25 ms·
> but they're extremely passionate. Who should win? Being angry, even in a constructive fashion, shouldn't merit extra consideration. A vote is a signal of mag
by slowmovintarget 7y ago
> but they're extremely passionate. Who should win?
Being angry, even in a constructive fashion, shouldn't merit extra consideration. A vote is a signal of magnitude 1. Anything else means a person who is angrier gets more consideration. Now we have a market incentivizing anger, which is not how things are supposed to work.
My opinion: lack of consensus on that is caused by lack of critical thinking.
- tunesmith 7y agoI agree that moving away from one-person-one-vote creates a market that incentivizes passion, whether angry or not. Even false passion. The people that disagree tend to talk about "greater social utility". I just don't think there's a way to reliably measure degree of passion without falling into self-worth questions. Like, someone wise might want to avoid confrontation, someone idiotic might have a trumped-up sense of self-importance. (No pun intended honestly.) One-person-one-vote is the best way we've come up with to avoid that, treating every voter as having equal worth.