**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

It would be ironic if this meant Trump couldn't vote in his own election.

I don't know American history very well but I thought the original principle of the union was to devolve a lot of the power to the individual states, and I assumed the electoral college was one way of doing this. Is that right?

Trump probably wouldn't, but as it is now, it would mean that a very small percentage of people vote. I forget the numbers exactly, but on average the middle class doesn't even pay tax by net. It's only like the top 2% that pay net taxes on average.

The masses voting is the path to civilization doom. The majority vote to take more and more money from the productive. We've seen the great damage this causes. If I were God and I were to engineer the destruction of the greatest civilization in the universe, I would turn it into a democracy with few limits on voting. People are good at stopping obvious disasters, but the disaster we don't stop is the one we don't see rotting our core.

[boost]

Trump probably wouldn't, but as it is now, it would mean that a very small percentage of people vote. I forget the numbers exactly, but on average the middle class doesn't even pay tax by net. It's only like the top 2% that pay net taxes on average.

The masses voting is the path to civilization doom. The majority vote to take more and more money from the productive. We've seen the great damage this causes. If I were God and I were to engineer the destruction of the greatest civilization in the universe, I would turn it into a democracy with few limits on voting. People are good at stopping obvious disasters, but the disaster we don't stop is the one we don't see rotting our core.

It seems like, if we're going down this road, the system that makes the most sense is a correlation between dollars donated and votes allocated. Having it be binary, as you propose, gets the worst result as you both need a massive beurocracy to determine whether someone is net + or -, and you incentivize the gaming of the system where people gain full citizenship by paying a net $0.01 in taxes.

Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not in the top 2% of American earners, yet I think I pay net + in taxes. What am I missing? My paycheck has stuff taken out of it, and I typically get a very small tax return or owe a small amount (because lol@ loaning the government free monies.)

[MadMojoMonkey]

It seems like, if we're going down this road, the system that makes the most sense is a correlation between dollars donated and votes allocated. Having it be binary, as you propose, gets the worst result as you both need a massive beurocracy to determine whether someone is net + or -, and you incentivize the gaming of the system where people gain full citizenship by paying a net $0.01 in taxes.

Why all the hate against gamers?

This came up in a meeting the other day. Some of the TAs (grad students) are looking for ways to punish their undergrad students who are only interesting in accomplishing the bare minimum to receive full credit.
A) Our role as graders is not punishment, it's feedback.
B) What is even wrong with learning the actual requirements and meeting them efficiently?

The notion that if you're not overachieving, you're somehow disrespecting your fellows is absurd.

It reminds me of being an ambitious young carpenter who wastes time sanding the inside of a wall. No one is ever going to see or touch that surface once I seal the wall, so what advantage is gained by sanding it?

I see a lot of students sanding the inside of a wall, is all I'm saying, and it's just them making busywork for no advantage.

***
The minimum standard is still the standard. Gaming to meet the minimum is simply a life-scale optimization.
What's the problem with that?

[Poopadoop]

Why all the hate against gamers?

This came up in a meeting the other day. Some of the TAs (grad students) are looking for ways to punish their undergrad students who are only interesting in accomplishing the bare minimum to receive full credit.
A) Our role as graders is not punishment, it's feedback.
B) What is even wrong with learning the actual requirements and meeting them efficiently?

The notion that if you're not overachieving, you're somehow disrespecting your fellows is absurd.

It's the idea that the slackers are somehow devaluing the keeners' hard work. In fact it's the opposite. The slackers are making the keeners look even better by comparison. They should be thanking the slackers, not trying to punish them.

[wufwugy]

It's the idea that the slackers are somehow devaluing the keeners' hard work. In fact it's the opposite. The slackers are making the keeners look even better by comparison. They should be thanking the slackers, not trying to punish them.

Good point.

This is part of what I was getting at earlier when I said I'll never have an accurate understanding of reality; instead it matters what I believe. In your example, reality is one way, but how it affects one is dependent on their perspective.

[Poopadoop]

Good point.

This is part of what I was getting at earlier when I said I'll never have an accurate understanding of reality; instead it matters what I believe. In your example, reality is one way, but how it affects one is dependent on their perspective.

Ya, everyone has a different perspective. Thinking anyone who sees things differently from you is wrong doesn't make you right, it just makes you closed-minded.

[wufwugy]

I see a lot of students sanding the inside of a wall, is all I'm saying, and it's just them making busywork for no advantage

I'm very interested in some examples.

[Poopadoop]

I'm very interested in some examples.

For my part, I would say it's not realising there's a diminishing return with increased effort, to the point where the effort would better be expended elsewhere.

Making sure every little thing is just right in an essay like there's not a single typo or the references are formatted perfectly, or putting pretty designs on the cover page. Memorizing a textbook word for word instead of just getting a solid grasp of the material. Shit like that.

In my view, the smartest ones are still diligent in their approach to their schoolwork, but they also understand what really matters and focus on getting that right. A lot of overachievers actually manage to be both diligent and attentive to irrelevant detail. They still get a top mark but it's kind of like 'fuck me, here's your 95, get a life'.

[wufwugy]

For my part, I would say it's not realising there's a diminishing return with increased effort, to the point where the effort would better be expended elsewhere.

Making sure every little thing is just right in an essay like there's not a single typo or the references are formatted perfectly, or putting pretty designs on the cover page. Memorizing a textbook word for word instead of just getting a solid grasp of the material. Shit like that.

In my view, the smartest ones are still diligent in their approach to their schoolwork, but they also understand what really matters and focus on getting that right. A lot of overachievers actually manage to be both diligent and attentive to irrelevant detail. They still get a top mark but it's kind of like 'fuck me, here's your 95, get a life'.

Interesting. I tend to do the really nitty things you describe, and here's my explanation for why: I hate being graded down. It just feels bad. Like real bad. A 100 on an essay can make my day and a 92 will have me agitated for a while and questioning the Professor's understanding of how to teach/grade.

[Poopadoop]

Interesting. I tend to do the really nitty things you describe, and here's my explanation for why: I hate being graded down. It just feels bad. Like real bad. A 100 on an essay can make my day and a 92 will have me agitated for a while and questioning the Professor's understanding of how to teach/grade.

Well I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that, but it's not like it sways me one way or the other if I see a typo. That said, different markers are sensitive to different things and some of the stuff that makes me see red doesn't seem to bother others and vice-versa. I can imagine there being someone out there who sees a reference formatted wrong and thinks 'minus 5 for that'. But I think (hope) they're pretty rare, cause honestly, what does it have to do with how strong your paper is?

[MadMojoMonkey]

A 100 on an essay can make my day and a 92 will have me agitated for a while and questioning the Professor's understanding of how to teach/grade.

If this is true, then why are you paying for it?

I mean, if everything you write on the subject is worth 100%, then why do you need to take the class?
Shouldn't / Couldn't you be teaching that class?

[Poopadoop]

It seems like, if we're going down this road, the system that makes the most sense is a correlation between dollars donated and votes allocated. Having it be binary, as you propose, gets the worst result as you both need a massive beurocracy to determine whether someone is net + or -, and you incentivize the gaming of the system where people gain full citizenship by paying a net $0.01 in taxes.

Wouldn't you need a massive bureaucracy to enact your system too?

Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not in the top 2% of American earners, yet I think I pay net + in taxes. What am I missing? My paycheck has stuff taken out of it, and I typically get a very small tax return or owe a small amount (because lol@ loaning the government free monies.)

I'm guessing by 'net' he means the people who pay more tax than the average amount paid by a taxpayer? However it's calculated it would amount to giving only the wealthy people the vote, and so seems not so good in principle.

[wufwugy]

It seems like, if we're going down this road, the system that makes the most sense is a correlation between dollars donated and votes allocated. Having it be binary, as you propose, gets the worst result as you both need a massive beurocracy to determine whether someone is net + or -, and you incentivize the gaming of the system where people gain full citizenship by paying a net $0.01 in taxes.

Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not in the top 2% of American earners, yet I think I pay net + in taxes. What am I missing? My paycheck has stuff taken out of it, and I typically get a very small tax return or owe a small amount (because lol@ loaning the government free monies.)

Good points. I meant that something along the liens of the top 2% "on average." Lots of middle class people (and even some poor) pay net taxes, but then there are lots in those income groups that get huge subsidies. It's also possible it was just in federal income tax. I saw the data a while back and don't remember the details much.