4 ms·

Is this a fair system? It looks to me like the very wealthy get there own way. Let's say I'm a very wealthy person, and I have $4M to spend. It looks like I ca

Is this a fair system? It looks to me like the very wealthy get there own way. Let's say I'm a very wealthy person, and I have $4M to spend. It looks like I can buy 2000 votes. However, money is very fluid. So I decide I'm going to find 10,000 "budget-constrained" voters and give them each $400. I'll say, "Here's $100 for buying 10 votes, and keep the remaining $300 for yourself." Now I've just purchased 100,000 votes. Ah! ZenoArrow (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15206589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15206589) beat me to it. Well done.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
For what its worth, I thought your explanation was helpful in highlighting how organised voting blocks could game the system even more effectively. :-)
nafey 9y ago
That's such a super obvious flaw. I felt I must be missing something because nobody else was talking about it.
- dagss 9y ago
  Noone is talking about it because the fix is obvious: If you have secret votes then you can just take the money and vote the other way. Which is what prevents this today.
  - bonzini 9y ago
    Besides it being illegal to buy votes...
  - dcuthbertson 9y ago
    The only way I can see QV might work is if each voter was given the same amount of voting credits, which could only be used for voting. On the surface, it seems to me that this degenerates into the one-person, one-vote system. If real money is allowed, then the very poor are completely disenfranchised. Many don't have enough money to put food on the table, never mind spending it to vote. That gives the wealthy a huge advantage - more so than they have today.
troupe 9y ago
If we have a system that allows you to buy votes from other people, how is that any more of a flaw than simply using our current method of voting and allowing the same type of vote buying? It sounds like you are saying that a system that allows you to buy other people's votes skews toward rich people. We don't outright allow that today unless you count advertising. With the quadratic system proposed, rich would have to choose between advertising or putting more money into the voter pool (is distributed to everyone and thus increases the voting power of the poorer majority).
- notahacker 9y ago
  In this system rich people have the opportunity to buy a couple of extra votes for (e.g.) everyone who has been a member of Party X for four or more years. Unlike the present one-man, one-vote system, they can swing the election in favour of their cause without changing a single person's mind.
notahacker 9y ago
Yeah. People can talk about the influence of campaign spending on elections all they like, but campaign spending only works if have arguments (good ones or otherwise) that persuade people to change their voting intention. Here, you just buy extra votes for a block of people you have good reason to believe already intend to vote your way, and the net result is very much in your favour. The only way this works is if you're giving everyone credits to spread between multiple known issues according to their priorities (and even then interested parties can theoretically trade votes on the side)

ZenoArrow 9y ago

For what its worth, I thought your explanation was helpful in highlighting how organised voting blocks could game the system even more effectively. :-)

nafey 9y ago

That's such a super obvious flaw. I felt I must be missing something because nobody else was talking about it.

dagss 9y ago
Noone is talking about it because the fix is obvious: If you have secret votes then you can just take the money and vote the other way. Which is what prevents this today.
- bonzini 9y ago
  Besides it being illegal to buy votes...
- dcuthbertson 9y ago
  The only way I can see QV might work is if each voter was given the same amount of voting credits, which could only be used for voting. On the surface, it seems to me that this degenerates into the one-person, one-vote system. If real money is allowed, then the very poor are completely disenfranchised. Many don't have enough money to put food on the table, never mind spending it to vote. That gives the wealthy a huge advantage - more so than they have today.

troupe 9y ago

If we have a system that allows you to buy votes from other people, how is that any more of a flaw than simply using our current method of voting and allowing the same type of vote buying? It sounds like you are saying that a system that allows you to buy other people's votes skews toward rich people. We don't outright allow that today unless you count advertising. With the quadratic system proposed, rich would have to choose between advertising or putting more money into the voter pool (is distributed to everyone and thus increases the voting power of the poorer majority).

notahacker 9y ago
In this system rich people have the opportunity to buy a couple of extra votes for (e.g.) everyone who has been a member of Party X for four or more years. Unlike the present one-man, one-vote system, they can swing the election in favour of their cause without changing a single person's mind.

notahacker 9y ago

Yeah. People can talk about the influence of campaign spending on elections all they like, but campaign spending only works if have arguments (good ones or otherwise) that persuade people to change their voting intention. Here, you just buy extra votes for a block of people you have good reason to believe already intend to vote your way, and the net result is very much in your favour. The only way this works is if you're giving everyone credits to spread between multiple known issues according to their priorities (and even then interested parties can theoretically trade votes on the side)