Curing Three Failings, All At Once

#313:  Slavery, Native Land, Electoral College

.........................

What if we could take on all three of the above historical legacies?  Aside from addressing historic injustice, it would make for a much fairer political system.

As we all know, rural states are over-represented in the Senate, and in presidential races.  This means a state like Wyoming, with 1/74th the population of California, sends just as many senators to Washington,  And because the presidential election is decided by the Electoral College, this means that that Senate imbalance is compounded further, since each Senate seat is worth one Electoral College vote.

So I've suggested that newly built housing be offered to Native Americans in South Dakota, and Black Americans in Mississippi, to begin to repair the damage of slavery / land grabs that occurred over the course of our country's history.  This would result in Native and Black populations expanding in those states.  The idea would be to make those states 'blue', in effect correcting the rural/Red and urban/Blue balance.  Since Native and Black voters tend to vote Democratic, the gap between the two parties would gradually close.  In South Dakota, the difference is 110,000.  In Mississippi, it's 217,000.

The recent election showed, however, that there's a much lower number that a pilot project could aim for: Alaska's 36,000 vote gap.  Building 50,000 housing units @ $200,000 would be $10 billion.  Offered to Alaskan natives (in-village housing), and Native Americans wanting to relocate to Alaska (retirement communities), the impact on voting could be measured and either expanded (if, let's say, half the difference to becoming 'Blue' had been covered) or declared a success.

If a success, the idea could be implemented in South Dakota and Mississippi.

Let's say that all three states became light Blue.  If you add up all the Red states that are single digits in the Electoral College, and compare their total EC vote to all Blue states in that category, you get a 18/12 split (Nebraska's 4 Red and 1 Blue vote counts as a Red state).  So, changing just three small states from Red to Blue evens things up at 15 each.

Another way to measure 'fairness', is to count all those single digit states' electoral votes, rather than simply counting the number of states.  The result is 99/61 Red/Blue. Subtract AK/SD/MS (3/3/6) and it's 87/73.  About halfway there; a challenge for the future.

A less than perfect way out of our Electoral College imbalance, but perhaps easiest to execute.

My original proposal, from August 1st, 2018, is here.

....................

Update: 1/27/21

A rather intriguing development: Alaska seems to have passed election reform legislation in 2020 that will see that state's elections run differently.  First, there'll be a unitary, all-party primary.  Then, the general election will see the top-4 candidates in the primary ranked, 1-4 by the voters.  If none of the four receives 50%, the lowest placing candidate's votes are distributed to the #2 choice on ballots in which that candidate was #1.  And so on until a candidate has 50%+1 or more.

What makes this ranked-choice reform interesting is that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) called for Trump's removal from office just two days after the January 6th insurrection.  This happened, pundits believe, because Murkowski, who is up for re-election in 2022, knew she would be hard to beat under the new system, and no longer needed to worry about facing a far-right challenger in her 2022 primary.

If this means Murkowski has become something of a free bird, it may be that she could be persuaded to promote our $10 billion plan, above, since it would obviously benefit her state, and mean her legacy for righting America's wrongs would become unshakable. 

What Explains Trump-Voter Vehemence?

 #312: Seven Answers

............................

Why are city dwellers more likely to be Democrats, and country folk more likely Republican?  That's easy.... Urban settings mean we're exposed to different minds.  In the country, we see the same people day after day.

And when we meet different people often enough, our minds become good at choosing between two ways of doing things.  When we don't, we home in on commonalities.

Each, the contrarian and the common, requires practice.  If you didn't grow up in a family that had affection as a common bond, it'll show.  Likewise, if you didn't learn to think for yourself, critically, doing so feels unnatural.  And, being human, we turn to the familiar and easier path, so it's often the case that we use the crutch of the familiar to avoid developing critical thought, or friendly feeling, or both (see below).

And there's nothing special about our country in this regard.  Places where different cultures mix are almost always better at critical thinking.  Likewise, out-of-the-way places are almost always better at acting agreeably. 

I recently read an article on the BBC's website that points to the Catholic Church as a predictor of whether a given European community would be a place where people think critically.  The theory is that the Catholic church spread taboos against, for example, marrying cousins, and that this raised up the status of the nuclear family in areas of Europe where Catholicism prevailed.  Maybe. But I think the bigger picture is that catholic tastes were spread not only by the Catholic Church, but by exposure to outside ideas in general.  Mediterranean Europe, especially the area where it met Asia (the Levant) was a natural incubator for the broadminded.  Compare that to an inland area, like Tibet, with little interaction vis-a-vis the outside world. 

So, how does this explain Trump-voter vehemence?  For one thing, the interior part of the country just doesn't have as much exposure to 'others'--the milieu that usually forces us to deal with differences.  So it's no accident that rural voters tended to vote Trump.  

But why get so worked up about Donal Trump when John McCain in 2008, and Mitt Romney in 2012 both lost?  What makes Trump's loss different?

Here's my countdown of reasons why (#7, the least important, through #1):

#7: Though one-dimensional, his 'masculinity' appealed to simple minds

#6: His name is Trump, which to the literal, uncritical mind means he's tops

#5: Top dog status meant his blessing was a flame to emotionally needy moths

#4: His positions were extreme, promising big, attractive payouts 

#3: Our history is unfortunately littered with acts of unquestioned, communal terror (Slavery)

#2: Nothing works like propaganda, and Fox News and others served it up

#1: Trump chose to fight, fostering the big lie that the election was rigged

Wrap those seven reasons into a big package, then realize that many Trump voters tend not to think critically.  Instead, they're yes-men, trading veneration for validation in a hierarchy of agreement.  Comparing Trump's behavior to an ideal president's ethics would completely flummox them.  Instead, their minds look for agreement, and when confronted by contrary views--the facts--they're insecure because they haven't learned to think critically.  And this leads to ugliness of one kind or another.  

My own thinking is that the surest way forward is to increase exposure to different ideas, using the internet.  Encourage people to interact with a website that brings people together to discuss issues.

Another possibility is to address the presence of propaganda in media. 

Plus, education.  It may be that only a new generation or three will do the trick.

.................................

Note: As I mention, above, it's a common human failing to fall back on the familiar.  So, those with an inability to think critically gravitate to a sense of belonging, and are often swept under the wing of dominant, high status personalities.  On the other hand, those who are excellent critical thinkers but have nothing much else in their lives are the 'nerds' of the world (think the comic strip character Dilbert).

Most-Read Blogger Gives Up Deadlines

#311: Who?  Kevin Drum @ Mother Jones

................................ 

First, the good news: Drum announced he's not giving up blogging, just the pressure of a salaried journalist (he may be headed for Substack).  Plus, his illness is under control for now.

The bad?  While quality remains, his readers aren't likely to get the Drum quantity they're used to.

My own readership started in 2003 when Drum was "Calpundit".  He then blogged at Washington Monthly, and then on to Mother Jones.  I haven't checked, but I've probably cited his blog more than any other source.  And I've graded him highly over the years:

 * Here's Drum at #3 (behind Krugman and Fallows) on my March 14th, 2014 list of favorite links. 

 * Here's Drum winning my "1st Annual Best Blogger Award" (12/26, 2016), which I didn't continue in 2017 simply because Kevin would've kept on winning.

 * In fact, here he is on Oct. 6th, 2017, in my article "Drum On A Roll".  I refer to him as a "national treasure".

Why is he exceptionally good?  For one thing his Dad was a newspaper reporter? editor? publisher?, in Kansas I believe (I only vaguely remember this from a post several years ago).  And in '81 the younger Drum received a BA in journalism, so he's had the training.  What makes him exceptional is his objectivity--he not only uncovers the story when it's being distorted, but even reports on it when it doesn't agree with his politics.

I'll cite just one triumph.  His work on the link between leaded gasoline and violence.  Pure excellence.  And I'll only mention in passing his magnificent data presentation (charts, graphs, etc.)

The usual disclaimers apply.  I don't always agree with his assessment.  For example, he's written a lot about the need for massive R&D spending to figure out the best way to deal with Climate Change. [The one writer challenging Drum for the #1 spot would be David Roberts whose articles at Vox on Climate were absolutely smashing in their brilliance.  Roberts now has his own newsletter, Volts, to which I subscribe.  All of which is to say that implementation, rather than R&D, is where Climate needs the bigger push.  But, that's a minor matter of degrees.]

Finally, I've read something like 99.9% of what Drum has written over the past 17 years!  And when I think to myself, "OK, let's see what's on tonight...." I often head for Drum's writing.

He leaves Mother Jones at the end of the month.

A Simple Fix For Social Media?

#310: Revisiting Section 230

.............................

Steve Randy Waldman, writing in the Atlantic, describes Section 230 as "the 1996 law that ruined the internet".  He goes on to suggest that we'd be better off simply repealing it.   

[In short, 230 allows social media to either ignore or curate content posted by third parties (you and me) without being libel for what is posted or taken down.]

Waldman's argument makes sense.  Here it is in a nutshell, followed by a summary of other points of view:

* With repeal, big social media companies would be responsible for what's published on their sites.  So, they'd tighten their standards and become a bland landscape of cat videos and not much else, since liability would be too scary.  No getting anywhere near borderline hate speech, etc., 

* Meanwhile, smaller sites would take moderation seriously, using humans, and as a result flourish, setting their standards higher or lower, but being sure not to cross the line into what is defamatory and maliciously misleading.  

Suddenly, we'd have something like broadcast/cable television.  One larger market with strict rules, and one smaller and varied, with carefully moderated sites.

And here are a few condensed arguments for other criticism / solutions (with my comments in green):

 ** Repealing would lead to more concentration, not less

Much depends on how good the AI doing the moderating would be.  But big corporations with assets to protect aren't likely to take big chances.  And with so many people posting....

And, if it turns out that everybody stays on Facebook, Twitter, etc., just because everybody else does, then standards have been tightened, and that may be half the problem solved ('push' algorithms aren't as big a problem if the extremist content is gone).

 ** Remove protection for sites that use algorithms and 'push' content; retain protection for others

Possibly.  But isn't an algorithm that matches user interests with content inherently a plus, absent extremism and any untoward motives?

  ** The problem is algorithms selecting for extremism -- make this illegal

Maybe.  Would be much more elegant to simply repeal a law, rather than setting up a long list of negatories to be avoided.

 ** The problem is monopoly power

Could be.  But again, a much simpler and more elegant way is desirable.  Anti-trust action would take years to litigate, no?

 ** Have standards for only big platforms

Except this sounds a bit like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Doghouse) and his proposed legislation that draws the line at 30 million US monthly users and $1.5 billion or more in global revenues.  So, when a new platform reaches 30 million does it start dumping users?  Weird.

  ** Separate platforms and publishers

Another common approach among those who think anti-trust is the way to go.  Again, it would take years.  But, perhaps so.  One advantage is that everyone agrees a platform showing users its own product first, regardless of quality/price isn't right.

** Remove protection for communication that is proprietary on both ends.

The thinking here is we want to elevate open source material.  But, most communication under discussion is user < -- > platform, only one of which is proprietary.

** Is fragmentation good in itself?

This leads us back to our first objection, that repealing 230 would mean more consolidation, not less.  And my comment there is that if we've solved the extremist problem on major social media, isn't that half the problem, whether the industry fragments or not?  And either way it's simple.

 ** If we tighten the rules they'll move overseas. 

This seems like a problem until you realize that the US has one of the most free-market policies in the world--anything goes, as long as free speech isn't overshadowed by imminent danger to the public.

...........................

Happened across a Quora post by an author I respect:

Mike Jones, January18, '21 on Quora

Let’s get something clear: Section 230 does not prevent you from suing a social media company if they publish something you don’t like. What it does is make dismissal of such a suit easy and quick.

If Section 230 were repealed, those suits would be likely to go to trial. It’s unlikely that anyone would win those suits against the social media companies, but it would cost them a lot more to defend against them because there will be lawyers who’d be willing to take a chance on winning them without Section 230 in place.

Note that it is not Section 230 that enables social media companies to moderate user-contributed content — that’s done by the First Amendment.

What would the result be? Large sites would be much more likely to remove/refuse to publish any content that they think is likely to result in a lawsuit. Smaller sites would be more likely to simply eliminate user contributed content entirely because of the expense of monitoring.

So…many fewer sites with comment sections, fewer user reviews of products and services except at places like Amazon who can afford to do the moderation, a lot more banned users.

Basically, a shift of power further toward the large players who can afford to do the moderation and defend against lawsuits.

It is amazing to me how many people seem to think that repealing Section 230 will hurt Facebook, Twitter, et al.  It would have exactly the opposite effect.

I hope to revisit this space with a response, soon.

My Wall Hanger For 2021

 #309: "Heedless Spear Chucker"

........................

I took this photo on January 2nd, after an ice storm.  

As abstract art I think it holds up fairly well.

How Elon Musk Could Donate

#308:  He Asked For Suggestions

......................

Writing in Vox, Kelsey Piper and Sigal Samuel ID various factors that Musk should consider:

 "* they’re important (affecting lots of lives), 

  * they’re tractable (there are ways to make progress), and 

  * they’re neglected (more resources would go a long way)

One possibility they discuss is making Artificial Intelligence safer.  It's a relatively neglected area, and important (Musk himself has said so).

Not that there aren't obvious ways to spend one's philanthropy, but one thing absent from the article is any discussion of who.  Sure, it's his money, but his plate is surely full.  Why not let public input actually decide where the $$ goes?  Since he's planning on only giving away $100 million or so at this time (most of his nearly $200 billion is in the form of stock, it seems), it might actually be possible to leverage that amount to generate even more for worthy causes by giving them exposure and focusing attention.  Rather than blowing a thousand dollars on a gadget they'll hardly ever use, perhaps donors would receive even more satisfaction if they felt they had donated $1,000 to a good cause.

So, a website where you read about donation alternatives and vote for your 'top three', perhaps.  And, there could of course be links, so that after reading about the alternatives, one could donate one's own money.  Plus social media connections to spread the word.

I Check Out Substack Newsletters

#307: A New Model For Self-Publishing?

......................

I've recently read of several big-name bloggers moving to Substack, including Matt Yglesias, someone I enjoyed reading at Vox on occasion. 

So, to usher in the new year, I checked back to see what was going on there.  I looked at three promising writers (Hunter Harris' Hung Up, Claire Berlinki's Claire's Invariably Interesting Thoughts, and Charlie Syke's Morning Shots).  Why didn't I sign up?  $5 - $10 a month, the going price for most newsletters, is just too much for me, though I would definitely go for .10 to .50 cents a month.

Okay, 50¢ isn't going to pay for anyone's writing.  Unless... subscribers at that level came out of the woodwork.  Maybe if Substack had a 'come-on-in' entry level that matched you up with appropriate writers:

1. You answer ten questions or so about what you want to read.

2. An algorithm matches you to five newsletters, each for $.50 a month, and one for $5.  The lower priced newsletters are written by newbies.  The higher priced writer would be a taste test (maybe a month for 50¢) that might bring you in the door.

3.  Maybe you get to pick that one higher priced newsletter.

...............

The New Yorker has an article on Substack in its current issue