Yeah, the return of the right to the majority was weird. They were exactly those defeated on the last election after the Icelandic economy quite literally crash and burned. :-/
No the Independent Party (the conservatives) are the ones that were voted out last time and they merely added 3% points this time around (their second worst result ever). But since the Social Dems got slaughtered they are the biggest party now (by virtue of not crashing and burning this time around).
The big winners are the Progressives (the farmers party) and they were last voted out of power some 6 years ago, before the 2007 crash. They are winning now because of the Icesave issue which the Social Dems and the Left Greens fucked up badly last term.
Money and self-deception work just as well in Iceland as in Britain or the US of A.
This is a human problem that must be solved by human means.
It is tempting when looking at the corrupted nature of our current institutions to think of technological solutions that would render our governments incorruptible by the people using them. But it is necessary to remember that an incorruptible institution is also an inflexible institution and that an inflexible institution cannot adapt to changing circumstances without breaking.
If most problems are "human" problems, how does applying "human" means solve them, when those "human" means are themselves subject to "human" problems? Wouldn't it be more effective to use something that isn't "human" or subject to "human" problems?
Also, how does it follow that incorruptible and inflexible are mutually inclusive?
As for, "human solutions to human problems" the agonistic form of most western legal systems, where professionals advocate for their clients and present opposing views to someone who is supposed to be an impartial arbiter, but whose decisions can be appealed; would be an example. It is imperfect, but able to deal with changing circumstances. And notably human judgment is involved at every step.
No, I meant inclusive :-). Why must "incorruptible" include "inflexible", and vice versa? Though in hindsight, you're not saying that inflexible implies incorruptible (A <-> B), only that incorruptible implies inflexible (A -> B). Why must that be the case?
I'll simply have to disagree that involving human judgment in every step of a process is a good thing, or that the adversarial legal system does anything other than favor the party with more resources (instead of the party that is more correct). Human beings are simply far too fallible, far too vulnerable to blind spots and biases to be trusted with important decisions. I read once on HN that removing human judgment from part of the judicial process, by implementing sentencing guidelines in criminal cases, actually improved outcomes.
