A man was hired to manage a faraway subsidiary. He alone submitted reports on the status of the factory, and he sent dividends back to the owners.
He began cooking the books, not for any malicious reason, but because the owners refused his request to reduce dividends and increase contigency reserves.
A few years later, there was a disaster. The factory was severely damaged in the worst monsoon in decades. He sent word that the factory was lightly damaged in the disaster, even though it would take months for his report to make it to the owners.
He used the extra funds to repair the factory and blamed reduced profits on the damaged local infrastructure.
In... (read more)
You write a bit about voting, but say nothing about how it represents some interests better than others.
The original intent of the senate system seemed to make political change slow, and to represent each state's legislature. That was changed with direct voting, although the six year terms remain.
You wrote three essays on essentially rehashing scholarly essays. You say some voting systems create moderate numbers of political parties, but I don't know what that is.
The whole point of voting is to represent interests to implement policies. We might as well have transparent elections with votes bought from the federal treasury, at least the money wouldn't be going towards buying all the ad slots in battleground states.
Actually half of the people you meet are smarter then average, because you won't meet the people who are insufficiently intelligent to be verbal (as opposed to mute to other causes).
Perhaps this post is about useful arrogance? Do not be so arrogant that you think your field is unique and independent, and requires no improvements from other fields, but be arrogant enough to point out there is problems to someone who thinks he is at the top of his field?
A related matter. http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/02/12/solzhenitsyn-smyth-report/
Actually it sounds like someone doesn't understand the protocol.