Showing posts with label international affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international affairs. Show all posts

Sunday, February 8, 2015

Slovakia’s gay marriage referendum: an exercise in game theory and ballot design

A genuine Slovak portable ballot box.
(Photo: LiĊĦiak/Wikimedia Commons)
Voters in Slovakia rejected three referenda asking voters to ban same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, and compulsory sex education yesterday.

Referenda in Slovakia are only legally binding if 50 percent of eligible voters—in this case, 2,205,765 out of 4,411,529 voters—actually cast a ballot. So while more than 90 percent of people who voted on the ballot questions voted “yes,” voter turnout was less than 22 percent. With insufficient turnout, the referenda won’t take effect.

This was the strategy adopted by LGBT activists in Slovakia: rather than asking voters to vote “no,” they urged voters not to cast a ballot at all. It’s a sound strategy, because—assuming everybody who wants to reject the referenda is on the same page—voting “no” can only improve the chances of the referenda passing.

For convenience’s sake, let’s say there are exactly four million eligible voters in Slovakia. If 1,999,999 voters vote “yes” on a referendum, and nobody votes “no,” the referendum is rejected due to insufficient turnout.

But if 1,999,999 voters vote “yes” and one person votes “no,” the referendum passes.

In fact, the theoretical smallest number of “yes” votes required for passage in this example would be 1,000,001—assuming 999,999 people voted “no.”

In the case of this past vote, it looks like Slovaks who wanted to reject the referenda were on the same page and mostly stayed home instead of voting “no.” But there’s an interesting bit of game theory involved with deciding whether to stay home or to cast a “no” ballot:

Assuming you think your fellow referendum-rejecters are completely rational, it’s obviously best to stay home and not vote at all.

But if you think enough of your referendum-rejecters haven’t thought it through and will show up to vote “no”—enough to push turnout over 50 percent but not enough to make up 50 percent of those who do vote—then you need to show up to vote “no,” so that the “no” vote has a fighting chance of winning.

But then if you don’t necessarily think referendum-rejecters are stupidly going to vote “no,” but you think enough referendum-rejecters think that enough referendum-rejecters are stupid enough to vote “no” and will subsequently vote “no” themselves, then you need to vote “no” as well. Which is bananas, right?

And there’s another wrinkle to this, too. These three referenda are bundled together on the same ballot. If blank responses—that is, checking neither “yes” nor “no”—count toward the turnout tally, that may explain why those who voted “no” did so: it’s not stupidity, but rather, a split ballot. They may have very strongly wanted to vote “yes” on one question (say, banning compulsory sex education) but weren’t in favor of another (like banning same-sex adoption). Since they’re contributing to the turnout even if they leave the adoption ban question blank, they decide to vote “no.” Which is yet another factor in the game theory calculus for referendum-rejecters—are there enough ballot splitters to push turnout over 50 percent?

In this particular ballot, the questions deal with related topics, and there’s a good chance that “yes” voters will vote “yes” for all three, and “no” voters will do the same. But there’s plenty of opportunity for monkeyshines in this setup—what if the questions were phrased differently, like asking voters to ban same-sex marriage (so that the “no” vote is the pro-LGBT vote) in one question and approve same-sex adoption (so that the “yes” vote is the pro-LGBT vote) in another?

Or what if they bundled together unrelated questions that could scramble voting coalitions? I don’t know anything about Slovak politics, but if this referendum system were in place in the United States, it’d be hard to figure out the correct strategy if the ballot questions concerned, say, mandatory vaccination, gun control, and marijuana legalization.

In any case, it highlights a quirk of democracy—that the way you let people vote can play a huge role in how that vote ends up. An ideal voting method is one in which no game theory is required as a voter; you merely express how you feel without worrying about what other people are doing.

But that rarely happens. As a result, it’s worth remembering that who’s designing our ballots can be just as important as what’s on them.

Thursday, January 29, 2015

“Plunging vertically, lightly clinking / It won’t attract anyone’s attention”

Congratulations to Apple! The company just posted the biggest quarterly profit—$18 billion—in world history.

To commemorate the achievement, here's a poem written by former Foxconn factory worker Xu Lizhi, published in the Foxconn employee newspaper.

A screw fell to the ground
In this dark night of overtime
Plunging vertically, lightly clinking
It won’t attract anyone’s attention
Just like last time
On a night like this
When someone plunged to the ground

He's a former employee because he, like many of his fellow Foxconn employees, killed himself last year after working under Foxconn's harsh and sometimes inhumane labor conditions in Shenzhen. He was 24.

While we're at it, we can also reread the New York Times's blockbuster 2012 story about Foxconn and the Apple supply chain that we all swore would make us give a shit, but then Apple came out with candy-colored iPhones the next year and we all totally wanted one. (Mine's yellow!)



It's cool, though, because that one dude who was on This American Life turned out to be a liar, which was just the perfect opportunity to stop caring.

So again—congrats, Apple!

Posted via the Blogger iOS app


Yes, Apple is far from the only company that uses Foxconn. But now that Apple is, for the moment, officially the most profitable company on the planet, it highlights how much could be done but isn't, and how few people genuinely care. (And since caring should only be measured by one's actions rather than feelings, I'm ashamed to say that I easily fall into the "don't care" camp.) And for all the talk about how Apple's $18 billion was built on good old-fashioned American innovation and gumption, it's worth remembering that it was also built on the despair and misery and sometimes deaths of Chinese laborers with few—or no—other options.

And while blame can be parceled out to Foxconn for perpetrating labor abuses and the Chinese government for turning a blind eye to such abuses, Apple and its customers deserve much of it, too. There's almost no demand for a bloodless iPhone, especially if it means paying more for it. And again, virtually every smartphone and tablet seller uses Foxconn or a Foxconn-esque supplier, but $18 billion means that Apple is in a uniquely powerful position to do something about it if they really wanted to. Or, as a former Apple executive put it in that New York Times article:
“We’ve known about labor abuses in some factories for four years, and they’re still going on,” said one former Apple executive who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality agreements. “Why? Because the system works for us. Suppliers would change everything tomorrow if Apple told them they didn’t have another choice.”