

If politicians were mathematicians - jonp
http://gowers.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/if-politicians-were-mathematicians/

======
dagw
I think the writer gives too much credit to mathematicians and too little to
politicians. Politics doesn't look the way it looks because politicians are
too stupid to understand your counterargument. I'm sure most politicians are
well aware of the logical inconsistencies or fallacies in their argument, but
more importantly they realize that their arguments and talking points are a
means to an end and not an end in themselves and you don't get bonus points
for correctness.

~~~
CWuestefeld
This is true, but not the whole story. Many, if not most, political decisions
are not determined based on logic alone, but at least partly on values.
Because of this, it's possible for two different, rational people to both
reason correctly from the same data yet arrive at different conclusions.

For example, amongst economists there is no question that outsourcing work or
production overseas is a net benefit to the economy. If this were the entire
discussion, then we'd all go home now happy. However, there is an additional
level of argument that can only be addressed through one's moral system and
values, which differs from person to person. Some people would say that
although this outsourcing does help society as a whole, it also harms a small
number of people whose jobs go overseas, and that in recompense for this
benefit to the rest of us, we owe the now-unemployed some help. The truth of
that, and the size of any aid that it implies, is not something we can get to
through purely rational argument.

~~~
anigbrowl
I partly agree, but this, like the original article, assumes that politicians
act as free agents once elected - that is, vote according only to their own
best analysis of the situation. However, most political calculus is colored
heavily by the question of how it will play with voters via the media.

To take your outsourcing example, it is indeed the case that outsourcing is
likely to leave everyone better off overall, and individual negative effects
could be mitigated with careful planning. But if a large part of your
electorate believes in the lump of labor fallacy, and your opponent's campaign
team is happy to perpetuate this mistaken belief while dismissing your
attempts to foster local economic alternatives as pork-barrel spending, then
the arguments in your re-election campaign are rapidly headed for lowest-
common-denominator territory. I made a resolution this past new year to give
up my hobby of arguing politics on the internet and have (mostly) stuck with
it, by the simple expedient of blocking a few websites whose signal-noise
ratio had long since gone to the dogs.

I have no idea how politicians deal with the daily tide of incoming phone
calls, emails, faxes and so on, beyond hiring thick-skinned secretarial staff.
Not that I'm shedding tears for the political class, who in many cases choose
to concentrate on the game at the expense of the results, but it's kind of
amazing that anything gets done. I don't think it's a problem of scale (eg the
size of the federal government); I see the exact same problems at the
municipal level.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_this, like the original article, assumes that politicians act as free agents
once elected_

Based on my observations of political behavior immediately preceding
elections, in comparison with behavior of those same politicians following the
elections, I assert that most of the time they do act as free agents.

~~~
eru
I guess they are just acting at different time scales.

------
dkarl
Totally backwards in blaming the politicians instead of the consumers/fans of
this entertainment/sporting event. If politicians started following his
logical rules, the first person who came along and started breaking them would
bury everybody else, because the voters would feel alienated and betrayed by
logical politicians.

If, by magic, _nobody_ in political life argued dishonestly, then the only
politicians who reflected the beliefs and the emotions of the electorate would
be politicians who were just as poorly informed and incompetent at logical
thought as the voters. One thing hypocrisy and illogic buy us is politicians
who are smarter and better-informed than the people who vote for them. Sarah
Palin sticks out like a sore thumb precisely because she exemplifies the
average voter instead of just pandering to them.

------
tokenadult
Gowers is a very brilliant man. But he supposes that most human errors in
reasoning about public policy are linked to formal invalidity of the
reasoning. The human mind is beset by many forms of irrationality.

[http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001238...](http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300123852)

[http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-
Psycholog...](http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-
Psychology/dp/030012385X)

Research does not suggest that formal training in mathematics does anything to
improve the quality of discourse on public policy. Please note that I write
this as a teacher of mathematics. I like mathematics and think that
mathematical thinking is helpful, but I don't expect it to have much help for
public discussion of policy.

------
yequalsx
The problem as I see it is that it's hard to form rules to discourage bad
thinking and practices. It's not like we can imprison people for engaging in
stupid arguments. Else, everyone - myself included - would be in prison. Short
of such draconian consequences it's hard to find a system of incentives that
encourage good thinking in the long run.

It's sort of like the bill being proposed in Congress that would limit
lawmakers' ability to be lobbyists. It's a noble gesture but doomed to
failure. A congressman wrote the part of the Medicare Prescription Plan that
prevents Medicare from negotiating prices of drugs. He's now a $2 million a
year lobbyist. If he couldn't be a lobbyist he'd be a 'consultant' or a
'researcher'. It just doesn't work.

The essence of the problem is that it's tough to fight apathy, ignorance, and
stupidity. Collectively we are easily manipulated. Look at how many people
think Sarah Palin is smart. If you don't tackle the issues of apathy,
ignorance, and stupidity then you get the current system and no set of rules
is going to change this.

As voters, we need to collectively focus on the qualities of a candidate and
not which party they are in. Is the candidate smart? Does the candidate show
signs of loving to learn? Is the candidate willing to say something like, "You
know what? I'm not an expert in nuclear proliferation. There are lots of them
around and I'll listen to their counsel and make a good choice." Is the
candidate able to see through bullshit?

We've got it all wrong and in this sense I agree with Gowers. He has a
creative solution. In the long run it won't help. Greed, incompetence,
ignorance, and stupidity are too rampant.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Short of such draconian consequences it's hard to find a system of incentives
that encourage good thinking in the long run._

Decision markets (ala Robin Hanson's futarchy) attempt to do this. In short:
we vote on our goals. We then bet on whether Policy X or Policy Y achieves
this goal. We select the policy with the highest odds of success (say X). Then
anyone who bet on Policy Y gets their money refunded, and anyone who favored
Policy X loses money if it doesn't work. Thus, anyone who favors bad policy
loses all their money.

The main drawback to such a market is that it might not be deep enough; if one
bets 1 million dollars on policy "transfer 2 million dollars to me" and causes
that policy to be enacted, they lose money on their bets but still make out
like a bandit.

~~~
mnemonicsloth
_bets 1 million dollars on policy "transfer 2 million dollars to me" and
causes that policy to be enacted, they lose money on their bets but still make
out like a bandit._

This glosses over the difference between _prediction markets_ (markets for
bets on outcomes) and _futarchy_ (voting on results we want and automatically
enacting the policies prediction markets endorse to achieve those results).

Also, wouldn't a market thin enough to be gamed by interested parties attract
investors like a stock trading at less than 1x earnings?

~~~
yummyfajitas
It's very true that irrational bettors actually attract speculators (who are
able to take their money). So it might be the case that interested parties
can't push decision markets too far. I.e., the cost of influencing "policy
give me 2 million bucks" might be 3 million dollars.

Robin Hanson certainly believes this is true, but Mencius Moldbug believes he
has found a real world case where it isn't. I don't understand the issue well
enough to offer an informed opinion.

[http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/02/pipe-
sh...](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/02/pipe-shorting-and-
professor-hansons.html)

------
steamer25
Tangential thought I've had around electoral transparency:

If you had (open schematic/open source) electronic voting equipment, you could
issue a hashed/random ID on receipt of a ballot. After accumulating a number
of votes, the ballot data is published alongside the secret IDs and can then
be audited by the respective voters.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I've had the same thought - voter verifiability would certainly remove a lot
of the ability to corrupt the vote.

However, my reservation is those who are pressured to vote in a particular
way, their imam/husband/abuser tells them how to vote; that way the vote could
be checked and so couldn't be consider truly anonymous.

If you go a step further and then have the hash encrypted with a one-time pad
it's getting too complicate IMO and an abuser could simply demand the pad.

------
edw519
tl;dr (too logical; didn't read)

Now if it had been _punchy, amusing, and wrong_ , but on Powerpoint with the
stereo on, I would have voted for that. Oh wait, never mind.

------
DanielBMarkham
_...To make the system more theatrical, each MP could be given a certain
number of cards that was less than the number of votes to be held..._

I'm sure this is a good article, but I couldn't help but think of fizzbin

