JoshuaZ comments on Open Thread June 2010, Part 4 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Will_Newsome 19 June 2010 04:34AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (325)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: SilasBarta 19 June 2010 01:23:30PM *  8 points [-]

Not ready to answer the rationalist questions, but why is it that, as soon as elections don't go toward someone who played the standard political game, suddenly, "it must be a mistake somehow"? You guys set the terms of the primaries, you pick the voting machines. If you're not ready to trust them before the election, the time to contest them was back then, not when you don't like the result.

Where was Rawl on the important issue of voting machine reliability when they did "what they're supposed to"?

I understand that elections are evidence, and given the prior on Greene, this particular election may be insufficient to justify a posterior that Greene has the most "support", however defined. But elections also serve as a bright line to settle an issue. We could argue forever about who "really" has the most votes, but eventually we have to say who won, and elections are just as much about finality on that issue as they are as an evidential test of fact.

To an extent, then, it doesn't matter that Greene didn't "really" get the most votes. If you allow every election to be indefinitely contested until you're convinced there's no reason the loser really should have won, elections never settle anything. The price for indifference to voting procedure reliability (in this case, the machines) should be acceptance of a bad outcome for that time, to be corrected for the next election, or through the recall process.

Frankly, if Greene had lost but could present evidence of the strength Rawl presented, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

ETA: Oh, and you gotta love this:

On election night, I was among the first reporters to speak with Greene after his victory was announced. His verbal tics and strange affect were immediately apparent: he frequently repeats and interrupts himself, speaks haltingly, and sometimes descends into incoherent rambling, as subsequent video and audio interviews have made all the more obvious.

Damn those candidates with autism symptoms! Only manipulative people like us deserve to win elections!

Comment author: JoshuaZ 19 June 2010 04:35:59PM 6 points [-]

This doesn't sound like autism to me. It sounds more like a neurotypical individual who is dealing with a very unexpected and stressful set of events and having to talk about them.

Comment author: SilasBarta 19 June 2010 11:35:33PM *  3 points [-]

Be that as it may, those are typical characteristics of high-functioning autistics, and I'm more than a little bothered that they view this as justification for reversing his victory.

Take the part I bolded and remove the "incoherent rambling" bit, and you could be describing me! Well, at least my normal mode of speech without deliberate self-adjustment.

And my lack of incoherent rambling is a judgment call ;-)