Tag: politics

Posted on

Proposition HH

I was selected for some market research regarding Proposition HH.

Colorado has a Tax Payer’s Bill of Rights, which in practice means tax increases have to pass a referendum. If Colorado collects more money than a set threshold, the state must return this to Coloradoans. The threshold is a matter of law. Most years, we get a refund.

Proposition HH increases refunds this year but increases the threshold for next year, meaning this year people making less than 100k get a bigger refund and after that, refunds will be smaller. The retained money will be earmarked for schools. There is also a rebate on property taxes. For me, a renter making less than 100k, I’ll get a bigger refund this tax year (so next calendar year) and lower refunds every year after with no gain from reduced property taxes.

This is very poorly explained, and the market research consisted of extremely misleading factoids. They asked questions like, ‘Would hearing that big business and millionaires oppose Proposition HH make you more or less likely to vote for it?’ Nothing ever really talked about what HH did. I had to do a lot of digging to get an explanation, and the writeup of ballot language didn’t clearly explain the bill at all. The research survey left me feeling like someone was trying to manipulate me and not doing a subtle job of it.

What’s weird is that I’m not necessarily against HH. It’s a tax hike, and sometimes taxes go up. That’s life. But I really didn’t like feeling like someone was trying to swindle me.

Posted on

Australian Election

Australia just had an election. I applaud victors and losers for meeting the standards of democracy, but I want to talk about that, the standards of democracy for a second.

There’s a weird tendency in human nature to conflate special and important. Something special is a statistical anomaly, a rare thing, and those rare things are, if good, considered worthy of import. But important things that aren’t unusual are often ignored. A random person on the street is important. Every person is special in some context, but even in the contexts they’re not, just being a rando walking down the street, they’re still important. To even point something important out, to talk about how big a deal it is, is often taken as a point that it’s unusual.

In science, we call this a false implication. The true statement P implies Q DOESN’T imply not-P implies not-Q. The assertion to the contrary, (P -> Q) -> (P’ -> Q’), is a false implication. It’s just wrong. In colloquial English, saying I like apples doesn’t mean I don’t like peaches. The two statements are independent.

With regards to a functional democratic election, like what Australia just had, that is important. It’s significant. And the fact that it’s not unusual, that most Australian elections are functional, fair, and democratic, doesn’t reduce the import of it. If anything, the shear commonality of a such elections is itself a matter of import.

That isn’t an assertion of perfection, but denials of perfection are unnecessary. The statement, that went pretty well, doesn’t mean there were no problems. Arguing that something wasn’t perfect and therefore not pretty-good is itself a logical fallacy, conflating two disparate things.

The punchline here is that Australia just completed a routine miracle: a reasonably functional, democratic election. The long, slow arc of history seems to be pointing toward elections getting better and better, and there’s honor in taking the next step. In and of itself, having a decent election is a good important things. Having a tendency to have decent elections is also a good and important thing, for all that it erodes the specialness of the thing-individual.

I hope things get better, but I appreciate how good they are.

Posted on

Vote Buying

So I assumed it would be, but yes, it is illegal to give people money to vote. 42 USCS ยง 1973i(c)

Under prohibited acts:

“…pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both:”

I don’t know if Bloomberg could have just said, “I will give all of you $$$ if I’m elected.” That sounds like a fairly generic campaign promise.

Maybe gussy it up a bit? “If I’m elected, the US Government will give everyone a million dollars!” and then drop the appropriate amount into treasury.gov.

Edit: I used a million dollars because it’s a round number, but obviously Bloomberg didn’t and doesn’t have enough money to do that. Assume ~300 million US people. He’s got ~60 billion dollars. So $60,000,000,000 / 300,000,000 people > cancel some zeros > 60,000/300 $/person > $200/person. The population is actually north of 300 mil, and he’d run into huge liquefication losses if he tried. This is why the stock market capitalization numbers are silly. But even at max silliness, he has about $200/person, not millions.

FYI, anyone can pay more taxes than required if they want. On treasury.gov, you can click a button for donations to the US Treasury. So anyone who complains their taxes aren’t high enough could just pay more. I don’t think people do it too often.

Posted on

Politics 1

Thank you all for coming. It is my distinct pleasure to introduce my candidacy for President of the United States in 2020.

Don’t vote for the lesser of two evils. Vote for the greatest of three!

I understand that in these trying times, you need certainty. You need to know who stands before you, and what they stand for. My platform is simple and speaks to the true soul of our nation.

Fire: I’m for it.

Public Finance: Once in office I will ransack the treasury and sweep the national savingings into a big pile I can sleep on in the White House.

Military: It needs more dragons.

International Diplomacy: I support a strict plan of burning their houses and stealing their gold.

I believe that covers all of the important issues. Vote for me! Or I’ll burn your house down.

::dragon_finger_guns::