3 ms·

>>The purpose...is to determine “whether the intense preferences of the minority outweigh the weak preferences of the majority”>> Given this, apparently the pr

>>The purpose...is to determine “whether the intense preferences of the minority outweigh the weak preferences of the majority”>> Given this, apparently the problem is that strong minority preferences are being snuffed out by majority preferences? Of course, this is the inherent flaw in democracy. In the US we have two guards against that - the first is the Electoral College and the second is the Constitution. The former ensures that even the least populated states have at least a minimum (as opposed to effectively none) effect on the outcome and the second ensures that the government can't be used for something evil just because a majority has voted to to use it for that purpose. So if there's a "zealotry" problem as the title implies, why can't these tools be used to manage it? What is wrong with them such that we need this new, additional layer?

ThrustVectoring 7y ago
There's another guard against it, which is the ability for congressional representatives to negotiate deals. They are not obligated to do whatever 50.01% of the population prefers on an issue by issue basis, but rather to do what they think will win elections. Issues that people care about more are more important for winning elections, so politicians can compromise on broadly-supported issues people care little about in order to work on niche issues with intense support. In practice, this looks like things like pork-barrel infrastructure spending and farm subsidies. These sorts of things are pretty unpopular with most people, but they keep getting passed, and the above is why.
ivanbakel 7y ago
>Given this, apparently the problem is that strong minority preferences are being snuffed out by majority preferences? Of course, this is the inherent flaw in democracy. That's not the problem Quadratic Voting tries to solve at all. The increased cost of additional votes actually reduces the voting power of certain minority groups, such as one-issue voters. The system tries to fix the opposite - a strong minority preference winning a vote where it is not the first choice of the majority.
- mbostleman 7y ago
  Ah yes, got it. I missed that, thanks.

ThrustVectoring 7y ago

There's another guard against it, which is the ability for congressional representatives to negotiate deals. They are not obligated to do whatever 50.01% of the population prefers on an issue by issue basis, but rather to do what they think will win elections. Issues that people care about more are more important for winning elections, so politicians can compromise on broadly-supported issues people care little about in order to work on niche issues with intense support. In practice, this looks like things like pork-barrel infrastructure spending and farm subsidies. These sorts of things are pretty unpopular with most people, but they keep getting passed, and the above is why.

ivanbakel 7y ago

>Given this, apparently the problem is that strong minority preferences are being snuffed out by majority preferences? Of course, this is the inherent flaw in democracy. That's not the problem Quadratic Voting tries to solve at all. The increased cost of additional votes actually reduces the voting power of certain minority groups, such as one-issue voters. The system tries to fix the opposite - a strong minority preference winning a vote where it is not the first choice of the majority.

mbostleman 7y ago
Ah yes, got it. I missed that, thanks.