Can Math Help Repair Democracy? | Sam Wang | TED

譯者: Alexis Young 審譯者: Amanda Zhu

Computer simulations are everywhere.

電腦模擬無處不在。

If you navigated here today or you looked at a weather report,

如果你今天開車導航到這裡， 或查看了天氣預報，

then you used simulations.

那麼你就使用了模擬技術。

A simulation can game through thousands or even millions of possibilities.

模擬可以透過成千上萬 甚至數百萬種可能性來進行推演。

What if computer simulations could help us out

如果電腦模擬能幫助我們解決

of one of the most pressing problems of our time:

當前最緊迫的問題呢：

a rickety democracy, here in the United States

搖搖欲墜的民主制度，無論是在美國

or around the world?

還是世界上的其他國家？

I'm here to argue today

我今天在此想說明，

that simulations can help us preserve democracy in a time of crisis,

模擬可以幫助我們保護民主制度， 不管是在危機時刻

in a time of rapid change,

或在快速變化的時代，

both technological and demographic and indeed climate change,

無論是技術、人口還是氣候變遷 以及緊張局勢，

and tension, again in the US and around the world.

這些挑戰存在於美國和全球各地。

I'm a computational neuroscientist,

我是一名數據分析神經科學家，

and I'm used to handling complex data.

習慣於處理複雜的數據。

My students and I study the brain, a highly complex object.

我的學生和我研究的是大腦， 這是一個極其複雜的對象。

We take data and we make it simpler in order to understand it.

我們收集數據、簡化數據， 以便理解它。

We also build models to help understand how a brain might react.

我們也建立模型來幫助我們 理解大腦可能如何反應。

And this kind of understanding, I argue,

而我認為，這種理解

is useful in understanding democracy itself.

同樣適用於理解民主。

Imagine neurons, which I do a fair bit.

想像一下神經元—— 我常常在想像神經元——

When neurons fire together in synchrony,

當神經元同步放電時，

and they fire impulses together,

也就是一起發射脈衝時，

that can lead to a seizure.

可能會引發癲癇。

Now imagine people doing something together.

現在，想像人們也在同步行動。

When people start believing something in unison or acting in unison,

當人們開始一致地 相信某些事情或一致行動時，

that can lead to political collapse, and it can lead to unrest,

這可能會導致政治崩潰，

and it can even lead to insurrection.

甚至引發暴動和叛亂。

Computation and mathematical analysis

電腦運算和數學分析

can help explain strange phenomena like this,

可以幫助我們解釋這些奇異現象，

which are unfamiliar to most of us in our lifetimes.

這些現象對大多數人來說 可能並不熟悉。

They can not only help explain

這些工具不僅可以解釋，

but they can also help prevent such events from happening

還可以幫助防止此類事件發生，

and maybe even help make repairs to democracy.

甚至可能幫助修復民主，

And finally, and this is important,

最後，很重要的，

avoid accidentally causing a problem or making things worse.

還可以避免無意中造成新的問題 或使情況惡化。

I would argue, too,

我還認為，

that democracy ought to have several fundamental functions.

民主應該具備幾個基本功能：

It should be representative of all of us.

它應該能代表我們所有人；

It should be responsive to us.

能對我們做出回應；

If we change our minds, we should be able to get rid of the people

如果我們改變了想法，

應該要能夠讓不勝任的代表下台。

who we think have not been doing a good job.

And finally, democracy should be deliberative.

最後，民主應該具備協商性。

We should elect people who represent us,

我們應該選舉那些代表我們的人，

who deliberate with one another and help solve our problems.

他們應該互相協商， 並幫助解決我們的問題。

But there's a paradox in our democracy as it stands today.

但當今的民主制度存在一個矛盾。

And let me explain to you exactly how that paradox might cause a problem.

我來解釋一下這個矛盾 如何造成問題。

If you look at recent surveys,

如果你看最近的調查，

many of us are dissatisfied with politics.

許多人對政治感到不滿。

There are more independents

無黨派選民

than either Democrats or Republicans.

比民主黨或共和黨的選民更多。

That started two decades ago.

這是從二十年前開始的趨勢。

Over the last few years,

過去幾年至今，

there are now nearly half of voters in the United States

有近一半的美國選民

who call themselves independents.

自稱是無黨派人士，

That's more than Democrats and Republicans combined.

這比民主黨和共和黨黨員數量還多。

But yet we're also polarized.

我們還處於兩極化狀態。

Those independents also have highly reliable voting habits,

這些無黨派人士也具有 高度穩定的投票習慣，

voting with either major political party most of the time.

大多數時候他們會支持 其中一個主要政黨。

So how can that be?

這是怎麼回事？

Let me show you a simple simulation

我來為你們展示一個簡單的模擬，

that illustrates how both of those things can be true:

說明這兩個現象如何同時存在：

無黨派人士感到不滿， 卻又存在黨派兩極化。

independents who are disaffected and yet partisan polarization.

And this helps to illustrate

這說明了在當前條件下，

how there could be a danger to our system under current conditions.

我們的體制可能面臨的危險。

In this simulation,

在此模擬中，

look at this axis from left to right.

請看從左到右的這個軸線。

This is an axis that's meant to represent liberals and conservatives

這個軸線從左邊到右邊代表的是

from left to right.

自由派和保守派。

And you can see here voters,

從這裡可以看到選民或者從政者

or if you can imagine, politicians, piled up in two great mountains.

堆疊在兩座巨大的山峰上。

And these two great mountains are separated from each other.

而這兩座山峰彼此分離，

Very little overlap in issues or in cultural stances.

無論是在議題還是在文化立場上 都很少有重疊之處。

There's something different about these two mountains.

這兩座山峰之間存在差異。

But now take a closer look.

但是現在仔細看一下。

This is one dimension that I've shown you,

我剛才展示的是一個視角，

a single dimension from left to right.

從左到右的單一視角。

But look, here's a third mountain hidden.

但請注意，這裡隱藏著第三座山峰，

And that's because there's more dimensionality to voters

這是因為選民其實比我們近年來

than just the single axis

習慣的單一軸線

that we've gotten used to in the last few years.

更多元化。

事實上，這第三座山峰的選民 有不同的立場，

This third mountain of voters, in fact, has different stances,

but yet they're forced to choose.

但他們被迫做出選擇。

They have to pick whichever major mountain is next to them,

他們必須選擇靠近他們的 那座主要山峰，

而哪座山峰更接近他們， 他們就選擇那一座。

and whichever mountain is closer, they pick.

這就是我們忠誠的原因。

And that's why we're loyal.

And when we're forced to choose between these two major mountains,

當我們被迫在這兩座 主要山峰之間做出選擇時，

迫使我們只能在那單軸線上行動。

we're all forced to act as if we're on that single dimension.

Mathematical analysis has shown that one-dimensional dynamics,

數學分析顯示，一元動力學，

as you go along a single dimension, can lead to instability.

也就是在單一軸線上活動， 會導致不穩定。

And that's important.

而這點很重要。

To get into the math a little bit, imagine animals.

稍微提一下數學，想像一下動物。

If animals all start moving in one direction,

如果動物都朝同一方向移動，

then that puts them at risk of getting into a stampede.

那麼它們有可能發生踩踏事件。

Now imagine people.

現在想像如果是人的話，

If we all start doing the same thing,

如果我們所有人都開始做同樣的事情，

if we all start behaving in unison, if enough of us do that,

如果我們都一致行動， 如果人數夠多，

that can cause a political stampede.

就可能會引起政治踩踏。

And a political stampede can lead to the election of extreme leaders,

而政治踩踏可能導致極端領袖當選，

and it can lead to a collapse of democracy and maybe the loss of democracy

甚至導致民主崩潰，

可能還會導致民主 和選舉制度在未來消失。

and future elections.

Can we prevent this?

我們能防止這一切嗎？

Well, I should say that reformers have come up with lots of ideas.

我想說，改革者提出了很多想法。

如果你關注這個領域，

And if you've been paying attention to this space,

你可能聽說過其中一些想法。

you've heard about some of these ideas.

但問題是，我們沒有 那麼多時間繼續蹉跎。

But the problem is that we do not have the luxury of time.

It's an unstable time.

這是一個不穩定的時代。

And I would say that it would be a good idea for us

我認為，我們應該在未來幾年內

to make some of these repairs in the next few years.

實施一些修補措施。

And we have to get it right maybe the first time.

我們可能需要在 第一次嘗試時就做對，

Simulation can help.

此時模擬就派上用場了。

Like navigation on a smartphone,

就像智能手機導航一樣，

computation can help us identify paths that can move us forward reliably

電腦運算技術可以幫助我們 確定可靠的前進路徑，

and without making too many missteps.

並減少犯錯的機會。

Now I’ve told you about independents.

剛才我講了無黨派選民，

Now I want to tell you about some of the solutions.

現在我要談一些解決方案。

Now you might imagine that a good idea in such polarized circumstances

你可能會認為，在此兩極化情況下，

is to form a third party.

形成第三個政黨是個好主意。

Sounds good, right?

聽起來不錯，對嗎？

But in fact, if we do that before attempting other reforms,

但事實上，如果在嘗試 其他改革之前這麼做，

that can backfire.

可能會適得其反。

And I'd like to show you a simulation that proves the point.

我想展示一個模擬來證明這一點。

Here's a simulation based on analysis

這是一個基於我與合作夥伴們

that my collaborators and I have undertaken.

分析結果的模擬，

This is now based on results from analyzing hundreds of elections.

根據對數百場選舉的分析結果。

And we found that voters indeed do act

我們發現選民的行為

as if they are piled up into two great mountains.

確實就像是他們被分成兩座大山峰。

In this case, I’ve shown the blues on the left

在這種情況下，我將藍方放在左側，

and the reds on the right.

紅方放在右側。

And in this simulation, they vote under the normal rule

在這個模擬中，他們根據 我們已經習慣的規則投票，

that we’ve become used to, which is called first-past-the-post.

也就是所謂的「先過半數者為勝」。

And in this simulation I've set up conditions

在這個模擬中，我設置了條件，

so that out of 10,000 simulations, the blues win half the time, 5,000 times,

讓一萬次的模擬中，藍方贏五千次，

and the reds win half the time, 5,000 times.

紅方贏五千次，

And in the simulation, the fraction of the vote

在這個模擬中，他們如果要贏的話，

that they need in order to win is about 50 percent.

必須取得 50% 的票數。

These are the conditions that we're used to in a two-party system.

這是我們在兩黨制下習慣的條件。

Imagine if we suddenly run a third-party candidate

想像一下，如果我們突然推出 一個第三黨候選人，

and we put that third-party candidate in the middle.

把他放在中間，

The third-party candidate is here in the middle,

第三黨候選人在中間，

and I've set up the simulation to be a little bit closer

我設定的模擬

是讓他略為比較靠近其中一座山峰，

to one of those peaks than the other,

因為第三黨候選人更傾向於那些立場。

because that third party is more sympathetic to those views.

However, there's something a little bit funny here,

然而，奇怪的是，

藍方仍然需要

which is that now that blue party

still needs 50 percent of the vote to win.

50% 的選票才能獲勝。

But now, because the third party has divided the vote,

但現在，由於第三黨分裂了選票，

now the reds only need 46 percent of the vote to win.

紅方只需要 46% 的選票就能獲勝。

And now we have a situation in which out of 10,000 simulations,

在這種情況下，一萬次模擬中

the blues win now only 2,000 times, the reds win 8,000 times,

藍方只贏了兩千次， 紅方贏了八千次，

and the third party doesn’t win at all.

而第三黨一次都沒有獲勝。

And so this is counterproductive, right?

所以這是適得其反的，對嗎？

This is what we call a spoiler effect, where paradoxically,

這就是我們所說的破壞效應，

第三黨候選人反而破壞了 與其立場較接近的政黨的獲勝機會，

the third party has spoiled the chances of the party that is closer to them,

which is presumably the opposite of what they were trying to accomplish.

這顯然與他們想要達到的目標相反。

Now there are other solutions that it turns out are more likely to work.

事實上，還有其他 更可能奏效的解決方案。

And one of them is redistricting.

其中一個是重新劃分選區。

In the United States,

在美國，

we're mostly represented in single-member districts,

我們大多數人都是 由單一選區的代表來代表的，

因此我們有一個特定的 立法人代表我們。

and so we have a particular legislator who represents us.

In recent years, there's been a move to stem this.

近年來，有一股抑制 這種現象的浪潮。

You may have heard the word gerrymandering.

你可能聽說過「傑利蠑螈」這個詞。

Gerrymandering is the artful drawing of lines

「傑利蠑螈」是巧妙地 繪製選區的界線來劃分選區，

to disadvantage one candidate or a group,

以不利於某個候選人或群體——

could be a racial group or a whole political party,

可能是一個種族群體或整個政黨——

and to eliminate competition.

並消除競爭的做法。

Computation can help identify such a plan.

電腦運算技術可以透過 統計分析所有可能方案

By doing statistical analysis of the universe of possible plans,

來幫助識別這樣的計劃，

it’s possible to show that a particular plan is an outlier.

並顯示某個方案是一個異常值。

And when there’s an outlier, then a court can intervene.

出現異常值時，法院可以介入，

When the court intervenes, it can dictate the drawing of a new plan.

並指示制定新方案。

Computation can also help voters.

電腦運算技術還可以幫助選民。

Voters who vote to change the system, to change the rules,

選民投票改變制度、改變規則、

to establish an independent commission,

成立獨立委員會，

can also take the power away from legislators,

也可以將權力從立法者手中拿走，

and they again will need computation.

他們需要的也是計算技術。

However, this solution, as attractive as it is, is not enough.

然而，這種解決方案 儘管很有吸引力，但還不夠。

And that's because those two mountains which I showed you are everywhere.

因為我剛才提到的 那兩座山峰無處不在。

And no matter how much we redraw the lines,

無論我們如何重新劃分選區，

there's polarization across the nation.

全國各地依然存在兩極化。

And so the question is, OK, what else do we need to do?

所以問題是，我們還需要做什麼？

There's something else that's necessary.

甚麼是必要的下一步？

The next step is to change the rules of the game itself.

下一步是改變遊戲規則本身。

Alaska voters in the last few years have done exactly that.

阿拉斯加的選民在過去幾年中 就是這樣做的。

They voted to do away with partisan primaries.

他們投票廢除了黨派初選，

What they've done is remove the primaries

他們的做法是廢除初選，

and replace them with an all-party primary.

並用一場所有黨派 共同參與的初選取而代之。

Everybody runs in one single primary.

所有人都參加一場單一的初選，

The top four advance to the general election.

前四名晉級大選。

Because there are four candidates,

因為有四名候選人，

they then have to be elected under a ranked-choice rule.

他們就使用排名選擇投票制。

Ranked choice is one where you list your first choice, second choice,

排名選擇投票制是由選民 列出第一、第二、

third choice, fourth choice.

第三和第四的選擇。

如果第一選擇未達標，

If your first choice doesn't cut the mustard,

他就退出，他的選票就會重新分配。

then they drop out, and your vote is reassigned.

The consequence of this is that Democrats and Republicans

這樣的結果是，民主黨和共和黨

仍然有機會晉級， 而且他們確實進入了大選。

still have a chance to advance, and they do, to the general election.

But it changes the incentives.

但這改變了他們的誘因。

They have to play not to their party faithful

他們不只需要迎合黨派忠實支持者，

but instead they play to all voters.

而是迎合所有選民。

It changes tactics.

這改變了策略。

They try to win over each other's supporters,

他們試圖爭取彼此的支持者，

and it changes attitudes.

也改變了態度。

And just to give you an example,

舉個例子，

here's a selfie that's taken by three congressional candidates,

這裡有一張自拍照， 拍的是三位國會候選人，

one Democrat and two Republicans.

一位民主黨人和兩位共和黨人。

And here they are chumming it up, taking a selfie together.

他們在一起開心地自拍，

And I can tell you that at least one of these candidates

而我可以告訴你， 其中至少有一位候選人

is not in the habit of chumming around with a member of the other party.

平時並不習慣與另一黨的 成員親密相處。

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

So this is one way that, in fact, a new change of rules can help.

因此，這是變更規則 能有所幫助的一種方法。

And in fact, we've done simulations that show that this rule,

事實上，我們已經做了模擬，

顯示這種名為「四人初選」的規則，

which is called top four primary, works with redistricting reform,

與我之前提到的選區改革結合使用，

the other one I showed you.

Put together, they can, in fact,

整合起來，

double the number of competitive districts.

確實能將有競爭力的 選區數量增加一倍。

So there's even a case in which there's synergy that's possible.

因此也甚至存在協同效應的可能性。

Now I’ve given you a few ideas,

現在，我已經給你提供了一些想法，

但其實有很多改革的想法， 你可能已經知道：

but there are actually many ideas for reform and you may know them:

廢除選舉人團、

eliminating the Electoral College,

贊成投票制、競選財務改革。

approval voting, campaign finance reform.

The question is how to choose

問題是如何選擇，

and how to figure out which ones to do first

以及如何決定哪個是最緊迫的

優先事項。

and with the most urgency.

And simulations can again help.

模擬再次可以幫助我們。

Simulations can game out outcomes.

模擬可以推演結果：

Representation, responsiveness, deliberation.

代表性、響應性、協商性。

And simulations can do something

模擬還可以做一些改革實施後

that enacting a reform cannot do easily,

難以輕易完成的事情，

which is game out long-term outcomes.

就是推演長期結果。

What’s going to happen 10 years from now?

十年後會發生什麼？

And that's important.

這很重要。

Furthermore, every state is different, cities are different.

再者，每個州和每個城市的 情況都不同。

The same solution is not going to work in every place.

同一個解決方案 不會在每個地方都有效。

And so it's important to be flexible

所以，彈性很重要，

and to look for the solution that works best.

找到最合適的解決方案也很重要。

Somewhat shockingly, some states have even outlawed ranked-choice voting,

令人震驚的是，有些州 竟然禁止排名選擇投票制，

and so one would have to come up with another solution for those places.

因此有人需要為這些地方 提出其他解決方案。

Now let me be realistic.

實際一點來說，

Math is not enough.

數學並不夠。

But math can be assistive,

但數學可以提供幫助，

and it can help speed the process for people who want to change the system.

並能加速那些想要改變 體系的人的進程。

In other words, math and computation can act as a GPS

換句話說，我們可以將數學 和電腦運算看作是 GPS，

to rescue our lost democracy.

利用它來拯救我們迷失的民主。

Now the way you can help is by advocating for reforms

你可以幫忙的是，

透過支持有選民提案的州進行改革。

through voter initiatives in states that have that.

You can advocate for local reform in your city or town.

可以支持在你的城市 或城鎮進行地方改革。

And if you're a scientist, I really want your help.

如果你是科學家， 我真的需要你的幫助。

If you're a scientist, I want you to come

如果你是科學家，

and get to work understanding these things

我希望你來幫助了解這些事情，

in your city, in your town, in your state and in your nation.

無論是在你的城鎮、 你的州，還是你的國家。

As it turns out, some of these reforms, such as ranked-choice voting,

事實證明，有些改革， 例如排名選擇投票制，

have been run in hundreds of elections across America.

已經在美國各地的 數百場選舉中進行，

這意味著現在正即時在進行著實驗。

And that means there are experiments being done right now in real time.

I want to end with a quote from a former president, Theodore Roosevelt,

最後，我想引用一位前總統 西奧多·羅斯福的話，

who was not a scientist, but in fact was very interested in this.

他不是科學家， 但對這些問題非常感興趣。

And he called democracy an experiment.

他稱民主是一項實驗。

He said, "Democracy is this national experiment

他說：「民主是一項國家實驗，

in which it's essential for the rules to end up representing all of us."

最終做出來的規則 必須能夠代表我們所有人。」

It's my hope that math can help get us there

我希望數學能幫助我們 達成這個目標，

and build a better future for all of us.

為我們所有人構建更美好的未來。

Thank you.

謝謝大家。

(Applause)

（掌聲）