
Boaty McBoatface and the False Promise of Democracy - geromek
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/boaty-mcboatface-britain-democracy/479088/?single_page=true
======
lb1lf
<Cough> Working for a contractor heavily involved in this project, all I can
say is that internally on our servers as well as in any documentation and
conversation the vessel is referred to as 'Boaty McBoatface'.

~~~
seanp2k2
Amazing. Sounds like a fun team :) sometimes tech work can be dull, so it's
good to have people who can have a laugh together on a daily basis. Makes for
great working conditions IMO.

------
jernfrost
I don't agree with a lot of the conclusions of this article. E.g. they propose
that voting "probably" works the same way in all other countries as the US.
There are plenty of objections to be made against that. E.g. 1) the US being a
two party state means that getting representatives which represents the great
variety of voter opinions is exceedingly difficult.

2) US elections are so dominated by advertisement, expensive campaigns and
donations that there is no way a politician can actually do what they tell
voters because at the end of the day they have to satisfy donors otherwise
they can't get money to run elections. There has been studies that show
American politicians are mainly aligned with the wishes of the rich rather
than people who vote on them.

That is just two big points, which makes the US stand out of many other
western democracies, and there are multiple others.

My other objection is that Boaty McBoatface, somehow represents the will of
the people. No it doesn't. It represent the will of people who bothered to
vote on an issue most people likely don't give a dam about. If a choice was
demanded of the whole population then Boaty McBoatface would never have won.

Whenever there is an issue most people don't have a vested interest in or
think is very important it is likely that whoever wants to stirr up stuff or
make some fun are going to win, because nobody else has any incentive.

This is of course a major issue with democracy. When you let people make
decisions on things they don't really care about then they will make poor
decisions. Democracy shouldn't make everything a choice, but rather be about
choosing people you think will make good choices on your behalf.

~~~
metafunctor
Democracy can take many forms indeed. But let's think opportunistically, for a
moment.

In general, I'm inclined to think that in a democracy, the people should have
more direct influence to things “closer” to them (by some measure), and less
for bigger, nationwide, issues, of which they presumably have less
understanding. This is, in fact, how most democratic nations work in practice.

The case of Boaty McBoatface, though, is unusual in that it doesn't actually
much matter what the name of a research vessel is. It's just a name. Names are
almost always boring. Unless… if the name becomes so popular and widely known
that the very name opens up completely new opportunities for raising funds and
awareness. Which, I would have thought, was kind of the point of the
competition to begin with.

So, why not reap the PR benefits of this name? Why would they start a contest
but back out when they hit the jackpot? I do not understand.

~~~
noir_lord
If spun right the PR benefits of calling the thing Boaty McBoatface are huge.

You could do merchandise, books, characters, You could have Boaty McBoatface
sale up to the ice caps to look at why they are melting.

It's not like this is unusual we had a Childrens TV series here that was
massively popular about talking trains and talking helicopters.

I think they squandered a massive opportunity because they don't understand
how the internet works.

~~~
hartpuff
The point of the boat isn't to be a Budgie the Helicopter style cash machine,
is it? It has a serious purpose.

Why does it have to appeal to 4 year olds, who have zero understanding of or
interest in what it does? Why does it require an infantile name to appeal to
kids who are old enough to be interested in what it does?

The only reason this is even any kind of issue is because of the way internet
works, where all kinds of pointless immature stupidity is given far more time
of day than it deserves, because newspaper sites have to fill themselves with
_something_.

Edit: Oh dear. Looks like I hit a nerve with some people. :( ∗sad mcsadface∗

~~~
aninhumer
The parent wasn't simply talking about making it a "cash machine", they're
talking about using it as a PR vehicle for science.

And you don't have to be a child to appreciate the name, just not quite as
allergic to whimsy as you seem to be.

~~~
hartpuff
> You could do merchandise, books, characters

He was talking about _free_ merchandise, books, characters then?

~~~
aninhumer
They also said:

> You could have Boaty McBoatface sale up to the ice caps to look at why they
> are melting.

An example of how it could be used to deliver important messages.

And merchandise can be part of the message anyway.

(I should however note that I just edited my comment to include the word
"simply".)

~~~
hartpuff
AFAIK there's nothing to stop someone creating a character called Boaty
McBoatface that teaches 4 year olds why the ice caps are melting, without
having its internet joke name attached to a real life $300 million scientific
research vessel.

~~~
aninhumer
Well yeah, but that's not the same.

And exactly what problem does attaching the name to a real boat cause? I think
the objection to the name is far more childish than the name itself. "Oh no no
no, we can't call it _that_. This is a serious boat, for serious grown ups."

~~~
hartpuff
Is it just $300 million scientific research vessels that should be given
deliberately stupid names (that even the originator disowns), or everything?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
When you allow the public to chose a name for a research vessel, it's
inoffensive, popular and creates more media coverage (arguably the goal of
having the vote) then no matter how whimsical you think the name is you should
stick with it. If you don't want whimsy, don't ask the British public to name
your ship.

No one forced them in to the situation.

FWIW I don't find the name stupid, one person's humour is another's stupidity
I guess.

~~~
hartpuff
I agree that it's totally stupid to use online voting, that is just asking to
be hijacked, and I almost believe that they should have to eat the result as a
punishment. Almost.

Hopefully it's a lesson for them not to ask The Internet its opinion again.

------
geromek
The story is more complex than the article says. A Spanish forum (one of the
top-40 more visited sites in Spain) voted massively the name "Blas de Lezo"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blas_de_Lezo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blas_de_Lezo)
) a Spanish admiral who in 1741 defeated a British Army far bigger than his
own one.

After gaining the #1 position the organization decided to withdraw the name
from the polling, causing more controversy about this digital process.

~~~
joeyspn
Certainly one of the funniest stories to pop-up in the interwebs during the
last year..

 _> A band of Spanish net buccaneers has mounted a determined incursion into
Her Maj's territorial cyberwaters by demanding that Blighty's forthcoming
Royal Research Ship be named the RRS Blas de Lezo, in honour of the man who
administered the British a serious military shoeing during the War of Jenkins'
Ear._

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/29/boaty_mcboatface_spa...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/29/boaty_mcboatface_spanish_ambush_royal_research_ship_name_contest/)

It was going to win, so they had to shut down the candidacy. Not even the
brits can handle the power of roto2...

~~~
jessaustin
TIL there was a War of Jenkins' Ear...

------
mrob
The solution is simple. Continue calling the boat Boaty McBoatface. Ignore all
references to the government's preferred name. They can choose what's painted
on the side, but the name depends only on what people call it. If enough
people call it Boaty McBoatface its name really is Boaty McBoatface. If your
job depends on calling it the government's preferred name then subtly alter
the timing of your speech to make it clear that it's not the real name while
maintaining plausible deniability. Only written communication from coerced
people remains a problem, and hopefully that will be far outweighed by people
using the real name.

~~~
chollida1
> The solution is simple. Continue calling the boat Boaty McBoatface. Ignore
> all references to the government's preferred name.

This is good advice. In Toronto we have a baseball stadium called the Rogers
Center
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Centre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Centre)).
It was originally called the SkyDome but it was bought by a company called
Rogers and renamed.

Everyone still refers to it as the Skydome. Corporate branding be damned:)

~~~
gryphonshafer
This happens with airports a lot. Some really wonderful and generous old pilot
or aviation engineer dies, so the field gets renamed in honor of the person.
But aviators still refer to the field by it's traditional name. It's not a
slight against the honored dead; rather, it's just out of habit and the fact
that it's tremendously easier to remember "$CITY_NAME Airport" than it is
"$GUY_WHO_DIED Field".

~~~
AdmiralAsshat
Speaking of airports, I know of several people who outright _refuse_ to refer
to Washington National Airport by its current name, "Ronald Regan Washington
National Airport". They will go so far as to correct someone who says "Regan
National" and insist, "Washington National."

~~~
scurvy
Would these people happen to be air traffic controllers?

Also, most people in DC just call it National. Probably because the other
airport also has a one word name (Dulles).

~~~
imgabe
Some people in DC are still annoyed by the renaming, partly because of the air
controller thing, and partly because Congress changed the name against the
wishes of the people of DC and then forced DC to pay for changing the signs
out of the city's budget.

~~~
DonHopkins
Didn't they name a fruit [1] after the mayor-for-life of Washington DC?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marionberry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marionberry)

------
smoyer
“The new royal research ship will be sailing into the world’s iciest waters to
address global challenges that affect the lives of hundreds of millions of
people, including global warming, the melting of polar ice, and rising sea
levels,”

"Imagine Boaty McBoatface sailing into the world's iciest waters with the
wide-eyed fascination of a child. Observing global challenges that affect the
lives of hundreds of millions of people, Boaty McBoatface absorbs new facts
and ideas without the jaundiced and prejudiced views of older research vessels
while providing fresh perspectives and iron-clad observations of data
regarding global warming, the melting of polar ice and rising sea levels."

I think it works!

------
buserror
And what's wrong exactly if the name appeals to every 5 years old in the
country? I think /that/ is inspirational -- how better to get kids interested
in the science than having them following that boat adventures over the
oceans?

I think refusing that name would be not just be 'anti democratic' \-- it's
just be very un-british, because as a foreigner, that's /exactly/ what I'd
expect the british to come up with as a name, just for a smirk, and that's
something I like about them!

~~~
Klathmon
Seriously! I can't believe that the boat probably won't be named Boaty
McBoatface!

My nephew would have wanted to learn about it, it would have been something I
could keep up to date a bit on what it's doing and he'd love to hear about it.

Hell I can't believe the people on the project didn't go 100% for it right
away, giving the boat a fun paint-job and maybe even doing something like
working with a children's book author to write some stories about what the
boat is doing that are geared toward children.

It would have been an amazing way to get kids involved and interested in the
whole thing.

~~~
gaius
I can think of nothing more likely to turn teenagers off science than being
told to study the adventures of Boaty McBoatface.

~~~
wrsh07
You just have to sell it properly -- the boat has a silly name because voters
were thumbing their noses at the science authority.

~~~
gaius
"Adults don't take this seriously so why should we?" they'll ask.

------
dmurray
The best thing to have come out of this is a headline from satirical online
newspaper Waterford Whispers: US Military Introduce Childbomber
McChildbombface

[http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2016/04/18/us-military-
intr...](http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2016/04/18/us-military-introduce-
childbomber-mcchildbombface/)

------
return0
Crowdsourcing of a name is not about democracy. It doesn't appear to me that
the public was widely informed that they had to make a democratic decision,
instead sounds like a bunch of kids trolling. I think the article is
conflating two unrelated entities here.

As a sideline, what is democracy even? Democracy via elections would be
oligarchy to ancient Athenians, who prefered democracy by lot anyway.

~~~
takno
The vote was well covered in the British press, and the people I know who
voted were neither kids not anything other than completely serious about the
name.

~~~
return0
Did their mothers and grandmothers vote too? I doubt the voting base was
representative of public opinion...

~~~
takno
One of them was my grandmother

------
ohthehugemanate
This article is good food for thought in a year dominated by two strong
"outsider vs the Establishment" candidates in the US, populist rise in all the
European elections, and the entire Brexit issue. We are confronting a lot of
areas where the "will of the people" differs from "the will of the people who
know what the fuck they're talking about." this raises a lot of questions
about "democratic-ness."

executive powers originally designed for extenuating circumstances are being
used on one side and the other: to select delegates in an election, to get
around a stonewall Congress in Washington, to name a boat in England. Where
they aren't used, there is pressure to use them: to avoid a Brexit disaster,
to stand up for a comedian's right to free speech in Germany, to respond to
terrorist threats in France and Belgium.

I have to wonder if this is the Internet doing to Democracy what it is doing
to Capitalism : breaking fundamental assumptions of how the world works.
Information and opinions work very differently, now. We are part of much
larger social herds, governed by different forces, with much faster (and more
selective) information transfer. Populism is a different beast today than when
Berlusconi ran in the 90s. Maybe it's time you disrupt democracy.

------
alkonaut
Why is it undemocratic to not respect the outcome of an online poll? First of
all, online polls are _never_ democratic (They are directed to subset of the
population - which is pretty obvious when they are hijacked.).

Second - even proper referendums are usually advisory, i.e. the outcome isn't
bindnig for legislators. I don't see a democratic problem with that either
unless legislators would go against a strong public opinion, repeatedly.

------
sputr
Not calling it Boaty McBoatface will just be a massive missed opportunity for
effective science outreach and a crappy PR move.

You say it's going to be doing important research? Great! Add a social media
presence, pull in people with the "funny name" and keep them for the exciting
and interesting research.

But you're not going to that, because you're too important for that, ...
because you're snobs.

------
xenophonf
This is the country of the author who gave us ship names such as _Gunboat
Diplomat_ , _You 'll Thank Me Later_, and (my personal favorite) _I Blame Your
Mother_. You'd think the NERC would understand that it's all in good fun and
would have the grace to use the name chosen by us unwashed masses. I mean,
it's irreverent, but it isn't obscene, so who cares?

~~~
detaro
Reusing a Culture ship name would have been a great tribute, now that I think
of it :(

~~~
pilsetnieks
At least Musk will do it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_spaceport_drone_shi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_spaceport_drone_ship)

------
red_admiral
There's two things we British excel at, silliness and pedantry.

So it's no suprise that the best objection I've heard to the name so far is
that it's stupid because the vessel is clearly a SHIP, not a BOAT.

~~~
percept
Shippy Shippington.

~~~
PedroBatista
Ship Shipperson

------
dcw303
Comparing Boaty McBoatface to electing a democratic official for
representation is a little disingenuous. One is a popularity contest of
suggestions to a concrete answer of a question, the other is marking a
preference for someone who you hope will perform executive actions in line
with what you want.

Surely it's closer to compare it to a referendum: in which, the public
majority agreed on an answer that the establishment didn't like, and will now
renege on.

~~~
toyg
_> the other is marking a preference for someone who you hope will perform
executive actions_

You _so_ wish. It's a popularity contest like any other. Proof: Reagan,
Schwarzenegger, Ventura, Berlusconi, Trump, Franken, the Ghandi dynasty, even
the last Troudeau. Name recognition alone pretty much trumps (eh) everything
else, once you couple it with pre-existing popularity you've basically won, no
matter what your message is. You can try to outweigh that with massive doses
of continuous higher education, sure, but the natural rest state is that any
electoral process is mostly a popularity contest.

------
slavik81
What the poll results don't tell you is how much people care about the choice
they picked. In a representative democracy, it's not just about what the
majority wants, but how much people really care.

If a majority prefers pepperoni pizza but will eat basically anything, don't
be surprised when the representative orders vegetarian. The vegetarians care
far more about the exact type of pizza that's served and are more likely to
change which representative they vote for in order to get what they want.

~~~
takno
It may be cultural thing, but in the UK tech scene at least even if people are
flexible about pepperoni it's mostly because there is a large and delicious
range of meat-based pizzas to split the vote. The representative who orders
just vegetarian pizza clearly isn't thinking in terms of re-election.

~~~
vidarh
The rep who orders just vegetarian pizza will have a bloody revolution on
their hands. I have pretty much three criteria for pizza selection: No
anchovies, no pine apple, and at least one form of meat.

~~~
josteink
Seconding (thirding?) this. Where I work, any rep who orders a group of mostly
meat-eaters vegetarian food because the group has a single or a few
vegetarians too, will be seen as making a declaration of war.

I've had people walk out of company dinners (to get "real" food) due to
inconsiderate behaviour like this, from supposedly "tolerant" managers.
Needless to say, such incidents are seldom repeated.

And I say inconsiderate, because that's what such behaviour constitutes as in
my cultural climate.

------
duncan_bayne
The author has conflated democracy with voting. Sortition - the selection of
Government at random from the citizenry - is a far superior mechanism, and
results in a Government that is genuinely of the people.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition)

~~~
ZenoArrow
There's a system that, in my opinion, is even better (fairer, less prone to
corruption) than sortition, and that's liquid democracy (a.k.a. delegative
democracy):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0_Vhldz-8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0_Vhldz-8)

The idea being, you can let people vote on your behalf, or you can vote
directly, and you have the freedom to choose between these on an issue by
issue basis.

~~~
notahacker
I rather like the concept, but I can see it having some interested and
unanticipated side effects if you allow people to select their delegate by
_category_ rather than individual bill by individual bill. The person that
decides whether people's delegates for voting on (e.g.) an act related to
surveillance default to being the delegate they selected for "civil liberties"
or the delegate they selected for "national security" actually ends up with
rather a large degree of executive power, despite probably having a lower
profile than the leader of an executive regular parliamentary or presidential
system. Of course, there's a reasonable argument that this is still much more
transparent and fair (and reversible) than, for example, coalition bargaining,
but it is a system I'd like to see used in practice more in bodies like trade
unions before we decide it's the solution to national governance.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "I rather like the concept, but I can see it having some interested and
> unanticipated side effects if you allow people to select their delegate by
> category rather than individual bill by individual bill."

The point is that you can delegate for individual bills, as well as taking
back your power to vote on individual bills. You can delegate by category, but
you don't need to if it doesn't serve you. The idea is that the people you
delegate to have to stick up for your best interests, as their power can be
taken away at any point if they do not.

~~~
notahacker
Agree that you _can_ delegate for individual bills, but my point was that most
people won't delegate for individual bills most of the time, but probably will
choose delegates for "categories" of decision making if the system is set up
that way.

Surveillance law is a pretty relevant example, since for most people not on HN
it's a relatively low priority, and there's a fairly high likelihood that if
they're able to delegate somebody to vote for them on a general area like
"civil liberties issues" (for most people, a delegate with a decent
libertarian credentials) and "national security" (for most people, a delegate
who promises to be robust), the person or committee that decides for whether a
particular surveillance bill is considered "civil liberties" or "national
security" in effect holds a casting vote any time most of the public doesn't
feel strongly enough to make a bill-specific decision. Somebody has to resolve
differences between a budget balancing bill popular with the public's
preferred delegates for "taxation" issues and a bill with public spending
implications popular with the public's preferred delegates for "health
issues", "education issues" or "social policy issues" too. Since they're
supposed to be administering a process rather than enacting a particular
programme of government they were elected on like a _de jure_ executive,
they're probably also subject to far less scrutiny.

Of course, the system still has the advantage that the public can step in and
overrule their regular representative whenever they feel strongly enough to do
so, but not necessarily any more effectively in practice than powers to force
a referendum as a form of public veto.

~~~
ZenoArrow
The categorisation issue is a good one to raise, it would be something to iron
out. You may be interested in this video, the speaker mentions a couple of
solutions to the categorisation issue, as well as a bunch of other
implementation issues they're trying to address:

[http://youtu.be/cMc0Piwx8SU](http://youtu.be/cMc0Piwx8SU)

------
RubyPinch
I really don't get why people are trying to manufacture drama over the name of
a boat, seriously.

"tyrannical" because a group that got a boat, asked some people what their
thought on the matter was, and then said "no that silly"?

"What happened to disapproving of what you name your boat, but defending to
the death your right to name it" and now this is infringing on free speech as
well?

------
cpeterso
The code name for Apple's Power Macintosh 7100 was "Carl Sagan", an in-joke
that the mid-range PowerMac 7100 would make Apple "billions and billions".
Sagan asked Apple to rename the project, so they chose "BHA", short for "Butt-
Head Astronomer". Sagan sued Apple (twice) and lost. Apple eventually renamed
the project "LAW", short for "Lawyers are Wimps".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_7100#Codename_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_7100#Codename_lawsuit)

Also, the "Sosumi" alert sound introduced in MacOS 7 is short for "So sue me",
referencing the Apple Corps v. Apple Computer lawsuit.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi)

------
marcoperaza
This seems like bad move on the British government's part. Name the thing
Boaty McBoatface and reap great PR for years.

Edit: Or maybe it's all part of the plan. Let us all down by hinting that
they're not using the name, then announce a change of heart. The internet
would explode.

~~~
seanp2k2
I'm sure that the crew and people who do research on it, if they have any
sense of humor, would get an enormous kick out of it too. How'd it be to tell
your mates that you'll be out for 6 weeks at sea on _RRS Boaty McBoatface_ ?
I'd personally bust out laughing every time I talked about it.

It's not to say that the work isn't serious or important, just that sometimes
it's OK to have a laugh, even in an omgsrsbzns environment. It's not really at
the expense of anyone (aside from perhaps the pride of a few) and it's not
really disrespectful or non-kid-friendly (actually I'm sure kids would love
it) like e.g. _RRS Naff Minger_ or something else that the internet at large
might dream up. My point is that it's actually a viable family-friendly name,
and I mean...just look at it. Totally looks like a Boat McBoatface to me. It
has that Pixar anthropomorphic look to it. It also looks like a big toy
version of a real boat. Very cartoony, especially in bright red

Boaty McBoatface it is, then.

~~~
pidg
I dunno, how would you feel about putting it on your CV? Like calling a
business Smelly Bottom Industries would be funny and populist, but people who
actually worked there would struggle to take pride in the fact.

~~~
terryf
I'd feel pretty good. In fact the official name for my company is CodeMonkey
:)

Really, people take this stuff waaay too seriously.

I understand that calling it "CuntBrick 5000" would be offensive and we
shouldn't do that, but "Boaty McBoatface" is just whimsical...

------
GCA10
In the realm of prank names, this one is actually pretty good. It's not
sexist, racist, obscene or infused with hate speech. I can see shutting down a
prank name that's got hurtful overtones. But this one is playful and harmless.

Here's hoping that the authorities relent.

------
rubyfan
Direct democracy and representative democracy are different. But let's not
fool ourselves into thinking the Internet suggestion box for ship names was
direct democracy.

------
newjersey
> “The key point is that representatives’ voting behavior was not strongly
> constrained by their constituents’ views,” Achen and Bartels write.
> “Elections do not force successful candidates to reflect the policy
> preferences of the median voter.” The authors claim there’s no hard evidence
> to suggest that these dynamics would vary in countries with political
> systems of proportional representation and more parties than in the U.S.

I'm not a fan of grover norquist but I think it is unfair to say our
representatives should be free to disregard the pledge they so publicly made
when they were campaigning. Yes, we expect our representatives to go against
their platform in extreme cases for the greater good but I'd say if that
happens, the representative must turn right around and resign immediately from
office and not run for office again.

No, it doesn't matter if the cause was an "obstructionist" Congress. It didn't
matter with George HW Bush and it won't matter now.

Can you imagine if we had a referendum for independence of Scotland and had
Cameron said "nah jk" after the results came in favor of Independence? Or if
he started attaching new conditions to the promised he made Scots to vote no?
"Oh we will get right to the issue of devolution but we must make sure Scots
can't vote in England only legislation" but then who didn't they say that when
campaigning?

Imagine a system where there was a yearly pie eating contest to determine the
king for a year. Would it be OK for the current winner to abolish the contest
and make the position hereditary? Of course not!

~~~
Nutmog
I'd say it's fair for candidates to break promises. If voters keep voting for
them and their party despite seeing that happen, then it means voters don't
mind broken promises. This is what's nice about democracy - you don't have to
argue about too many rules, the rules evolve naturally. For some reason it
turned out that keeping promises wasn't a natural rule that voters wanted. The
same goes for resigning. If they don't resign and are still re-elected or
their party is still re-elected then that reflects what their constituents
want, not some artificial rules that some unelected rule-maker (who would that
be?) decided on.

The US system seems to be doing quite well. The majority of the population
doesn't care at all, and their votes don't count. Those are people who either
always vote for the same party or don't vote at all. The important decision
then comes down to the minority of people who are most interested in the
policies - the swing voters. Isn't that quite an efficient division of labor?

------
brightball
A professor from UVA once told me that Democracy was the art of convincing
people that they actually made the decision.

~~~
pete622
This is profound.

------
goda90
Everyone is wrong. It should have been named Boaty McFloaty.

~~~
xufi
Very original. I'd call it Uncle sam

------
fanalin
10 years ago, I got elected to our local parliamant and I learned that
democracy does not work very good for searching names. That's just something
which somehow is not a good fit for the political process. Perhaps other
methods how votes are counted (Condorcet or other methods) could work better.

Similar issue: when the new Wembley stadium got a new bridge, there was a
voting for the name of the bridge. The german football (soccer for my american
friends) player Dietmar Hamann scored the last goal in the old stadium, and
german football fans tried to overrun the election to force the englishman to
name it "Dietmar-Hamann-Bridge", a slap in the face for every english football
fan. Although Hamann won the vote, the bridge got the name White Horse Bridge
(see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Bridge))

------
snitko
This small example shows the true nature of any democratic government: if you
vote the way they don't like, they will not submit to it. Voting is useless.

~~~
rootlocus
This is a gross simplification. Internet trolling and mockery doesn't really
represent the will of the people.

~~~
delroth
You are projecting your own opinions and representing them as "the will of the
people". I personally vastly prefer things in life being amusing and
unexpected rather than boring and pompous, and as such I think "Boaty
McBoatface" is likely a way better name than whatever will be chosen as its
replacement. Wanting life to not be bland is not "internet trolling" nor
"mockery".

------
daemonk
This name is obviously a joke name that probably shouldn't be used. Yes, there
is a responsibility to maintain a democracy by the governing body. But
shouldn't there also be a responsibility on the governed to take voting
decisions seriously?

~~~
logfromblammo
I would guess that the name itself was put forth as a signal to the organizers
that "we know your public vote is bullshit, and this will prove it", and every
vote in favor was saying "we triple-dog dare you to prove us wrong, and
actually give up that meaningless iota of control to the people".

I think that everyone already knew that the poll was nothing more than a
meaningless diversion, and "Boaty McBoatface" was just throwing it back into
the organizers' faces. _Everybody knew this would happen, and that was the
entire reason for the joke names._ If it doesn't matter anyway, it's at least
good for a laugh or two.

------
Overtonwindow
Something else that may have not been considered is that the whole voting
system was rigged. Much in a "marblecake the game" scenario. What should be
done in a situation where the vote has been rigged by nefarious/trolling
actors?

~~~
vidarh
When the consequences of playing along are what they are in this case? Play
along. They've been handed a fantastic PR opportunity, and they're turning it
against themselves.

~~~
Overtonwindow
Very good point!

------
blubb-fish
What's funny about this ridiculous name??? It's stupid - simply stupid and
reminds me of Churchill's infamous remark:

» The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the
average voter. «

------
Angostura
As the article makes clear, this wasn't a bait and switch, it was clearly said
at the start what the parameters were. They were there to avoid this type of
situation where people chose a crass name.

------
mcguire
This article is troubling.

It seems to be an attack on the fundamentals of modern governments, that the
legitimacy of the government follows from the will of those governed. Because
those governed can't be bothered.

So, what's your next suggestion, then?

Personally, as a random human and as a scientist, I have no problem with Boaty
McBoatface, although I know a lot of the stuffier set who would regard it as
ridiculous and insulting, and might reflect those feelings on the work done
aboard the ship. (I also feel those people should be vetoed.)

------
minikomi
Serious Sciency McScienceface seems like an apt compromise.

~~~
logfromblammo
Science MacResearch O'Gravitas, Fourteenth Earl of Bergcleave, breaker of the
ices, measurer of time and tides, and bearer of the kegerator

------
nateweiss
The Boaty McBoatface incident reminds me, with a smile, of a similar incident
when Kraft (Australia) turned to the public to name a new variant of Vegemite.
The winning name was "iSnack 2.0" which sure seems (at least to me) to have
been intended as satire/commentary. Anyway the product launched under that
name to much ridicule, before being later renamed Cheesybite.

Interestingly, the name Vegemite itself was also originally "crowdsourced"
back in the 1920s [1], so the effort had some tradition behind it. Perhaps
"Vegemite" also sounded really silly back then.

I think (but not sure) that it's still for sale in Australia... in any case it
is/was delicious, regardless of the name.

[1] [http://adage.com/article/global-news/crowdsourcing-wrong-
veg...](http://adage.com/article/global-news/crowdsourcing-wrong-vegemite-
isnack-naming-disaster/139327/)

------
gpvos
I'm still disappointed they didn't call the Northwest Territories "Bob".

------
transfire
The British government also fails to realize that by accepting the name,
people might be surprised to learn their government actually listens to the
people! Then in the future these kinds of events might be taken a bit more
seriously.

------
szerated
Really, really over the top with the drama here... This is a crowd sourced
name where people didn't take it seriously. This has happened countless other
times with Internet polls. Not everything is a statement about democracy...

~~~
TallGuyShort
I'd say it's the executive who doesn't take the vote seriously.

~~~
szerated
It's a bad name. If it were a funny name, or creative, I think there would be
a point to make here. But its neither.

The only reason to vote for this name is because it would be funny to make
them name it something stupid. The humor is only in the anarchy. A mindset
that juvenile doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

~~~
TallGuyShort
I think it's both funny and creative. Got better PR for a science project than
we've seen in a long time. Your objection is as immature as if I said you had
a bad face and your name was stupid.

------
krylon
> “Can you imagine one of the world’s biggest research labs travelling to the
> Antarctic with your suggested name proudly emblazoned on the side?”

I know it is silly and childish, but that would be so awesome. That joke would
never get old.

------
woodandsteel
What an idiotic article. "Democracy doesn't work. " So the authors wouldn't
mind if the US became a dictatorship?

One reason that democracy works vastly better than authoritarian government is
that the public agrees on a lot of things. For instance, the public in the US
disapproves of governmental corruption, and so it is far lower than in
authoritarian countries like Putin's Russia.

Oh, and if the authors think that informing the public doesn't work, then why
are they working for a media organization is, guess what, informing the
public?

------
brohoolio
The second place name, Poppy Mia, is named after a 16 month old kid who died
after battle with incurable cancer.

Just imagine being the parents and losing to McBoatface. Have it named after
the kid with Mcboatface be the nickname.

------
AndyMcConachie
What's wrong with Boaty McBoatface? I think it's kinda cute.

------
fhood
The real issue with democracy is that people (me included) care far more about
whether a research vessel is christened Boaty McBoatface than they do about
almost anything else.

------
akshatpradhan
The UK Gov't really doesn't get it. Just imagine the marketing and sales
opportunity for a Kids Television Show about Boaty McBoatface, the Research
Vessel.

Or how about toys, educational videos, educational cartoons, educational books
featuring Boaty McBoatface and friends.

This is a Scientific Research Vessel that people could really fall in love
with, and instead of capitalizing on that possibility, they'll give it a name
like the Hawking. Nothing against Hawking.

------
mtgx
First off, this is nothing like how elections work. People are still run by
representatives in democratic countries.

Second, everyone, including the government is making it sound as if this is a
"terrible name", just because it's out of the framework they imagined it to
be. But I think this is a _great_ name and has brought nothing but popularity
to the project being done on that boat.

~~~
johnsonjo
>First off, this is nothing like how elections work. People are still run by
representatives in democratic countries.

It's partially true this isn't how elections work, but I think what the
article was trying to get by or at least what I got out of it is that the
process was democratic and in similar ways democracy fails. Now this is
somewhat subjective and entirely dependent on what you call democracy. It's
funny I read this now as I had just started reading a new book I got titled
Our Republican Constitution by Randy E. Barnett (great read by the way.) The
writer is talking about the American constitution.

Once when Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government the framers had
devised he answered famously "a republic, if you can keep it." This was in
contrast to a democracy which the writer says they didn't wholly disagree
with, but having an excess of democracy had created problems.

The author states two conflicting paradigms a Democratic Constitution and a
Republican Constitution. He states these are not reflections of what we see as
the democratic and republican parties that the USA has today as both parties
have believers of both viewpoints. His main distinction that I perceived from
reading was that the Democratic Constitution perceived what was constitutional
or law by the "majority". Well the alternative to that doesn't seem like it
would be anything good it's quite the contrary. The alternative as he states
is The Republican Constitution (what he states was the founders paradigm)
which has the basis of constitutionality on whether each "individual" had
there basic rights. In some cases throughout american history majority rule
hasn't favored the individual e.g. racial segregation. In cases where majority
rule opposes the inalienable rights of the individual I feel democracy fails
and as I stated before that's the one part that I could agree with the
journalist that democracy isn't always the best solution to a problem.

------
a3n
I hope when $NAME_OF_VESSEL crosses the Arctic Circle, they refer to
themselves as Boaty McBoatface, at least for the day.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-
crossing_ceremony](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-crossing_ceremony)

------
squozzer
Compromise is the essence of democracy. In that spirit, I suggest the
following: A serious official name, for example the HMS Stephen Hawking. The
people's choice, hand-painted in comic sans.

------
doktrin
I don't see a cause for outrage here. They never promised to abide by the
results of the vote, and drawing parallels to the political system feels like
a complete non sequitur.

------
tychuz
Eh, I did not enjoy RSS Boaty McBoatface. However, like 15th entry really
caught my attention in that voting poll - RSS Boat. Now that's something
simple yet elegant.

------
JustSomeNobody
Then they should never have asked people what they want.

------
cpeterso
To avoid this isssue, they should have asked people to vote from a list of
pre-approved names.

------
ourmandave
These are the voyages of the starship, McBoatface.

It's five year mission...

------
chris_wot
My daughter is devastated. She's 8.

------
mindcrime
_" Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the outcome"._

Let's not kid ourselves... Democracy is no perfect ideal to aspire after. See:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority)

Let's also consider what Bastiat had to say[1]:

    
    
        What, then, is law? It is the collective organization 
        of the individual right to lawful defense.
    
        Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend 
        his person, his liberty, and his property. These are 
        the three basic requirements of life, and the 
        preservation of any one of them is completely dependent 
        upon the preservation of the other two. For what are 
        our faculties but the extension of our individuality? 
        And what is property but an extension of our faculties? 
        If every person has the right to defend even by force — 
        his person, his liberty, and his property, then it 
        follows that a group of men have the right to organize 
        and support a common force to protect these rights 
        constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — 
        its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on 
        individual right. And the common force that protects 
        this collective right cannot logically have any other 
        purpose or any other mission than that for which it 
        acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot 
        lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or 
        property of another individual, then the common force — 
        for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to 
        destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals 
        or groups.
    
        Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, 
        contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to 
        defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say 
        that force has been given to us to destroy the equal 
        rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting 
        separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights 
        of others, does it not logically follow that the same 
        principle also applies to the common force that is 
        nothing more than the organized combination of the 
        individual forces?
    
        If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than 
        this: The law is the organization of the natural right 
        of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common 
        force for individual forces. And this common force is 
        to do only what the individual forces have a natural 
        and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, 
        and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to 
        cause justice to reign over us all.
    

Now I don't agree with his appeal to "God" as the justification for the
inherent nature of the right to self-defense, but his basic argument is sound.

[1]:
[http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G004](http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G004)

