|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jun 9, 2024 15:18:14 GMT
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,897 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 9, 2024 19:39:41 GMT
Woden's teeth! My joke is true. The madness grows and is winning. How would this non-existant 'person' get past the registration clerk when other real people fail on one iffy signature of nomination. And all those same name candidates. Are there new rules to cut out the ordinary on nit-picking minor mistakes but to pass through the obvious nonsense and crap. i think that we should be told. |
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Jun 9, 2024 19:46:25 GMT
Woden's teeth! My joke is true. The madness grows and is winning. How would this non-existant 'person' get past the registration clerk when other real people fail on one iffy signature of nomination. And all those same name candidates. Are there new rules to cut out the ordinary on nit-picking minor mistakes but to pass through the obvious nonsense and crap. i think that we should be told. There's a real person behind it called Steve Endacott, who is presumably once again abusing the naming requirements. In this case I suspect a stunt to advertise his company.
I agree that the situation with names seems pretty ridiculous - I'm not sure what the solution is without some formal definition of a name, but it's clear these aren't their genuine commonly used names. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 9, 2024 19:57:37 GMT
Woden's teeth! My joke is true. The madness grows and is winning. How would this non-existant 'person' get past the registration clerk when other real people fail on one iffy signature of nomination. And all those same name candidates. Are there new rules to cut out the ordinary on nit-picking minor mistakes but to pass through the obvious nonsense and crap. i think that we should be told. There's a real person behind it called Steve Endacott, who is presumably once again abusing the naming requirements. In this case I suspect a stunt to advertise his company. I agree that the situation with names seems pretty ridiculous - I'm not sure what the solution is without some formal definition of a name, but it's clear these aren't their genuine commonly used names. Perhaps candidates wishing to use the "commonly known as" provision - and there can be valid reasons to do so - should be required to supply ten signatories supporting the claim? (With penalties for telling porkies) |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,897
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 9, 2024 20:00:08 GMT
Woden's teeth! My joke is true. The madness grows and is winning. How would this non-existant 'person' get past the registration clerk when other real people fail on one iffy signature of nomination. And all those same name candidates. Are there new rules to cut out the ordinary on nit-picking minor mistakes but to pass through the obvious nonsense and crap. i think that we should be told. There's a real person behind it called Steve Endacott, who is presumably once again abusing the naming requirements. In this case I suspect a stunt to advertise his company.
I agree that the situation with names seems pretty ridiculous - I'm not sure what the solution is without some formal definition of a name, but it's clear these aren't their genuine commonly used names. Very simple indeed. Change the rules. The name must be the full name on your birth certificate (or later wedding certificate/deed poll of change) and nothing else at all. And you must prove it with an appropriate valid document at the registration of candidacy. No dropping of names, adding of names, contraction of names, ordinarily known as names, nicknames, silly names, make up piffle names or long used by not officially changed names. Inject complete order and enforce it very strictly indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by Kristofer Keane on Jun 9, 2024 20:00:26 GMT
Looking into it, it's sort of a direct democracy by AI approach. It's still pretty mad, but there is some method to it - he's basically proposing to allow local constituents to chat with the bot, which will accumulate a consensus on what policies people support (moderated by a team of "validators" he says will remove any silly policies) and vote accordingly on what the bot then comes out with.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 9, 2024 20:01:41 GMT
Looking into it, it's sort of a direct democracy by AI approach. It's still pretty mad, but there is some method to it - he's basically proposing to allow local constituents to chat with the bot, which will accumulate a consensus on what policies people support (moderated by a team of "validators" he says will remove any silly policies) and vote accordingly on what the bot then comes out with. How many constituents have to chat with the bot to make the final decision valid?
I'm reminded of that 'Computer Democrat' who stood in the 80s.
|
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 9, 2024 20:03:55 GMT
Looking into it, it's sort of a direct democracy by AI approach. It's still pretty mad, but there is some method to it - he's basically proposing to allow local constituents to chat with the bot, which will accumulate a consensus on what policies people support (moderated by a team of "validators" he says will remove any silly policies) and vote accordingly on what the bot then comes out with. What classes as ‘silly’ policy. Seems like the validators have all the power |
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Jun 9, 2024 20:05:05 GMT
There's a real person behind it called Steve Endacott, who is presumably once again abusing the naming requirements. In this case I suspect a stunt to advertise his company.
I agree that the situation with names seems pretty ridiculous - I'm not sure what the solution is without some formal definition of a name, but it's clear these aren't their genuine commonly used names. Very simple indeed. Change the rules. The name must be the full name on your birth certificate (or later wedding certificate/deed poll of change) and nothing else at all. And you must prove it with an appropriate valid document at the registration of candidacy. No dropping of names, adding of names, contraction of names, ordinarily known as names, nicknames, silly names, make up piffle names or long used by not officially changed names. Inject complete order and enforce it very strictly indeed. With the current situation of no particular offical status of a name, people certainly have documents issued in names that are not the one their birth certificate. So I suspect you end up needing an overhaul of the entire documentation system which would, if nothing else, be quite an undertaking. |
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Jun 9, 2024 20:05:27 GMT
Looking into it, it's sort of a direct democracy by AI approach. It's still pretty mad, but there is some method to it - he's basically proposing to allow local constituents to chat with the bot, which will accumulate a consensus on what policies people support (moderated by a team of "validators" he says will remove any silly policies) and vote accordingly on what the bot then comes out with. How many constituents have to chat with the bot to make the final decision valid?
I'm reminded of that 'Computer Democrat' who stood in the 80s.
Fortunately, I suspect we will never find out. |
|
|
|
Post by Kristofer Keane on Jun 9, 2024 20:05:41 GMT
I would say using a large language model to try and create a sort of gestalt voting entity is itself a silly policy.  |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jun 9, 2024 20:14:15 GMT
Very simple indeed. Change the rules. The name must be the full name on your birth certificate (or later wedding certificate/deed poll of change) and nothing else at all. And you must prove it with an appropriate valid document at the registration of candidacy. No dropping of names, adding of names, contraction of names, ordinarily known as names, nicknames, silly names, make up piffle names or long used by not officially changed names. Inject complete order and enforce it very strictly indeed. With the current situation of no particular offical status of a name, people certainly have documents issued in names that are not the one their birth certificate. So I suspect you end up needing an overhaul of the entire documentation system which would, if nothing else, be quite an undertaking. When Carlton becomes Dictator of Britain, he will relish the prospect of doing exactly that sort of overhaul, because it would give an opportunity to clear out a whole load of undesirables, booliaks, whingers, illegals, weirdos and hippopotamuses for a whole range of reasons beyond merely electoral administration. |
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 12,384
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Jun 9, 2024 20:15:52 GMT
I don't believe that you actually have experience clearing out hippopotami or hippopotamuses. I don't think carlton43 has either, although he has had a very long working life.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jun 9, 2024 20:17:50 GMT
Looking into it, it's sort of a direct democracy by AI approach. It's still pretty mad, but there is some method to it - he's basically proposing to allow local constituents to chat with the bot, which will accumulate a consensus on what policies people support (moderated by a team of "validators" he says will remove any silly policies) and vote accordingly on what the bot then comes out with. Oh I see. So it’s completely foolproof then, and will not in any way be misused or manipulated by malevolent or mischievous maniacs motivated by any type of deviancy or degeneracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Kristofer Keane on Jun 9, 2024 20:22:31 GMT
Looking into it, it's sort of a direct democracy by AI approach. It's still pretty mad, but there is some method to it - he's basically proposing to allow local constituents to chat with the bot, which will accumulate a consensus on what policies people support (moderated by a team of "validators" he says will remove any silly policies) and vote accordingly on what the bot then comes out with. Oh I see. So it’s completely foolproof then, and will not in any way be misused or manipulated by malevolent or mischievous maniacs motivated by any type of deviancy or degeneracy. Don't know what you mean, Generative AI is clearly perfect: |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Jun 9, 2024 20:24:42 GMT
Thoughts:
1. Nobody has to live by, or with, their given name. How many Johns are Jacks, Mags are Margarets, or Harrys truly Haribhaskars. If you have an alternative name, from middle names to nicknames, I understand that there is little in English law {{sic}} restricting you from using it.
2. Whenever ballot paper access comes up on this forum, I have stood by the same principles each time: beware unintended consequences from tightness of rules, ensure ROs and election staff are up to date with your new rules, and don't fracture the strength of British elections which have ensured largely free right to stand for election no matter who you are
3. AI is dangerous, unregulated, untested, broadly unsafe playing around by men who should know better, and playing silly games at election times with AI is the most silly of silly games.
4. If your answers to British electoral administration is "tighten up the rules, it's what Americans do," it's worth remembering that the USA is a crackpot joke and we'd do well to forget they even exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 9, 2024 21:11:55 GMT
Thoughts: 4. If your answers to British electoral administration is "tighten up the rules, it's what Americans do," it's worth remembering that the USA is a crackpot joke and we'd do well to forget they even exist. Our very freedom depends on the United States taxpayer, so I’d disagree there |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 9, 2024 21:15:47 GMT
Looking into it, it's sort of a direct democracy by AI approach. It's still pretty mad, but there is some method to it - he's basically proposing to allow local constituents to chat with the bot, which will accumulate a consensus on what policies people support (moderated by a team of "validators" he says will remove any silly policies) and vote accordingly on what the bot then comes out with. How many constituents have to chat with the bot to make the final decision valid?
I'm reminded of that 'Computer Democrat' who stood in the 80s.
There were 2 of them-1 in the Gower by-election and 1 in the Mitcham & Morden by-election, both in 1982. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Jun 9, 2024 21:19:47 GMT
Thoughts: 4. If your answers to British electoral administration is "tighten up the rules, it's what Americans do," it's worth remembering that the USA is a crackpot joke and we'd do well to forget they even exist. Our very freedom depends on the United States taxpayer, so I’d disagree there I'll disagree back (but without any ill feeling or malice)  |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 9, 2024 21:38:36 GMT
How many constituents have to chat with the bot to make the final decision valid?
I'm reminded of that 'Computer Democrat' who stood in the 80s.
There were 2 of them-1 in the Gower by-election and 1 in the Mitcham & Morden by-election, both in 1982. The press reported at the time that they chose their candidates by drawing names out of a hat.
Donovan, the candidate in Gower, was quoted as saying that every elector should have a computer terminal installed in their home, so they could vote on anything at any time. It'll never catch on! 
The Wolverhampton Press and Star reported the following year that the pupils at Colton Hill Comprehensive were having a mock election, with the winner getting to be headteacher for a day. One of the kids chose to be a Computer Democrat.
|
|
