5 ms·
The voting method breaks down entirely when you consider strategic voting by groups, and multiple-repetitions game strategies. 100 players would form a voting
by logfromblammo 8y ago
The voting method breaks down entirely when you consider strategic voting by groups, and multiple-repetitions game strategies.
100 players would form a voting cartel, and each member would spread their votes out among all the members' favorite issues. Reneging on the cartel's rules means that the entire cartel retaliates on the next vote.
So each party has exactly 100 issues in their platform, and no individual voter can do anything to stop them.
- memory_grep 8y agoYou're assuming votes are public, which is not usually the case. If there's no way to check someone else's vote, there's no way to enforce a voting block.
- logfromblammo 8y agoIf the votes aren't public enough to see the ballots, how do you know if a voting district cast the correct number of votes for the number of ballots cast? How do you know if the number of quadratic votes match the sum of sqrts of the individual votes? How do you check to see if anyone's cheating? If you can see the ballots, you can filter for the ones that match the cartel platform, and count to 100. There may be a voting coordination strategy to find out who cheated. Maybe instead of 100 members, you have 99, and each member votes 2 for a different issue.
- lopmotr 8y agoIf there are enough candidates, you can encode a unique ID in the pattern of your individual votes to prove who you are to somebody reading anonymous ballot papers. I've heard this is possible in Australia with a huge list of candidates and multiple votes.
- jgowdy 8y agoLegislative votes aren't typically public?
- dfischer 8y agoI like the idea of voting quadratically with money. Every vote scales with cost. Instead of hiding the reality, just expose it and limit it with quadratic scaling.
- typest 8y agoThat’s actually Glen Weyl’s original idea behind quadratic voting — I think the intermediate token they are proposing now is to make the reform more palatable. In their book, they propose several solutions to taxation that would help with wealth inequality, and then propose to do quadratic voting with money, rather than an intermediate token.
- MaxBarraclough 8y agoAnd people with no disposable income get zero representation, and aren't even worth pandering lip service. Doesn't sound sustainable, but it's an interesting idea to play with. You could adjust the price-point to make it more or less price-competitive with lobbying and conventional bribery, and to serve as a sort of tax. Might make for a good cyberpunk setting.
- dfischer 7y agoWell one vote is $1. The economies of scale fit in really quickly with manipulation. Second $4 and so on.