Interesting post from Antony Green after One Nation overtook The Coalition for the first time in newspoll

If One Nation is polling 22% in national polls, there are electorates across rural and regional areas where One Nation will be polling above 35%, that is leading on primary votes. The debate about One Nation preferences starts to become irrelevant if the party is topping the poll. We would be back to the 1998 and 2001 Queensland elections when Labor preferences were required to save some of the National Party’s safest seats.

The rise in One Nation support could hurt Labor in some of its own seats, but the record of elections over several decades is that whenever One Nation support surges, it tends to hurt the Coalition. It is too early to make predictions for the next election, but if the trend on this week’s Newspoll continues, Labor could be comfortably re-elected with the biggest change being the Coalition losing seats to One Nation.

"take back the power of social connection"

The most important thing I’ve been reminded of recently is that having community is not always convenient. It can be annoying, time consuming, it takes real effort and you’re not always guaranteed a good interaction – but putting yourself out there is the price for belonging and feeling connected. It’s worth the effort, and having a little natter sure beats scrolling on your phone.

Great piece/comic from Jess Harwood

Only sixty seats in the US House are competitive?

Today, The Cook Political Report rates just 18 seats as tossup races — four held by Democrats and 14 by Republicans. But the map is evolving and Cook recently shifted 18 House races in Democrats’ direction, a sign of the party’s momentum and Mr. Trump’s struggles.

Of the House’s 435 seats, the vast majority, 375, are rated as “solid” for one party or the other — meaning they are essentially noncompetitive. Another two dozen races are seen as likely to favor one party, while 18 are in the more competitive “lean” category.

Interesting maps from the New York Times

“People are not rebelling against economic elites,” writes Heath. Instead, this is “a rebellion against [cognitive] executive function”. In this view, populism is a movement that appeals to people who trust their gut, rather than those who rely on some too-clever-by-half argument.

There is a lot that rings true about this suggestion. Consider the following intuitive, common sense ideas: if we let immigrants come here and work, they’ll take our jobs; we should levy taxes on imports to help protect our economy from foreign competition; crime can only be controlled by getting tough on criminals. These ideas may be true or false, but the point is that they all have populist appeal, and they all seem kind of obvious.

The elite consensus is that these ideas are also wrong. But to reach that conclusion requires considerable time and effort to sift through the evidence or work through the theory. To make the case without sounding self-satisfied and superior is almost impossible. Nobody likes a smart-arse; populists loathe them.

Interesting article by Tim Harford

How AI Destroys Institutions

Civic institutions are the way that complex societies encourage
cooperation and stability. They enable human flourishing by fostering
collaboration in service of a shared commitment. But their real superpower is
how they evolve and adapt within a framework of fixed rules. Through
institutions, knowledge gains legitimacy and gets passed down over time.
Institutions empower people to take intellectual risks, challenge the status quo, and adapt to changed circumstances. People participating in institutions develop interpersonal bonds, which nourish our need for human connection, broaden our perspectives, and strengthen our shared commitment to the institutional goal...

...The affordances of AI systems extinguish these institutional features at every
turn. They delegitimize knowledge, inhibit cognitive development, short circuit
decision-making processes, and isolate humans by displacing or degrading
human connection. The result is that deploying AI systems within institutions
immediately gives that institution a half-life.

Interesting paper from a couple of law academics