3 ms·
Score voting I think is one of the hardest kinds of voting to advocate (and quadratic voting is clearly score voting) because it flies in the face of the old ma
by scythe 5y ago
Score voting I think is one of the hardest kinds of voting to advocate (and quadratic voting is clearly score voting) because it flies in the face of the old maxim "one voter, one vote". While IRV/AV/Condorcet take pains to make sure that everything is counted "once" (be it ballots or yeas or pairwise preferences), score simply adds weights, drops the mic and leaves the stage. One must necessarily do a little extra work to move between the perspectives sometimes described as "majoritarian" and "utilitarian".
My experience with the poll was that I quickly read all of the questions to determine which ones I didn't care about very much, dropped a couple of points in those first, and then ended up putting eight votes on a carbon tax. I'm a little confused about applying this to a primary, because here we're looking at a set of independent binary questions, not a list of different responses to the same question.
- cycomanic 5y agoThe irony is that the US electoral system is anything but a "one person, one vote" system. A vote in California is very different to a vote in Utah for example.
- lil_dispaches 5y agoUn-ironically, elections are all about money, and quadratic voting seems to be okay at letting populations allocate money. So if we change the idea of "one person, one vote" to "one vote, one dollar", we not only rid ourselves of the problem of elections (sorting bad candidates) we effectively turn elections into budget resolutions. Quadratic voting to pick candidates seems like the wrong idea. Using it to pick budget spend in place of elected budget directors is what it was invented to do.