3 ms·

It's quadratic, do some quick math on how expensive it is to buy a victory. It's actually more cost effective to buy people's votes the usual way.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
It's not necessary for a single wealthy individual to be able to buy a victory by themselves for the results to be skewed towards the will of the wealthy. If 1000 votes cost £1 million, and 100 wealthy individuals all decide to spend that much in an election, that's 100,000 votes when these individuals would only usually have 100 votes. That's going to have an impact, especially on local elections. As for it being more cost effective to buy votes the usual way, the "usual" way relies on voter fraud and massive advertising campaigns, one of which is illegal, and the other is very expensive and the voting decisions are not guaranteed. On the other hand, quadratic voting would be legal and guaranteed.
- IanDrake 9y ago
  By the usual way, I was referring to large advertising campaigns that I'm sure yield more votes per dollar than a quadratic voting system. One of the things you're missing is that people who can afford to buy that many votes for a single issue are very rare and could easily be out voted by a small organized group that buys multiple votes, but with a lower power multiple. Assuming all votes cost $1, then 1,000 votes costs 1mil. That could easily be nullified by 100 voters buying 10 votes. Consider also that the money would be rebated equally. So you might spend $100 and get back $250 and win the vote.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    > "Assuming all votes cost $1, then 1,000 votes costs 1mil. That could easily be nullified by 100 voters buying 10 votes." Do you not see the problem with that? With the situation you describe, it takes the coordination of 100 individuals to nullify the actions of 1 wealthy voter. Do you not see how much easier it is for the wealthy voter?
    - Rangi42 9y ago
      If merely 100 less-wealthy voters out of the whole population couldn't coordinate to buy a few extra votes—and they wouldn't even have to explicitly communicate, it would just take 100 people who individually hear about the issue and decide to vote more—then how important can the issue really have been to them? I believe this is what is meant by "the collective decision rapidly approximates efficiency as the number of voters increases".
      - ZenoArrow 9y ago
        That's missing the point I was making. I'm attempting to highlight the difference in effort that is required. Do you accept that the rich voter makes less effort in the hypothetical 1 vs. 100 voter situation?
        troupe 9y ago
        I'm not sure that is correct. Assume that you have only 101 people in the voting pool. The one person who is wealthy pays $1,000 for 100 votes. To match that voting power, you'll only need a handful of the other hundred to pay $4 for more votes. What I think you are overlooking the fact the wealthy person's $1,000 is going to get distributed to everyone which gives them more voting power. Everyone gets at least $10 at the end of the vote. If a few people are willing to invest the $10 back into their vote, they can easily overcome the rich persons' vote even though a vote was purchased for each person in the system. How balanced this is, I'm not sure. Why use the square of the number of votes rather than the cube? But it isn't immediately clear that this gives a few rich people significantly more voting power in a situation where a larger number of poor people feel strongly about an issue.
        ZenoArrow 9y ago
        > "I'm not sure that is correct. Assume that you have only 101 people in the voting pool. The one person who is wealthy pays $1,000 for 100 votes. To match that voting power, you'll only need a handful of the other hundred to pay $4 for more votes. What I think you are overlooking the fact the wealthy person's $1,000 is going to get distributed to everyone which gives them more voting power. Everyone gets at least $10 at the end of the vote. If a few people are willing to invest the $10 back into their vote, they can easily overcome the rich persons' vote even though a vote was purchased for each person in the system." Two points: 1. You've chosen a value that's too small for the wealthy voter. $1000 is the cost of eating out at an expensive restaurant (e.g. https://financesonline.com/10-most-expensive-meals-from-michelin-starred-restaurants/ https://financesonline.com/10-most-expensive-meals-from-mich... ), not the amount someone with money will spend to gain influence in an election. 2. There are cheaper ways to multiply the vote. Let's assume quadratic voting was in place in the 2016 US Presidential Election, and you're a wealthy person who wants to see the Democrats win. You have $1,000,000 you're willing to spend. What's the cheapest way to maximise your influence? Reach out to other Democratic voters to give them money to multiply their votes. On your own, the $1,000,000 may only net 1000 votes, but spreading the $1,000,000 around to people who were going to vote Democrat anyway could see that number skyrocket. Let's say you give $100 to 10,000 voters, now you're looking at 100,000 votes. Even if those without the most money win, quadratic voting stacks the odds against them.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
The point is that Americans (me included) are going to put very little trust in a system which allows you to literally buy votes. Everyone should have the same amount of votes no matter the wealth and I don't see myself compromising on that issue.
- barrkel 9y ago
  The system where you buy votes is the current system, mind. Somewhat true for elections of political representatives, but even more true for things like Senate Committees - these require party membership fees that get paid, which come via donations from lobbyists. Not party political, both sides do it: http://www.definingthemachine.com/party_dues.html http://www.definingthemachine.com/party_dues.html
- acjohnson55 9y ago
  But do you feel any better about the idea of being compensated for not getting your preference?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Not really. It seems sort of like selling some of my political power to the wealthy.

ZenoArrow 9y ago

It's not necessary for a single wealthy individual to be able to buy a victory by themselves for the results to be skewed towards the will of the wealthy. If 1000 votes cost £1 million, and 100 wealthy individuals all decide to spend that much in an election, that's 100,000 votes when these individuals would only usually have 100 votes. That's going to have an impact, especially on local elections. As for it being more cost effective to buy votes the usual way, the "usual" way relies on voter fraud and massive advertising campaigns, one of which is illegal, and the other is very expensive and the voting decisions are not guaranteed. On the other hand, quadratic voting would be legal and guaranteed.

IanDrake 9y ago
By the usual way, I was referring to large advertising campaigns that I'm sure yield more votes per dollar than a quadratic voting system. One of the things you're missing is that people who can afford to buy that many votes for a single issue are very rare and could easily be out voted by a small organized group that buys multiple votes, but with a lower power multiple. Assuming all votes cost $1, then 1,000 votes costs 1mil. That could easily be nullified by 100 voters buying 10 votes. Consider also that the money would be rebated equally. So you might spend $100 and get back $250 and win the vote.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "Assuming all votes cost $1, then 1,000 votes costs 1mil. That could easily be nullified by 100 voters buying 10 votes." Do you not see the problem with that? With the situation you describe, it takes the coordination of 100 individuals to nullify the actions of 1 wealthy voter. Do you not see how much easier it is for the wealthy voter?
  - Rangi42 9y ago
    If merely 100 less-wealthy voters out of the whole population couldn't coordinate to buy a few extra votes—and they wouldn't even have to explicitly communicate, it would just take 100 people who individually hear about the issue and decide to vote more—then how important can the issue really have been to them? I believe this is what is meant by "the collective decision rapidly approximates efficiency as the number of voters increases".
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      That's missing the point I was making. I'm attempting to highlight the difference in effort that is required. Do you accept that the rich voter makes less effort in the hypothetical 1 vs. 100 voter situation?
      - troupe 9y ago
        I'm not sure that is correct. Assume that you have only 101 people in the voting pool. The one person who is wealthy pays $1,000 for 100 votes. To match that voting power, you'll only need a handful of the other hundred to pay $4 for more votes. What I think you are overlooking the fact the wealthy person's $1,000 is going to get distributed to everyone which gives them more voting power. Everyone gets at least $10 at the end of the vote. If a few people are willing to invest the $10 back into their vote, they can easily overcome the rich persons' vote even though a vote was purchased for each person in the system. How balanced this is, I'm not sure. Why use the square of the number of votes rather than the cube? But it isn't immediately clear that this gives a few rich people significantly more voting power in a situation where a larger number of poor people feel strongly about an issue.
        ZenoArrow 9y ago
        > "I'm not sure that is correct. Assume that you have only 101 people in the voting pool. The one person who is wealthy pays $1,000 for 100 votes. To match that voting power, you'll only need a handful of the other hundred to pay $4 for more votes. What I think you are overlooking the fact the wealthy person's $1,000 is going to get distributed to everyone which gives them more voting power. Everyone gets at least $10 at the end of the vote. If a few people are willing to invest the $10 back into their vote, they can easily overcome the rich persons' vote even though a vote was purchased for each person in the system." Two points: 1. You've chosen a value that's too small for the wealthy voter. $1000 is the cost of eating out at an expensive restaurant (e.g. https://financesonline.com/10-most-expensive-meals-from-michelin-starred-restaurants/ https://financesonline.com/10-most-expensive-meals-from-mich... ), not the amount someone with money will spend to gain influence in an election. 2. There are cheaper ways to multiply the vote. Let's assume quadratic voting was in place in the 2016 US Presidential Election, and you're a wealthy person who wants to see the Democrats win. You have $1,000,000 you're willing to spend. What's the cheapest way to maximise your influence? Reach out to other Democratic voters to give them money to multiply their votes. On your own, the $1,000,000 may only net 1000 votes, but spreading the $1,000,000 around to people who were going to vote Democrat anyway could see that number skyrocket. Let's say you give $100 to 10,000 voters, now you're looking at 100,000 votes. Even if those without the most money win, quadratic voting stacks the odds against them.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

The point is that Americans (me included) are going to put very little trust in a system which allows you to literally buy votes. Everyone should have the same amount of votes no matter the wealth and I don't see myself compromising on that issue.

barrkel 9y ago
The system where you buy votes is the current system, mind. Somewhat true for elections of political representatives, but even more true for things like Senate Committees - these require party membership fees that get paid, which come via donations from lobbyists. Not party political, both sides do it: http://www.definingthemachine.com/party_dues.html http://www.definingthemachine.com/party_dues.html
acjohnson55 9y ago
But do you feel any better about the idea of being compensated for not getting your preference?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Not really. It seems sort of like selling some of my political power to the wealthy.