02-25-2024, 03:57 PM
I ran across an interesting blog (more like marketing, really) which got me thinking...
Authored by Dr. Jennifer Jones (program director for the Center for Science and Democracy) of an organization called the Union of Concerned Scientists, wherein she states the group's intent to convene an Election Science Task Force.
This task force (which already exists according to their presentations) is comprised of "more than 20 leading experts, including election scientists, democracy researchers, community organizers, voting rights attorneys, and elected officials;" so I looked them up.
I immediately took exception.
This force is replete with numerous former "political appointees" among them, which fills me with trepidation. The idea of including "elected officials" seems especially egregious. Since when to scientists need to be informed by "politicians?" Under what scientific purpose is the addition of political bias? In what way should be the scientific study of election mechanisms include the views of elected partisans? What weight can their political bent be afforded? I would submit "None, so why include them?"
Now I admit, they might all be willing to be "scientific" about the analysis they will produce; but the very idea that 'elected officials' are valid 'experts' in anything seems more like political 'fantasy.' Science requires no "partisanship." I can't imagine what they can contribute - except assertions how "I took part in a scientific study..."
I want to believe that the principle of the study has merit... especially since we lag so much in science (and math) when it comes to elections...
The author delineates some objectives...
Ensure fair representation... this specifically to gerrymandering and how the politician's often make changes for political convenience rather than 'fair representation.' (I say, simply remove politicians from the equation in mapping voting districts - and viola...problem solved. Don't like the results? ... well, it sucks to be a politician.)
Increase election data transparency... "Transparent and consistent handling and communication of election data—such as voter registration numbers, the number of mail ballots sent and returned, and results..." You mean record-keeping, right?... Just keep records, report accurately, comply with reporting requirements... again... problem solved.
Improve ballot design... "We’re working for equitable ballot design and improved voter education materials to more accurately reflect the preferences of the governed." Kudos... It might help if the ballots were standardized... and such standardization requires thoughtful consideration... good luck telling politicians that there are "rules."
If you would like to see where this is going you can always go to the link and perhaps join them for a virtual conversation on the science of elections as a tool for justice and democracy... Perhaps it could be interesting, but I'm afraid I'll pass for now. You see there is an "over-ripe" hammering of the virtue signaling of "democracy" that I find troublesome here... but that is in another thread, and beside the point of illuminating this task force.
Thanks for indulging my musings on this.
Authored by Dr. Jennifer Jones (program director for the Center for Science and Democracy) of an organization called the Union of Concerned Scientists, wherein she states the group's intent to convene an Election Science Task Force.
This task force (which already exists according to their presentations) is comprised of "more than 20 leading experts, including election scientists, democracy researchers, community organizers, voting rights attorneys, and elected officials;" so I looked them up.
I immediately took exception.
This force is replete with numerous former "political appointees" among them, which fills me with trepidation. The idea of including "elected officials" seems especially egregious. Since when to scientists need to be informed by "politicians?" Under what scientific purpose is the addition of political bias? In what way should be the scientific study of election mechanisms include the views of elected partisans? What weight can their political bent be afforded? I would submit "None, so why include them?"
Now I admit, they might all be willing to be "scientific" about the analysis they will produce; but the very idea that 'elected officials' are valid 'experts' in anything seems more like political 'fantasy.' Science requires no "partisanship." I can't imagine what they can contribute - except assertions how "I took part in a scientific study..."
I want to believe that the principle of the study has merit... especially since we lag so much in science (and math) when it comes to elections...
The author delineates some objectives...
Ensure fair representation... this specifically to gerrymandering and how the politician's often make changes for political convenience rather than 'fair representation.' (I say, simply remove politicians from the equation in mapping voting districts - and viola...problem solved. Don't like the results? ... well, it sucks to be a politician.)
Increase election data transparency... "Transparent and consistent handling and communication of election data—such as voter registration numbers, the number of mail ballots sent and returned, and results..." You mean record-keeping, right?... Just keep records, report accurately, comply with reporting requirements... again... problem solved.
Improve ballot design... "We’re working for equitable ballot design and improved voter education materials to more accurately reflect the preferences of the governed." Kudos... It might help if the ballots were standardized... and such standardization requires thoughtful consideration... good luck telling politicians that there are "rules."
If you would like to see where this is going you can always go to the link and perhaps join them for a virtual conversation on the science of elections as a tool for justice and democracy... Perhaps it could be interesting, but I'm afraid I'll pass for now. You see there is an "over-ripe" hammering of the virtue signaling of "democracy" that I find troublesome here... but that is in another thread, and beside the point of illuminating this task force.
Thanks for indulging my musings on this.
