- Right, you could build in a coin flip, once it gets to that level.
But it's so rarely cut and dried. You've introduced a time
sequence, where all the dirty tricks are assumed to have already
taken place. So then do we go back to those?
Imagine something similar to vote by mail in Oregon. You don't
all have to vote on the same day, there's at least a week. You
need not take time off work. You'll have a way to vote online,
by entering your PIN. Email confirmation will come back to your
email box, showing how you voted and giving another number you
can use to find your vote. You needn't keep it a secret how you
voted -- be as public as you like (your choice).
Traveling overseas? No problemo. There's a way to vote from
There's also a lot of votes taken throughout the year, polls. People
are in the habit of voting often if they want to. So they know
if their credentials are working, i.e. it's not a matter of being
surprised on "election day" (once a year? once every four years?).
On the contrary, a trusted voting infrastructure is used almost
daily, by at least some set of eligible persons (you might have
needed to register -- like now).
It's easy to imagine working solutions that are light years more
advance that what we have today. People generally feel satisfied
with the systems and understand how they work. Access is quasi-
universal. Literacy rates are high, infant mortality is low, and
the debates on TV are intelligent and to the point.
People in this future look back on our ranting raving dark age of
crazy-making punditry, and fall to their knees in gratitude that
at least it's not 2010 or thereabouts, when everything was just
nuts! They weren't even teaching about Bucky hardly at all, when
so much depended on waking up to brighter prospects.
Hard to explain, how our ancestors could be so slow.
Something in the water? Lead poisoning?
That's what some speculate happened to the Romans. Brain rot
eroded their civilization from the inside out. Fast food?
--- In email@example.com, "John Brawley" <jb@...> wrote:
> From a completely unrelated source (my creationism list), on number use to
> confuse people.
> (Link to:
> "Disestimation" involves ascribing too much meaning to a measurement,
> relative to the uncertainties and errors inherent in it. In the most
> provocative and detailed part of the book, Seife analyzes the recounting
> process in the astonishingly close 2008 Minnesota Senate race between Norm
> Coleman and Al Franken. The winner, he claims, should have been decided by a
> coin flip; anything else is disestimation, considering that the observed
> errors in counting the votes were always much larger than the number of
> votes (roughly 200 to 300) separating the two candidates. "
> web: http://tetrahedraverse.com