Ranked vote elections (aka instant runoff elections)

What Utah needs right now is ranked voting.  That way we could all vote BOTH on principle AND strategically.

Here's how ranked voting works.  Let's say you could live with 3 of 4 candidates for president (or city treasurer, whatever).  You can rank the candidates, and ignore the 4th one because you would never vote for them.

Your rank	Candidate	Popular vote of first rank votes
1	Integrity Iverson (3rd party)	19%
2	Livable Longfellow (3rd party)	20%
3	Horrible Hendricks (your party's first pick)	21%
(not ranked)	Opposition Olessen	40%

Given this scenario, everyone who voted for I.I. would be sadly disappointed their first pick was the lowest of the 3. Because of that, I.I. is taken out, and the numbers are run again. Ballots who ranked I.I. first are now counted for their second vote.

Let's say that 18% of voters had marked I.I. first and LL as 2nd (like you), and 1% put I.I. first and Horrible Hendricks as their second choice. The re-rankings now look like this:

Your rank	Candidate	Popular vote of first rank votes
2	Livable Longfellow (3rd party)	20% + 18% = 38%
3	Horrible Hendricks (your party's first pick)	21% + 1% = 22%
(not ranked)	Opposition Olessen	40%

Now, if we had gone by the current simple popular vote system, Horrible would have had the popular vote in round 1.   But now LL is ranked above Horrible.  Since Horrible is now the least popular, they are dropped off, and votes for HH are recounted.  Let's assume that this gives LL another 4%, and that the remainder of the ballots have no further valid ranks (they were already counted out), which leaves the final vote at:

LL: 42%
OO: 40%

This is somewhat contrived.  You could come up with much more elaborate scenarios.

This kind of election changes how you vote. You probably only voted for I.I. and L.L. because ranked elections let you do so safely--in the current election system, you would have voted for Horrible because it seemed like you'd only split the vote and help Opposition win.

This kind of voting allows you both a conscience AND a strategy.  You don't have to vote for Horrible first, but if you think they are the most likely to win and you don't want a split-vote scenario, you can still rank them lower than your first pick and your ballot counts (eventually) toward them, in the worst scenario.

We could really use this today.  I wish we had it.

10 reasons you're lovable (repost)

http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/10-reasons-why-youre-lovable/?utm_source=feedly

Beautifully written, and probably applicable to all of us; this is a great mentor of a blog post on seeing the good in ourselves and others.  We all have talents and growth to be proud of.

I think we need to recognize the good that God has made us desire to become, and able to become, and able to desire to become.

What's fun? New stuff or old? Introspection.

I just had an epiphany: the work that's fun involves elements I've done before.

When I was younger, I thought stuff was cool if it was new, different, and innovative--Software, if it provided features I hadn't had.  Books and movies, if they looked at ideas with a new angle.

But I forgot that in looking for the new cool stuff, it was always building on the old.  Music collections. Photos.  Managing filesystems.

My interests have evolved, and so has what I think is interesting and cool.

I used to get through a class in school by relating it to something I already knew and liked.  I got through geography and world history in 8th grade because, at the time, I was into role playing and was trying to figure out how to design an imaginary world--with realistic geography and backstories.  The class gave me fuel for understanding my fiction.  Kind of backward, perhaps?  Maybe.  But it worked.  My interest level rose, and I did well in the class.  I found a reason to do well.

Today, I was having trouble getting traction (and interest, frankly) in a new software project at work.  Then I realized I needed to plan out what to do next.  I started looking at one of the vague requirements our BA told me she was working on refining.  I started thinking about different steps to get familiar with the app, and as I did, I noticed I got excited by the idea of looking at the file importers and processors.  That was odd--last time I'd done something like that, it hadn't sounded interesting.  But I think it sounded more interesting because I've done it before.  It's somewhat familiar territory, but also new.  These are new files, new formats, with new purposes.  It's a chance for discovery, in something I haven't done but where I have some knowledge already.

If the file formats turn out to be binary, I can already tell you I'll lose some steam. But then I'd find something else interesting about the feature/requirement.

From maker to taker

John Stossel recently wrote a column where he said:

Americans in "open rebellion"? I'm skeptical. Handouts create fierce constituencies. The tea-party movement is wonderful, but it takes strength to say no to government freebies.
(source)

Not all of us want a country where the government is the nanny, the government takes care of us. But I think if we're ever going to get out from under a nanny government, we will have to work for it--I mean work hard. And stop accepting handouts we don't need. Start giving voluntarily before we do it by government.

Unfortunately, our system is designed to punish those who have personal philanthropic initiative--you don't get any easy tax exemptions for donating to charities. Sure, you can get deductions but not credits.

What if my brothers and I all decided tomorrow that we wanted to pay our parents for retirement, instead of our 7% social security and other fees? (actually, it's 15%, but half of it is hidden because employers have to pay it--and that inevitably means lower wages to remain competitive). Our parents would probably be far better off if we did that. But it's not an either-or decision. It's a government mandate. I'm definitely in favor of staying out of prison and obeying the law. But it illustrates an important point.  For me, at least.  YMMV.

The importance of Honesty

Just a few half-baked thoughts.

The most important characteristic of any politician in office is honesty--in personal and public life. You cannot be sure of anything else until you are sure of their honor.

Admittedly, it can be hard to find honorable men for office, not because there are few, but because dishonest ones aren't always detectably or consistently dishonest.

But to put it another way--would you rather hire an employee with poor communication skills and something odd growing on their face, or an employee who has bragged about lying to friend or family? Would you prefer to grow up in a home where you're never sure when your parents are lying to you, or in one where they're consistent and honest, even if not perfect?

One of the things that really bothered me about Clinton is that he was patently dishonest, but got left in office. He was willing to lie in his personal life, and clearly to the public as well. What else could he have been willing or able to lie about? It troubles me, deeply, that he wasn't removed from office. I heard a talk show host excuse him: to paraphrase, he said "Come on, he's the president of the United States. Give him a break!" -- Give me a break. I don't want someone who is absolutely trustworthy in office. Yes, I hold men and women of public office to a higher standard, because they have to be in order to stand up to pressures to take advantage of their power or misuse it, even a little.

I would rather have an honest fascist in office than a lying patriot who professed my favorite political opinions.

Nobody in the USA is under the illusion that there aren't liars out there. There are just too many contradictions in the media, in the government, in all aspects of the national infrastructure. Good luck trying to get everyone to agree on who's lying, though.

We need God's help to discern who is trustworthy to hold office.

Eye drops for dry eyes

My eyes water whenever I am about to give myself eye drops. It kindof defeats the point of actually using the eye drops. I can just threaten my eyes to moisten them up. I love irony.

Some reasons I oppose government healthcare.

Since it's in the media and my friends and family are talking about it, here are some reasons I oppose government healthcare. Read my document on it, at google docs:
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AdRugBTHTSy5ZGQ0cnBreHFfODR2OGZoamNoag&hl=en

A quote on freedom

"The right to be right (in your manager's eyes or in your government's eyes) is irrelevant; it's only the right to be wrong that makes you free."

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001205.html

RSS Feeds - Perusing the Archives

I subscribe to RSS feeds in order to become more educated about things, or because I want to participate in a discussion. RSS is terrible at these things, because (1) feed readers don't have any features to help you browse archives from before your time, and (2) Feed readers never include the comments sections of a feed post. This is true for Google Reader as well.

With that said, I think Google Wave has also completely failed to address the problem of perusing archival data. I need something that will help me avoid "Tab Explosion" while also helping me to track what archived posts I *have* read. While doing all of that, it shouldn't distract me by saying the past 10 years (3650 posts) of Dilbert are unread when I am trying to catch up on current dilbert comics.

That's one of the strong-arm features that a lot of internet sites are poor at, really. Email clients are starting (really just starting) to get good at helping with archival data -- gmail did wonders for helping me realize the value of having an archive instead of a trash bin. When will feed readers, blog sites, and so on get the same sorts of features?

Online Privacy

This is a great article on how privacy (doesn't) exist online.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/technology/17privacy.html

Persuasion vs Manipulation

My brother made a post on facebook about the difference between persuasion and manipulation. Here is what I offered in reply, with some minor changes:

Perhaps "persuasion" is a somewhat neutral word (evil men persuade as well as good). I think there is a good reason for distinguishing between the two words: some people mistake persuasion for manipulation.

Personally, I think manipulation involves an intent to treat someone as (a) an object that cannot decide on their own, or (b) as one that the manipulator believes should not act according to their own will. This is in contrast to inviting someone (as a person who has a right to choose) to make a choice the persuader thinks is good. One reason some people confuse persuasion with manipulation is that they think it is wrong to impose consequences for any action or exercise of free will. Such a belief often comes from the supposition that anything natural is good--including human desires, and that any attempt to change consequences is to destroy free will and go against nature. This belief--that natural desires are good--is to misunderstand the nature of temptation. Someone recently said that temptation wouldn't be tempting if it wasn't exciting, or enticing. Part of persuasion is teaching truth, setting artificial consequences that are a shadow of much longer-term consequences.

A child might object to their parent's consequences for stealing a cookie, but not understand that the punishment is a tool for teaching about larger consequences and deeper character-building. Is the child manipulated or persuaded to not steal cookies? Persuasion involves warning of the consequences, and helping that child to become someone who is already civilized and ready for a civilized world. When I say "Civilization" here, I am writing about of love of others and the ability to peaceably coexist with others, than of technical advancements.

Manipulation, then, is about trying to violate agency. When a child is told that they will be punished for stealing cookies, the parents are not manipulative because they (1) act out of love for the child, and are preparing the child to be mature and civilized and because (2) they have not desired to take away the child's agency, to choose to steal.

When people start talking about God, the issue becomes more complex. If god created everything, including our desires--if our choices were mechanistically predetermined by Him, then we would justifiably argue that our choices are not really ours--they were God's, and we could blame God for making any (every) evil choice merely by creating us. We would feel trapped by our choices--unable to escape God's exact calculation of each event. My religion teaches that our personality, our judgment or intelligence, was never created, but was eternal. I venture into opinion here, but I think we were unable to act before God gave us bodies of spirit, then of flesh. We did not have any way to interact until we had something to do it with. I think there are weaknesses to this opinion, but that's all right.

Let me propose a world view like this: If we are all eternal beings at some level, then something about our nature exists that cannot be changed or violated, or rather would be wrong to change. However, just as peaceable people cannot tolerate criminals to continue in their midst, God cannot allow those who choose to act in antisocial and harmful ways to continue to live with those who do. A separation is necessary. Moreover, God could not justify any separation until it was proved with actions, choices. Finally, if God did not set consequences for our actions in this life, our choices would have no meaning. If it made no difference whether we stole and ate a cookie or not (if there was no cookie enjoyment at the end, nor any depriving others of that enjoyment) then what would it even mean to steal a cookie? It would mean nothing. However, in the context of parenthood, sometimes parents who might even want to give them the cookie, give them a commandment not to take cookies without asking in order to let them learn about consequences by making the right or wrong choices. God has something far greater than we can imagine, in store for us. Every commandment and choice we are given here is to help us mature enough and become good enough at decision-making so that we can live with Him eternally, which life is the greatest of all. God still permits us to make choices of preference which are not judged as right or wrong. He also leaves us enough choice between consequences. What would a choice be if both alternatives were not enticing or desirable? It would be meaningless. So temptation is desirable. I want to sin, too--but I put my faith in God--that his commandments will ultimately lead to a better life, not just this life but the continuation of life in eternity.

Tech Republic lost or sold my email address

In the past couple days, I have started getting a bunch of new spam that makes it through gmail's filters. It's mostly from sites where I have established a relationship on purpose, but the email is unwelcome. I am normally very good about opting out of ads, updates, or whatever upon registration. I try to give a unique email address to each site I register with, so I know where spam is coming from. This isn't always possible. At any rate, I noticed that my old email address gets most of my spam.

The sites that are most annoying are ZDNet/TechRepublic, Barnes and Noble, NewEgg, and Verizon. I occasionally see email from other sites as well (even amazon!).

So, when you subscribe to any site, make sure to UNcheck those quirky boxes asking to send you junk email.

Who controls my email?

I recently had a conversation with my brother about online data services. For example, my email account is with google (gmail). I've read some articles pointing out the risks of storing your data on a server or website you don't own.

Here's something I said to him, he wanted me to post on this blog:

"If I'm not paying for my email, someone else is--which means they're the primary stakeholder and they're primarily in control of how my data is used."

Experts have basically said the same thing in different words, but the principle is clear: if you get something for free, it's not really free. What is the real cost to you, and is that cost really visible? How is my email data being used by google, and do I really have a way to know how it's being used?

Health care mythology

This author does an excellent job of explaining the problems with universal health care.

Health Care Mythology (20 minutes of reading)

Prayer and Politics

We need to pray for those politicians and others who seek to do what is right. They need God's help to be able to anticipate and prepare for the needs of the future. They need His aid to prepare against changes in politics that would destabilize provident and good living. They need our prayers, as well, that they might be able to discern between honest men and deception, and bring dirty politics to light.

In my opinion, our nation needs God's help. We need God's help to understand what to do. I hope we all ask Him to guide us in our decisions, opinions, sources of information, and in who we support.

Reasons to oppose government healthcare.

The first article gives three main points:
1) The need for personal responsibility in providing for others.
2) The need for checks and balances to prevent abuse.
3) Hesitance to make irrevocable change.
http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-conservatives-oppose-universal.html

Another blogger pointed at this site, which collects articles on many aspects of the debate:
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

Here is another article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/23/health_care_mythology_97552.html

For me, what it really comes down to are philosophical and religious in nature, and the opinions I have are based on those principles. Others who share those principles disagree. I think it would take a book to treat the whole issue. I present some principles and subsequent opinions below. For evidences of these things, please read the sources I already gave.

Principle 1: Self-reliance and personal responsibility. One religious leader I respect said he would not do for another man what he could do for himself. Another said that any government aid program should encourage people to become self-reliant. I once heard someone say that discomfort motivates the idle to make something of themselves. Human nature tends to favor reliance on others or the system, and abandonment of responsibility. Also, putting large programs in place tends to quell people's sense of responsibility. A friend of mine who volunteers for emergency services pointed out that since the advent of cell phones, people are less likely to stop and help on an accident scene. I think cell phones are not the cause of this behavior, but an evidence of an increasing attitude that others (read: government) can take care of the problem.

Principle 2: Individuality and Customizability: Governments can either spend a lot of money micromanaging individuals, or spend a lot of money on fraud and getting jipped. I once heard a financial advisor say he believes there's no magic solution to saving, spending, or managing finances: that the individual is the best judge of his own needs.

Principle 3: Choice, aka Freedom, aka Ownership: If government takes responsibility for healthcare, then any failures are the responsibility of government, and government is slow and hard to adapt to new situations. Also, we are hardly taught sacrifice and compassion, nor given the parallel blessings from god for such, by being forced to do charity, nor of giving from the pockets of our neighbors.

Principle 4: Power corrupts. Our nation was founded by men who did not trust power or government--hence the checks and balances. The use of force means that we have no alternatives if anything goes awry. Right now, if you dislike the system, you can change to a different system.

Principle 5: Lawfulness. The US. Constitution currently does not allow government welfare (see the 10th amendment). We should follow the higher law of the land, or amend the constitution. I favor the former, not the latter. Also, Bastiat defined justice and law in his pamphlet "The Law", and explains it very well.

Principle 6: Privacy. In order to grant such comprehensive healthcare, the government must be made much more aware of the details of our lives. Privacy has to do with decisional interference, chilling free speech, and many other things that most people don't consider fall in that realm. Daniel Solove has written books, articles, and papers on the issues of privacy. I also found a book via google on the surveillance of government in the lives of single mothers on welfare in the USA--I didn't read it but its premise was a bit uncomfortable.

Principle 7: If someone is failing, don't give him power to fail bigger. The government health care system isn't working. Giving it more money is a bad idea. Why give someone with a poor track record more power to make a poor track record? Also, refer to previous principles.

Finally, I give a glimpse of evidence. A member of my family has experienced a life under government healthcare. He has seen people become less willing to help, their consciences salved somewhat by the presence of government healthcare. The government help is always insufficient, slow, officious, and expensive in time and effort that one who is sick already has little to spare. It rarely meets all the individual and precise needs, and often requires silly or inapplicable tests or paperwork. It prevents him from saving money and thus becoming self-reliant. The benefits are effectively reduced from year to year despite so-called adjustments for inflation. And so forth...

Creativity and Math

I am listening to an interview on http://radio.lds.org/mc/eng/ of a professor (Mark Henderson?) from weber state university--a conversation about creativity. People tend to be suspicious of, or judge as weird, those who are creative. They also point out that teachers struggle to encourage students to take risks. They talked about how when the wall came down in Germany, students who were asked to draw a picture did not draw because they were not told what to draw--they were told to draw what they wanted--and they didn't get it.

President Uchtdorf said that it is part of our nature to be creative. To improvise. It is part of who we are.

I think I realized something during this. Most people dislike math; I love math (not as much as many, but it's great). I think I began to love math when I saw it as an outlet for creative thought. Even though math is very restrictive with rigid rules, there comes a point where concepts can be applied in new ways. You may be restricted by the rules, but you can still create a proof or a problem, then solve it. I also loved math because I was thinking about how I would teach it to someone else. It might have started as a study technique, or not. Teaching is also a creative activity. For me, math came alive when I was able to exercise my creativity with it--especially in problem solving, especially in Algebra and Geometry. I think of the analogy of the kite--the string both restricts it and holds it up. In the same way, creativity in mathematics and any other field must be held up by the very rules which restrict it. Without those rules, whatever they are, I believe there could be no creative endeavor.

Perhaps students fail at math, and dislike math because they are not shown or taught how to be creative. They are given rules and problems, and they do the homework. They either get the answers right or wrong. They are rewarded for conforming to rules like everybody else. They are being acted upon, more than they are acting. The only things they can create are a correct answer. They are rarely if ever rewarded for an original approach, an original solution, and even less common is to ask students to create a problem or teach.

For any teachers out there--is there something new students could do, to learn how to be creative and free because of math?

We plan to bait and switch you. Click here to agree.

Why is it that so many privacy policies and EULA's state that they can change whenever the site or publisher has a whim to do so? I might quote some examples later, but I don't have time right now.

Well, I got to thinking: why do people even put up with that kind of nonsense? What happened to loyalty? I think it's a reciprocal relationship. If you find businesses that are dedicated to serving their customers (read: they won't change their promised contractual relationship on you) you can give them your loyalty. But why do so many customers give their loyalty to companies who have long drawn out agreements only half of us really could understand--if we tried really hard.

Well, I guess I just remembered my earlier post about mozy. I found a worse agreement recently, where basically the site said they could change the agreement--and they would only post a notice on their site for a day. They just keep pushing the limits. Well, there are online services out there that can watch for changes on a webpage. So if you presuppose that the privacy agreement won't move to a new webpage, you can set up a service to notify you whenever one of your many favorite sites changes their agreement.

One of the great things about del.icio.us and google is that they make sure you can take your personal information away from them, and still have it. Del.icio.us lets you download a backup of your bookmarks that can be imported to firefox or internet explorer; google will allow you to delete your browsing and search histories, download your email, download your rss feed lists, and so on. In other words, they won't bind you to using their services. That means if they change their privacy policies in a bad way, you have a mechanism to leave them in the dust--to choose somebody else. There are other search engines out there, other free email providers, other social bookmarking sites.

Part of the problem is some of the social capital certain sites have. For mozy online backups, it's not very strong. You can buy another backup solution anytime. But facebook? Your friends are all there. You can't move your profile elsewhere--not very easily anyway. However, even on facebook the problem of social assets (your friends all being there) can be mitigated. Facebook petitioners have stopped several stupidities (some involving privacy violations) -- and the company has shaped up. After all, if people leave en masse, they lose a lot of revenue (advertising, I think, mostly). How can the problem be mitigated--or how can you leave facebook and take your personal information with you, even your friends list? Well, you can't, but most of the applications are from other sites anyway. I have a family tree application, a goodreads account, a pandora account, and a few other applications going. There are a couple that are exclusive to facebook I am sure. But if I leave facebook, I still have my pandora.com account, I still have my reading list and history on goodreads... It wouldn't be a total loss. And it's not like facebook doesn't have competitors. Facebook might not die a sudden and horrible death if you and your friends leave, and maybe they won't even feel a pinch (especially if you lot never click on their ad links). But you can give your business to someone else who does treat you better. You can help decent businesses grow. And you can establish quality relationships with a higher degree of trust. When you invite new friends to join a social network, or when they are considering joining one, guess who has already done some homework for them? You. So help good businesses thrive.

Don't give business to businesses who basically declare they have no respect for your original terms and agreements--that they reserve the right to switch the rules on you, even without notifying you.

But if you do feel a need to use such sites, make sure to google the phrase monitor web page for changes; 15 million searches on that phrase have already been made, after all. Then, point whichever service you choose at your EULAs and privacy agreements. Then stay loyal to the online businesses you choose until they prove they don't deserve it.

On another note, do some googling on a site before establishing a business relationship with them.

google for "somesite.com security OR privacy violations OR vulnerabilities"

News as Research

I grew up learning that good essayists challenges their own ideas by reading sources that oppose their own view, and even presenting their arguments in their own essay. People expect responsible journalists to give both sides of the issue.

I see too much of biased journalism. I also see too much misrepresenting the other side of the issue, or cases where there are many sides of an issue.

I think the real problem is not just with news agencies. It is with people who don't seek alternative viewpoints that challenge their own ideas. This is at the core of real science--testing your own hypothesis means challenging it with any alternatives you can dream up.

It's time to start doing real research, people. It's time to start verifying sources, to start seeking out opposing viewpoints and subscribing to them (even if you don't agree, you are better informed if you read them).

Of course, nobody can afford to read every story in triplicate (their favorite journalist/news source, an opposing viewpoint, and an alternative third viewpoint). I think this is what the scriptures mean when they say every man ought to be engaged in a good cause. But I think it behooves us, when questions of national importance come up, or when we have an opportunity to vote with either ballots, donations, or our time--it behooves us to be informed. That means learning two other viewpoints, and questioning whether another viewpoint might exist. That means praying for help to see what is right, and then: "It becometh every man who has been warned to warn his neighbor."

Sometimes (or often) you won't agree with friends on what you've learned. So learn to be able to peaceable disagree, and learn to exchange research sources rather than emotional exchanges of words.

This I tell myself. Now off I go to read the other presidential candidate's site. And a third presidential candidate's website.

-----
Articles that triggered this blog post include Orson Scott Card's essays on the current election situation. He's a democrat, but he opposes Obama. I oppose obama, but I am not a democrat. We don't see eye to eye on everything, but I think his essays have a lot of good to say.
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-10-12-1.html

End User License Agreements.

Okay, I realize people tend not to read license agreements. But when I see things like this in a EULA, I think "Did anyone review this?" and I realize these people have little respect for their customers:

Mozy.home's license agreement has the phrase: "Do not taunt happy fun ball." No kidding. And here's the scary part: the license also says they can modify it anytime, and will only post a notice on their website for 15 days. Moreover, they reserve the right to delete your data, and claim absolutely no liability for loss of data, etc. There's nothing about privacy, so even though data is encrypted, who knows if they don't also have the key? Bleh. Forget mozy online backups--I have no confidence in the security of putting my data on their servers.

If you want something worth having, pay for it. I think I'm going to buy Norton Ghost or SyncbackSE.