4 ms·
Despite being satire, I think that could work in the US. It plays off the my team / their team dynamic and sends some fraction of the donated money onwards. Ver
by JonChesterfield 3y ago
Despite being satire, I think that could work in the US. It plays off the my team / their team dynamic and sends some fraction of the donated money onwards. Very like an inefficiently run fundraising organisation. There's an outside chance of the setup making a loss for the organisers but only if a pair is very unevenly matched (and that's fixable by letting the 'onmimatch' run down to 0%). I'm not even sure it qualifies as fraudulent.
- plagiarist 3y agoI think it is literally a satire of US FPTP voting. Tons of money go in and the winner receives a pittance. Compare to something like proportional representation or score voting.
- dmurray 3y agoWhat? Other voting systems still end up with a winner. If you had score voting for the US President, people would still spend a fortune on it, and the winner would get the same as he does now. "No matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in"
- plagiarist 3y agoIf we had score voting we wouldn't have to choose between an artificial two choices, the winner of which having barely any resources to actually accomplish anything. I'm interpreting the small amount of money as representing fear to do what the majority of their voters want, lest they lose a crucial 1-2% from the middle.