There is an important election in the United States this fall, and we've all heard a lot of concern expressed about efforts to suppress the vote. Under the shadow of all the other issues we're currently facing as a society, I know a lot of people who are asking "what concrete actions can I take to make a difference?" It seems like helping to get out the vote is one very important action.

So here's a question to the Tildes community: what suggestions do you have about how we (as individuals) can help get out the vote this fall? Big or small, donating money or doing physical work -- what can we do?

Poland 'holds' ghost election with 0% turnout (mostly explains what and who led up to this.)

Opposition 'slams' presidential election by post (citing lack of preparation, mostly.)

Polish election delayed indefinitely with just 4 days to go (mostly the same as the first article, but also cites how the later these elections are held, the worse Duda ^{(current Polish president)} 's chances unsurprisingly become.)

Race to the bottom: all Polish election outcomes are bad [opinion article] (a short analysis on the possibility routes the election could have taken. Admittedly somewhat outdated given the elections have clearly been postponed.

Related article: Poland's ruling party just made it's anti-democratic intention radically clear (tl;dr they're really invested in 'illiberal democracy', not too unlike the Republican party.)

hello,

I've been wondering a little bit about what a well-designed voting system on a website like reddit or Tildes would look like, and as I do not have a definitive answer, I do have a suggestion to make. I've originally posted this on another website, but I thought that it could also be fruitful to discuss this here, seeing that efforts have already been made in that direction (similar features have even already been implemented).

Looking forward to reading you!

I was wondering whether Aether should support downvotes or not, seeing that they are often misused on other discussion platforms to suppress content that is disliked rather than non-contributory or low-quality. People may then not view content that was heavily downvoted, even though it may have been high-quality.

Should we rather use some other mechanism to serve that function? If so, what would it be?

Personally, I'd suggest that we experiment with two-dimensional weighted voting.

In a word, it would allow users to express both whether they agree or disagree with (alternatively, like or dislike) a piece of content (and how strongly so) and whether they think that that piece of content is high-quality or low-quality (and how strongly so).

In practice, it could look like this (for users): upon clicking on the voting icon, a square with two scaled axes would appear. One for the quality of content, the other for the level of (dis)agreeance. A user, who had for instance found a piece of content to be very high-quality, but who somewhat disagreed with it, could then express that opinion by click and dragging right to the top of the square, but somewhat left of its center.

That simple mechanism would therefore allow us to distinguish between those two criteria and better capture the intention behind a vote, and help alleviate the issue of seeing deeply unpopular content being buried despite its high quality. It would also allow users to express how strongly they feel about a piece of content by letting them adjust the weight of their vote. Plus, it wouldn't be too cumbersome to use (in my opinion).

(Voting strongly should be slightly inconvenient or cumbersome to do, so as to deter users from voting strongly every time, thereby rendering strong votes meaningless. In practice, that could mean having to move one's mouse only a little for a soft vote, but more and more as the vote gains more weight.
Axes should also be sticky, so as to make it easy to vote with respect to one criterion only (we shouldn't need to try and aim precisely).)

We could also put in place some additional mechanism to let users rate content with regard to other criteria (how informative it is, or impressive, exciting, funny, etc.). I do not expect users to rate all the content they read, but allowing them to do so could still be useful. They may still bother to do it for content they find especially informative, impressive, etc., and that would then allow other users to sort content with regard to one or several of these criteria and find content tailored to their interests.

(We could then also display for any piece of content a chart (that could look like this) showing how it was rated with regard to all these criteria. That's not really important, but I find that cool.

We could also plot the number of votes as a function of vote strength, find the average vote strength and so on... That would also be cool, and interesting.)

What do you think?

Article: https://thetyee.ca/News/2019/04/25/First-Past-The-Post-Civil-Rights-Issue/ (April 2019)

Press release (October 9th, 2019) about the court filing: Court challenge against Canada’s unfair voting system to be filed today

Tweet confirming the filing: https://twitter.com/Challenge4FV/status/1181992387394113536

(Sorry about the weird format but I couldn't find a recent news article and I wanted to provide more info than just the press release.)

I tend to be generous with votes if I like specific posters and want to encourage them. I like to assume that's ok, but is there an official take on that?

And what about people who are likely to share an IP address with me? I'm on a small node with fewer than 200 users, and at least 2 or 3 come here (got invited by one). I don't necessarily know them but will that look like alt accts boosting votes? Is there a whitelist or something like that for verified individuals on the same address maybe?

I've been posting these since time immemorial 9 months by now. Since almost the first post my plan was to hand the responsibility of posting them over to someone; as of recent it seems to me that soon I'll lack the time to properly participate in them as the organiser that keeps the discussion alive and fruitful. In fact, the last few posts I've either posted one comment or none at all.

So maybe the 25th or the 26th topic should be posted by the New Guy™? Has the time come? My answer is yes, TBH. In the comments, you can criticise my decision, call me lazy, or name yourself as a candidate freely. I guess we'll use votes on candidate comments to determine the next guy. If there is a tie, I'll name one of them as the next guy (tell me in the comments if you disagree with this). Voting will be over roughly when this post becomes three days old. I don't think too much precision is required, or else we can try something else.

IDK if this is a nice way to do it, but I don't want to do this Guido van Rossum style—say "bye, figure this out for yourselves, you lot" and leave. Hope I'm not over- or underdoing it. I'll ask a few prolific posters to name themselves as candidates through PMs.

Edit: I'll close voting around 3 PM UTC+3 24th of July, which means I'll edit to record votes I see by that time, including a timestamp. I'll then speak to the user with the highest amount of votes, informing them of the (rather simple) process of posting and maintaining these threads. Most probably, from #25 onwards, the new guy will take over.

Thanks a lot for taking this seriously and helping this nice feature of ~books move on with a new maintainer!

Edit 2: I'm closing votes, it's 24th of July 2019, 18:20 UTC+3. @acdw has 10 votes, @iiv has 6. I'll contact @acdw, and the next WAYRC topic will include an announcement. Thanks a lot for your participation and interest in the future of this fun little thing we do!