Should we hide the identities of presidential runners?

[silverghoul1]

Im sorry if this could be a pathetic idea, and please correct me if there's a problem.

 

If we hide the identities of presidential runners, would people double think on who their voting for. People wouldn't think of race or gender, so their forced to listen to the presidential runners words, skills, abilitys, etc. Viewed Equality. Also this way, the runners can't play their gender and or race, as a playing card.

[kisai]

What if I ran a goat and a chatbot with a database containing the last two hundred years of the best political speeches and quips? Then I decide on the most popular platforms to have at the time. My chatbot slaughters during the debates. I grab some feasible economic and foreign policy plans, but nothing too radical and present that as my goat's models for its term.

 

At the end of the election, I present the goat.

Edited February 1, 2016 by kisai

[silverghoul1]

What if I ran a goat and a chatbot with a database containing the last two hundred years of the best political speeches and quips? Then I decide on the most popular platforms to have at the time. My chatbot slaughters during the debates. I grab some feasible economic and foreign policy plans, but nothing too radical and present that as my goat's models for its term.

 

At the end of the election, I present the goat.

Well, the ID, should still be known by the government, and they still have to speak for them selves.

[Phi for All]

Im sorry if this could be a pathetic idea, and please correct me if there's a problem.

 

If we hide the identities of presidential runners, would people double think on who their voting for. People wouldn't think of race or gender, so their forced to listen to the presidential runners words, skills, abilitys, etc. Viewed Equality. Also this way, the runners can't play their gender and or race, as a playing card.

 

This rules out any type of physical campaigning, since face-to-face meetings are hampered when the person is wearing a mask. There's something very off about trusting someone's words when they hide their face. This cuts off a LOT of participation from the People who are looking for someone to represent their vote in government.

 

It's an interesting idea, but I think we'd be better served if our pols (in the US at least) were required to be more precise about the ways they intend to represent us. Making promises they later break just to get elected is more difficult when they've presented detailed plans on how they intend to serve the People. For this, we need to see them. We need to know their hearts, if possible. We need to know they have our backs when it comes to representation.

[Delta1212]

So only the government knows the identity of the person you're voting for? That seems like a good recipe for a regime to pick who they want to win an election and then after the voting tell everyone "This is totally who you voted for."

[silverghoul1]

So only the government knows the identity of the person you're voting for? That seems like a good recipe for a regime to pick who they want to win an election and then after the voting tell everyone "This is totally who you voted for."

Have you heard of the electoral college? It's not exactly like everyone's vote counts for about half the states. Nor is making the Dem/Repu colonies is fair. My idea is to just get people to atleast listen to the runners ideas.

[Phi for All]

Have you heard of the electoral college? It's not exactly like everyone's vote counts for about half the states. Nor is making the Dem/Repu colonies is fair. My idea is to just get people to atleast listen to the runners ideas.

 

Doing away with the EC and single-winner plurality voting would accomplish more, and there wouldn't be any need for secrecy.

 

I think transparency is going to be the key moving forward. Change to a voting system with multiple winners and proportionalized representation is going to remove a lot of the visual factors in favor of how well the representative woks to achieve an efficient, effective process within their branch.

[silverghoul1]

 

Doing away with the EC and single-winner plurality voting would accomplish more, and there wouldn't be any need for secrecy.

 

I think transparency is going to be the key moving forward. Change to a voting system with multiple winners and proportionalized representation is going to remove a lot of the visual factors in favor of how well the representative woks to achieve an efficient, effective process within their branch.

like a court of 5-ish people. Knowing that there are many people with different political views, may pose a problem, having to make a decision quickly (such as means of war).

[Phi for All]

like a court of 5-ish people. Knowing that there are many people with different political views, may pose a problem, having to make a decision quickly (such as means of war).

 

There are plenty of examples of voting systems that will more accurately represent the People, and won't end up creating a two-party, semi-even split like we have now. There's no way a country our size can be fairly represented by so few sizable parties.

[iNow]

Interesting idea. Sort of like VoteSmart/VoteEasy coupled with an episode of The Voice.

 

http://votesmart.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Voice_(U.S._TV_series)

 

Agree that there are too many ways to game the system and introduce more corruption if made secret, though.

Edited February 1, 2016 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

What if I ran a goat and a chatbot with a database containing the last two hundred years of the best political speeches and quips? Then I decide on the most popular platforms to have at the time. My chatbot slaughters during the debates. I grab some feasible economic and foreign policy plans, but nothing too radical and present that as my goat's models for its term.

 

At the end of the election, I present the goat.

Well, if the alternative is Donald Trump...

 

. There's something very off about trusting someone's words when they hide their face.

Given how untrustworthy a typical politician is, that might not be a bad thing.

It would force people to actually think about what the candidate is saying, which would be a start.

[Phi for All]

Given how untrustworthy a typical politician is, that might not be a bad thing.

It would force people to actually think about what the candidate is saying, which would be a start.

 

I think it's a non-starter. Blanking a person's face in any way when you're showing the rest of them is going to set up some automatic cultural defenses in many viewers. While it would be a benefit to increase the signal to noise ratio by focusing on substance rather than appearance, I'd say we'd be better off listening only, and forget trying to show any part of the candidate.

 

Radio debates would be awesome, actually. Watching televised debate coverage in the US is a lot like trying to focus on issues while playing slots in Vegas. Lots of small distractions for those who can't follow the two-and-three-syllable intellectualism going on.

 

Well, if the alternative is Donald Trump...

 

In kisai's scenario, Trump IS the Goat. Coo coo ca choo.

[Sensei]

There are plenty of examples of voting systems that will more accurately represent the People, and won't end up creating a two-party, semi-even split like we have now. There's no way a country our size can be fairly represented by so few sizable parties.

Yeah..

"What is your favorite color: white or black?"

 

In true democracy, anybody can make their own party, gather people around it, and being chosen if their ideas are sensible to voting people.

But their public spread ideas must reflect absolutely the true state.

 

I would add to it two new tech things:

- obligatory IQ test for the all politics and officers (public available video).

- obligatory lie detector (video also)

To get rid of corruption, stupidity, penetration by foreign nation agencies.

Demagogic politics will be filtered out by lie detectors. As they must know their populist ideas are impossible to implement.

 

Example anti-democratic tool is election threshold.

Disallow minority parties to be elected because their percentage of votes is too small (like 5%-10%)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_threshold

See who has 10% - Turkey...

In USA you could easily set it up 40%, and nothing would change

Edited February 1, 2016 by Sensei

[iNow]

IQ tests are poor indicators, plus lots of psychopaths have high IQs so that may be counterproductive. Perhaps have them all pass basic civics exams like immigrants have to do. I'd also like to see truth in advertising laws, campaign finance reform, and compulsory voting, as well as avoidance of the first pass the post setups (to be replaced with Alternative Voting).

[Bill Angel]

 

Radio debates would be awesome, actually. Watching televised debate coverage in the US is a lot like trying to focus on issues while playing slots in Vegas. Lots of small distractions for those who can't follow the two-and-three-syllable intellectualism going on.

 

That's a good point. It's a part of the political lore that those who watched the 1960 debate between Kennedy and Nixon thought Kennedy had won, but those who listened to it on the radio thought Nixon had won.

Nixon, pale and underweight from a recent hospitalization, appeared sickly and sweaty, while Kennedy appeared calm and confident. As the story goes, those who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won. But those listeners were in the minority. ...Those that watched the debate on TV thought Kennedy was the clear winner. Many say Kennedy won the election that night.

See http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2021078,00.html

[Sensei]

IQ tests are poor indicators,

Nonsense.

It's good test as it's equal to everybody.

Does not require to know any particular language or knowledge. Does not promote anybody.

You cannot learn questions in advance and remember. As there is no questions just tasks to do. f.e. making math equation from couple provided numbers, to figure one next in chain.

It's test "how good you are in thinking", unlike word based tests "how good you are in speeches/verbally".

 

Don't you want to know whether president can think rationally without team of officials around him/her (they are writing him/her speeches for public).. ?

 

Why there is so much discussion on speculation part of this forum?

Because authors of these speculations, are good writers, good at speeches, but bad in thinking, and refuse to analyze data, make equation from data, and calculate.

 

plus lots of psychopaths have high IQs so that may be counterproductive.

So what?

"Close the all schools, because some teachers, 1 per million can be pedophile..."

This is similar thinking like with refugees: don't allow them to enter country, because 1 per 10k might be terrorist.

(The first thing, I would do with refugees from Middle east would be questioning him/her on lie detector)

 

C'mon.

Currently chance that somebody who is psychopath is becoming president are a lot higher, without any exams, than with exams mentioned above..

 

Perhaps have them all pass basic civics exams like immigrants have to do.

I would not pass any of such exam.

Does it mean I would be bad US president?

Without dictionary I would probably not know what particular question even means.

One with good memory can learn the all questions in memory, and just look up them all in memory.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Sensei

[iNow]

Nonsense.

Nope.

 

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspx

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views

http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/p/intelligence.htm

 

Don't you want to know whether president can think rationally without team of officials around him/her (they are writing him/her speeches for public).. ?

While I'm not so naive as to discount the importance of surrounding oneself with qualified teams since no one individual can be an expert in all things, I do agree with and support your core assertion that we need a rational reasonable thinker in this office.

 

I just disagree that IQ tests are the most appropriate path to achieving that end.

 

So what?

IQ tests fail to identify anti-social traits like psychopathy, especially since so many psychopaths have high IQs.

 

My point is that any test we apply should be more robust and provide information related to prosocial behaviors, leadership, ethics, morality, delegation skills, character judgment, time management and other related characteristics that are far more important than IQ in predicting success in such an office.

 

My point is that IQ tests are far too limited to assist us in realizing these purposes.

 

I would not pass any of such exam. Does it mean I would be bad US president?

Most likely, yes. Understanding of basic civics, the bicameral nature of congress, the differences between federal and state power, the various embedded checks and balances across the branches, what those branches are and for what they're responsible, how a bill becomes a law, etc, are all critical to being a successful leader in the highest office of the executive branch of the United States.

 

I don't think it's in any way unrealistic to expect our president be able to pass the same exam we make people from foreign lands pass before being granted citizenship. Do you disagree? If so, please explain.

 

Without dictionary I would probably not know what particular question even means.

Confused by your intended point. Is this supposed to convince me that you'd make a high quality president, or that presidents shouldn't be required to understand the system over which they're about to assume leadership and control?

 

Either way, and regardless of your response, let's just say I'm presently unconvinced.

Edited February 2, 2016 by iNow

[Sensei]

I can tell you why I would be bad US president: because I hate corruption, and whoever would to like to talk with me, would have to pass through lie detector in front of me, asking him/her about everything.....

 

There is no person without sin, so it would reveal while investigation, by proper "person"...

[iNow]

That doesn't seem to relate to anything I actually said, but okay. Thanks for sharing.

.

Btw - Lie detectors don't do any better than chance at detecting when someone is telling the truth, so (much like IQ tests) they don't appear to be the best tool for successfully doing the job you've described as important.

[Sensei]

Btw - Lie detectors don't do any better than chance at detecting when someone is telling the truth, so (much like IQ tests) they don't appear to be the best tool for successfully doing the job you've described as important.

Buy lie detector, plug it to yourself or your friends, and examine.

Not cheap chinese toy, that started to appear on ebay,

the latest one are based on analyze of which part of brain is utilized in while answering question - there is part of brain involved in making fantasies, that's active while making stuff up,

Then you can speak about its effectiveness, from personal point of view experience.

Until you have no personal experience, you should not talk about it. To not influence other people with this premade gibberish.

 

Currently you are basically making stuff up (lie detector would show it right now ). Talking about thing you have no idea about.

If somebody truly believe in "Earth is flat" and will be asked about it, obviously it will show examined person is telling truth. It's subjective truth, somebody belief.

But if somebody who committed crime would be investigated, it would 99% show lie, if person would answered wrongly. Especially if it would be MRI lie detector

Lie detector is not named "absolute truth detector" so don't pretend it to be such device.

It's lie detector - detecting something reverse to truth. On purpose making stuff up.

 

While I intended it to use for objective things like corruption, detecting crimes in the past, identification of terrorist, spy etc.

Currently to prosecute somebody there are needed 1) witnesses 2) evidence (or or both at the same time).

Witnesses can lie,

evidences can be contrived.

Chance that somebody lie to detector (and pass through) is less than 1%. I trust more lie detector than witnesses (that can lie, or misinterpret accident, not watching it from the start to end missing crucial parts of what happened), and evidence (that can be dissected/contrived).

iNow, now calculate probability of happening all the things at the same time lie detector on victim is showing he/she saying true, lie detector on prosecuted person is showing he/she is saying true, and lie detector on police officers and all people involved in investigations also showing true....

 

There is work at reading people mind.

People are put to MRI device.

And there is showed image.

Then MRI is reading brain activity.

And making computer image from what person watched:

Edited February 2, 2016 by Sensei

[iNow]

Buy lie detector, plug it to yourself or your friends, and examine.

(snip)

Then you can speak about its effectiveness, from personal point of view experience.

Until you have no personal experience, you should not talk about it.

(snip)

Currently you are basically making stuff up

(snip)

Talking about thing you have no idea about.

Uhuh.

 

http://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/1

Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. Although psychological states often associated with deception (e.g., fear of being judged deceptive) do tend to affect the physiological responses that the polygraph measures, these same states can arise in the absence of deception. Moreover, many other psychological and physiological factors (e.g., anxiety about being tested) also affect those responses. Such phenomena make polygraph testing intrinsically susceptible to producing erroneous results. This inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggests that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

The idea that we can detect a person's veracity by monitoring psychophysiological changes is more myth than reality. Even the term "lie detector," used to refer to polygraph testing, is a misnomer. So-called "lie detection" involves inferring deception through analysis of physiological responses to a structured, but unstandardized, series of questions.

(snip)

For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/polygraph.aspx

Psychologists have repeatedly told U.S. courts that polygraph tests--popularly thought to reveal a person's truthfulness through assessment of physiological states--are theoretically unsound and not valid in assessing honesty.

(snip)

Recent formal documentation of this comes from a National Research Council (NRC) blue ribbon panel appointed a year ago to examine the scientific validity of the polygraph for national security. Many psychologists served on the panel, including Paul Ekman, PhD, a longtime researcher of deception detection (see main article). The panel's report to NRC found no evidence of polygraph validity.

Now, back to the actual topic at hand and not more of this nonsense regarding polygraphing presidential candidates.

[John Cuthber]

Nonsense.

It's good test as it's equal to everybody.

Does not require to know any particular language or knowledge. Does not promote anybody.

You cannot learn questions in advance and remember. As there is no questions just tasks to do. f.e. making math equation from couple provided numbers, to figure one next in chain.

 

Wrong on all counts.

[Phi for All]

From personal experience, lie detectors are only as good as the questions asked while hooked up to it. If you ask ANY cashier if they've ever "taken" money from a cash register that didn't belong to them, and they answer NO, it will come up as a lie. Because the cashier believes you mean "have you ever stolen money from a cash register", but the question says "taken". Cashiers take money from the register that doesn't belong to them all the time, it's their job. They take money out for change, deposits, tips, etc. Similarly, if you're shown a card that's half red and half blue, and you tell the observer that the card is blue, it comes up a lie.

 

The more I think about the OPs concept, the more I think it's focusing on anonymity rather than on reducing the importance of appearance. Anonymity seems to cause unnecessary problems and obstacles, and carries some hidden traps as well. Could a candidate speak well (behind a voice synthesizer, so I don't know gender?), say the things I want my candidate to say, but then turn out to be someone I've despised for past actions and would never have voted for him if I knew? And now the bastard is in office and I helped!

[Sensei]

Sorry for OT.

 

From personal experience, lie detectors are only as good as the questions asked while hooked up to it.

That's correct, dear Phi.

 

I would do it differently (as long as somebody know by himself/herself that he/she committed crime):

- did you committed crime ever? yes/no

- did you committed crime in 2015? yes/no

- did you committed crime in December 2015? yes/no

- did you committed crime in 20 December 2015? yes/no

(then hour, minute, if such details are known, etc)

Questions about location of crime. Country, city, street etc.

Step by step. Not one single long, full of detail, question.

 

Questions about year prior the one where happened something, can reveal other things from the past..

 

True story: girl killed her newly born baby, hide it, and then pretended it has been kidnapped.

History get media attention. And private detective arrived and offered help for free.

He secretly installed all members of family spying software in computers.

And asked them to pass through lie detector the next day (so they have night for thinking about it). As he always do, in the all cases he is involved.

She was in panic after info about examination.

Everybody passed through without any problems and objections. Except girl. She refused to be examined.

Obviously the rest family members were in shock that she refused.

Her husband, mother-in-law, started pushing her "what really happened", "we know you are lying".. All day and night long.

Detective found using his spying software, that day prior examining somebody searched net for "how to deceive lie detector?"..

Family members knew they did not do it, and who did it (which laptop,at what hour,minute from spy log,which pages were visited prior and after), and pushed her to unbearable level..

Finally she told everything. And showed where body is hidden.

Detector was not even needed. Just fear of being examined..

[Phi for All]

I would do it differently (as long as somebody know by himself/herself that he/she committed crime):

- did you committed crime ever? yes/no

- did you committed crime in 2015? yes/no

- did you committed crime in December 2015? yes/no

- did you committed crime in 20 December 2015? yes/no

(then hour, minute, if such details are known, etc)

Questions about location of crime. Country, city, street etc.

Step by step. Not one single long, full of detail, question.

 

Questions about year prior the one where happened something, can reveal other things from the past..

 

The problem with crime in this instance is that we break the law so regularly in little things, like speed limits or turning across double yellow lines, or a friendly game of poker for money with your buddies, or jaywalking, or sharing your prescription Tylenol with your spouse. You might end up with details that satisfied the populace that these weren't crimes that would keep one from being President, but you might also end up asking "Is that all the crimes you've committed?" What do you do when they answer yes, there are no more, and it comes up a lie? Because it sure could, seeing as how we all know there are plenty of things we justify as not-crimes when they really are. And then you have someone saying they are innocent but the machine says lie. Instant political death.