4 ms·

What frustrates me most about Quadratic Voting, and in general a lot of ideas promoted by Glen Weyl and his coterie, is that arguments in its favour almost comp

What frustrates me most about Quadratic Voting, and in general a lot of ideas promoted by Glen Weyl and his coterie, is that arguments in its favour almost completely ignore the significant additional cognitive burden it places on the populace. American Voters barely understand the difference between the popular vote and the electoral college -- to ask them to view the results of QV votes as fair and legitimate would be a bridge too far. Hell, I know a fair bit of math and CS, and I would feel uncomfortable quickly deciding how to divide my votes across issues, let alone advising other people on what to do.

dunkelheit 6y ago
> American Voters barely understand the difference between the popular vote and the electoral college -- to ask them to view the results of QV votes as fair and legitimate would be a bridge too far. It is not like simpler voting methods are without subtleties (and I certainly wouldn't call electoral college simple!), but these subtleties are well-known and everybody is kind of accustomed to them. Again, immediately abandoning ordinary voting and switching to QV on the level of countries would be stupid, but I don't think they are advocating that. > Hell, I know a fair bit of math and CS, and I would feel uncomfortable quickly deciding how to divide my votes across issues, let alone advising other people on what to do. This can probably be less of a problem with sufficiently good UI. Imagine that you can play with some sliders and immediately see the consequences of your actions. After some fiddling you will probably get pretty close to what you want. Some friction can even be beneficial, encouraging people to be more thoughtful about issues. There was a study (link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2755844 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2755844) where they used QV in opinion polls and were able to get more information about relative preferences of participants because they were forced to think about correctly allocating their credits instead of blindly answering "strongly agree"/"strongly disagree" even if they didn't really care about a particular issue.

dunkelheit 6y ago

> American Voters barely understand the difference between the popular vote and the electoral college -- to ask them to view the results of QV votes as fair and legitimate would be a bridge too far. It is not like simpler voting methods are without subtleties (and I certainly wouldn't call electoral college simple!), but these subtleties are well-known and everybody is kind of accustomed to them. Again, immediately abandoning ordinary voting and switching to QV on the level of countries would be stupid, but I don't think they are advocating that. > Hell, I know a fair bit of math and CS, and I would feel uncomfortable quickly deciding how to divide my votes across issues, let alone advising other people on what to do. This can probably be less of a problem with sufficiently good UI. Imagine that you can play with some sliders and immediately see the consequences of your actions. After some fiddling you will probably get pretty close to what you want. Some friction can even be beneficial, encouraging people to be more thoughtful about issues. There was a study (link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2755844 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2755844) where they used QV in opinion polls and were able to get more information about relative preferences of participants because they were forced to think about correctly allocating their credits instead of blindly answering "strongly agree"/"strongly disagree" even if they didn't really care about a particular issue.