5 ms·

I'm just playing with the puzzle. It's not like I deeply thought about it and this was my conclusion. Votes per period might not work. You could in stead accum

by econ 12d ago

I'm just playing with the puzzle. It's not like I deeply thought about it and this was my conclusion. Votes per period might not work. You could in stead accumulate votes over time. Of course the proposals could repeatedly go against a specific group. Not sure if you could create a unit of accounting for it or have some kind of independent jury examine the gaming. I also wondered if the price could scale with the % victory. Like, if 100% votes A it costs zero votes. 51% would be the most expensive. Maybe give the proposal makers a bunch of tokens, filling a proposal costs x, each vote against it costs y. The core thought is basically, if people are overly attached to something they will get it but will have reduced influence on everything else.

troupo 12d ago
Any time you introduce any type of cost, you create a system where it is extremely easy to disadvantage a group of people.
- econ 12d ago
  Do you think improvement is possible?
  - troupo 12d ago
    I don't know if it's possible to improve every kind of voting in the same way. But we could improve some parts. For example, voting in elections could be improved by introducing Single Transferrable Vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote (CGP Grey had a bunch of videos on this: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3897F608FAD61E88&si=TzEP91pKPyG_P3Zt https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3897F608FAD61E88&si=TzEP...)
    - econ 11d ago
      The only good clue I have for a new or modified system is that it has to be simple enough for the voter to understand it. The single transferable vote is technically great but the name doesn't explain how it works. You have to make up for that with education (which seems doable) I wonder how similar the result would be if the voter could cast one vote for something and one against. This seems less complex. It has other advantages. A large election budget shouldn't automatically convert to votes. Doing a pis poor job should probably cost more than a few votes.

by econ 12d ago

troupo 12d ago

Any time you introduce any type of cost, you create a system where it is extremely easy to disadvantage a group of people.

econ 12d ago
Do you think improvement is possible?
- troupo 12d ago
  I don't know if it's possible to improve every kind of voting in the same way. But we could improve some parts. For example, voting in elections could be improved by introducing Single Transferrable Vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote (CGP Grey had a bunch of videos on this: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3897F608FAD61E88&si=TzEP91pKPyG_P3Zt https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3897F608FAD61E88&si=TzEP...)
  - econ 11d ago
    The only good clue I have for a new or modified system is that it has to be simple enough for the voter to understand it. The single transferable vote is technically great but the name doesn't explain how it works. You have to make up for that with education (which seems doable) I wonder how similar the result would be if the voter could cast one vote for something and one against. This seems less complex. It has other advantages. A large election budget shouldn't automatically convert to votes. Doing a pis poor job should probably cost more than a few votes.