon’ with the ensuing ~20% drop. Doing that has no health benefit to the public and would almost assuredly be struck down in the courts.
See the difference?
James @39: “it means it was produced in a similar way to how people did things in the middle ages.”
I want my food labelled FREE FROM WITCHCRAFT.
“Winner-take-all systems are problematic, but so are every other kind of system.”
A commonly heard argument, but wrong. Yes, perhaps no system is perfect, but many systems are much better than winner-take-all. That’s like saying that you shouldn’t worry if someone decides to torture you by throwing acid in your face since in the next cell someone else was tortured with the comfy chair.
The US election system (I hesitate to call it “democracy”) is only marginally better than a dictatorship. Bad enough, but consider what large fraction of US citizens believe it is the best system in the world.
Another effect of a two-party system: the popular vote is always close, because when a party is down in the polls, it will change its position to get up to 51% or whatever, and the other party does the same. Less and the party loses; more and they move more than they have to.
The principle in the video is known as Duverger’s law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law). IRV (or alternative vote as its called in the follow-up video) helps with this, but the spoiler effect is still there, and IRV introduces another problem, nonmonoticity. It’s actually possible to reduce a candidate’s chance of winning by ranking that candidate higher on your ballot, under certain uncommon but feasible circumstances. I would hate to see that kind of unintended consequence happen.
Approval voting avoids the spoiler effect, Duverger’s law, and nonmonotonicity.
I’m surprised nobody brought up Arrow’s Theorem in this discussion. Interestingly, because Arrow’s Theorem only applies to systems that allow ranking of candidates (as opposed to rating), the negative effects of that theorem are missing in approval voting (which is a rating system with only two values, 0 for disapprove and 1 for approve).
What are the chances we will see a saner voting system in the US in our lifetimes? Not very high, I fear.
Indeed, chances are slim.
Note that while it might not be perfect, PR is so much better than anything else (though, of course, STP is better than first past the post) that no country without PR should be called a democracy.
I did not vote, and this is fact the most empowering position that can be adopted. For decades I have voted third party, but, like millions of others, decided that in this election I would not be naively used to legitimize an undemocratic proceeding. Some will argue that candidates like Stein and Johnson are denied TV coverage and participation in debates with the vapid corporate offerings because they lack sufficient following, but this is a confusion of cause and effect.
Despite the expenditure of some 2-3 billion dollars on the so-called election process, none of the major issues the world faces was addressed by either of the Establishment candidates. In the midst of the storm of the century, neither so much as mentioned the scientific possibility of induced climate change. In Colorado, although more people voted to legalize marijuana than voted for Romney, the so-called war on drugs was not mentioned at any time in the campaigns of either of the two corporate-selected candidates let alone in the three major televised debates. Although our hope-and-change president was elected in 2008 as a backlash to the abuses of Bush and on the promises of ending the ME wars and returning the soldiers to the US, nothing was made of his total negation of his promise or his expansion of war into Libya, Yemen, Syria or the preparations for war on Iran on the false basis of a “nuclear [weapons] program.” And despite his promises of repealing Bush’s unconstitutional abuses of civil liberties ( such as torture and domestic spying ) Guantanamo remains open, and Obama has in fact further attacked liberty by instituting a domestic drone-spying program and asserting for himself the powers of, on his word alone and without a hearing or presentation of charges, indefinite detention for US citizens and, further, his claim and exercise of his personal power to order the execution of US citizens without judicial review.
Neither of the candidates saw fit to mention any of these major issues during their campaigns, nor did their examiners during the televised debates. Rather, any mention of the real major issues was sidelined in favor of a competition between the two candidates as to who will show the greater degree of bellicosity toward Iran and other nations and who will be the more vigorous in slashing entitlement programs to free up more money for warfare and the wealth of the .01%. So in the worst global economic conditions and the highest level of unemployment since the Depression, Americans were offered a choice between two men, both of whom intend to continue with the transfer of wealth to the .01% whom they serve and who will continue with the destruction of liberty and the expansion of global conflict.
I am hardly alone in my decision to refrain from voting. Obama received on Tuesday 60.5 million votes, a drop from 69.5 million votes in 2008; Romney received 57.5 million votes, 2.5 million fewer than John McCain in 2008.
Every one of us who has intensively studied physics used up, at least in the beginning, lots of erasers before catching on. It’s no big deal to be wrong and then to make some corrections in learning something new. So, if you’re going to be political, then use your brain and use your magnificent platform to save the world. This election was not about proposition 37.
@#46: While I agree with many of your sentiments, the fact that you didn’t vote doesn’t help you advance your goals one bit. Yes, the lesser of two evils is not an attractive choice, but it is better than no choice at all.
#45: STP –> STV (single transferable vote). PR is, of course, proportional representation: if you get x% of the vote, you get x% of the seats in parliament, where x% of the vote corresponds to the entire geographical region represented in parliament. Anything else is just stupid.
Naitelcoid: “For decades I have voted third party, but, like millions of others, decided that in this election I would not be naively used to legitimize an undemocratic proceeding.”
Too funny! I like how you and those millions of others have been so successful in changing this over the past 200 or so years.
When pushing “naturalism” and going along with the two-party groupthink is more important than voting your conscience, rejecting the “lessor of two evils” meme, rejecting a destructive and bipartisan foreign policy, rejecting the bipartisan destruction of our civil liberties, then we’ve really got our priorities mixed up. A vote for Obamney is a vote for Robama. You should be smart enough to figure that out.
Consequentialism is irresponsible and morally bankrupt.