5 ms·

> Majority rule based on one-person-one-vote notoriously results in tyranny of the majority–a large number of people who care only a little about an outcome pre

by lindig 9y ago

> Majority rule based on one-person-one-vote notoriously results in tyranny of the majority–a large number of people who care only a little about an outcome prevail over a minority that cares passionately, resulting in a reduction of aggregate welfare. Calling the majority tyrannous and assuming fringe interests to be naturally benevolent reeks of an agenda.

eeZah7Ux 9y ago
Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
ZirconCode 9y ago
I also thought that it was ironic. He does mention a valid flaw in the one-to-one voting system. I wonder if quadratic voting, in practice, encourages extremism. It also offers more choices, so more time spent thinking, and less easy to make a choice. Perhaps it discourages voting for those who care just a little.
vertere 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
ComputerGuru 9y ago
That’s a phrase, well-accepted and very famous in this domain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority Please don’t insinuate bad intent where there needn’t be any.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  The suggestion being made is that the unwashed masses don't know what's best for them, and need to be guided by the enlightened minority. The problem with this is that there isn't a minority that's fit to lead. No one group fully understands the needs and wants of a society. That's why, as imperfect as it is, it makes sense for every citizen (of voting age) to have an equal say in how a society is run.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    >The suggestion being made is that the unwashed masses don't know what's best for them, and need to be guided by the enlightened minority. An enlightened millionaire minority, by the looks of it.
  - mac01021 9y ago
    The phrase "tyranny of the majority" does not usually refer to an unenlightened majority making suboptimal decisions for itself (and therefore requiring the rule of a more enlightened minority). It more often refers to settings where a majority and a minority have conflicting interests, and in which the majority is inclined exploit the minority in ways where the damage endured by the exploited far outweighs the benefit to the beneficiaries. The phrase has been uttered: "Democracy can be like two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner." EG: - A majority of city-dwellers will vote to destroy the homes of the forest people to improve the development of their cities, however slightly. - A majority of old people will vote to tax the young more heavily to achieve a transfer of wealth, even though the gains of each beneficiary is smaller than the loss of each loser - That same majority of old people, finding that their preferences in nearly every domain are different from those of the young, might vote to raise the voting age. - ...
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      > "It more often refers to settings where a majority and a minority have conflicting interests" Look beyond the surface level. If you can't trust the majority to make the right decisions, who do you trust to do so? The only reason to bring up the tyranny of the majority is to imply that another (smaller) group could do it better.
      - tentaTherapist 9y ago
        Good question, but although I'm too stupid to come up with an answer, I hope there is one, because the whole majority-exploiting-the-minority scenario sounds awful.
troupe 9y ago
I thought that the article did a good job of explaining that the goal was to allow people to weight their votes based on how important it was to them. In other words it would give people the ability to decide how much they wanted to invest in the outcome. With that money distributed to the voting pool, not investing in a particular decision because they don't have strong preference results in acquiring resources that can be used to invest in other decisions where they do have a strong preference. I'm not saying it is a good idea overall. Just that while it looks unfair when just consider how the votes are purchased, things look much fairer when you consider that the money used to purchase votes is distributed evenly back into the system. I'm not sure it would work well for the US government, but it seems like it might work very well for other organizations--for example stockholders in corporations.

by lindig 9y ago

eeZah7Ux 9y ago

Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

ZirconCode 9y ago

I also thought that it was ironic. He does mention a valid flaw in the one-to-one voting system. I wonder if quadratic voting, in practice, encourages extremism. It also offers more choices, so more time spent thinking, and less easy to make a choice. Perhaps it discourages voting for those who care just a little.

vertere 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

ComputerGuru 9y ago

That’s a phrase, well-accepted and very famous in this domain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority Please don’t insinuate bad intent where there needn’t be any.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
The suggestion being made is that the unwashed masses don't know what's best for them, and need to be guided by the enlightened minority. The problem with this is that there isn't a minority that's fit to lead. No one group fully understands the needs and wants of a society. That's why, as imperfect as it is, it makes sense for every citizen (of voting age) to have an equal say in how a society is run.
- andrepd 9y ago
  >The suggestion being made is that the unwashed masses don't know what's best for them, and need to be guided by the enlightened minority. An enlightened millionaire minority, by the looks of it.
- mac01021 9y ago
  The phrase "tyranny of the majority" does not usually refer to an unenlightened majority making suboptimal decisions for itself (and therefore requiring the rule of a more enlightened minority). It more often refers to settings where a majority and a minority have conflicting interests, and in which the majority is inclined exploit the minority in ways where the damage endured by the exploited far outweighs the benefit to the beneficiaries. The phrase has been uttered: "Democracy can be like two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner." EG: - A majority of city-dwellers will vote to destroy the homes of the forest people to improve the development of their cities, however slightly. - A majority of old people will vote to tax the young more heavily to achieve a transfer of wealth, even though the gains of each beneficiary is smaller than the loss of each loser - That same majority of old people, finding that their preferences in nearly every domain are different from those of the young, might vote to raise the voting age. - ...
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    > "It more often refers to settings where a majority and a minority have conflicting interests" Look beyond the surface level. If you can't trust the majority to make the right decisions, who do you trust to do so? The only reason to bring up the tyranny of the majority is to imply that another (smaller) group could do it better.
    - tentaTherapist 9y ago
      Good question, but although I'm too stupid to come up with an answer, I hope there is one, because the whole majority-exploiting-the-minority scenario sounds awful.

troupe 9y ago

I thought that the article did a good job of explaining that the goal was to allow people to weight their votes based on how important it was to them. In other words it would give people the ability to decide how much they wanted to invest in the outcome. With that money distributed to the voting pool, not investing in a particular decision because they don't have strong preference results in acquiring resources that can be used to invest in other decisions where they do have a strong preference. I'm not saying it is a good idea overall. Just that while it looks unfair when just consider how the votes are purchased, things look much fairer when you consider that the money used to purchase votes is distributed evenly back into the system. I'm not sure it would work well for the US government, but it seems like it might work very well for other organizations--for example stockholders in corporations.