3 ms·

I may be missing something, but it seems as though QV is associating how passionate a party (specifically a minority) is about a topic with the importance that

by bspates 11y ago

I may be missing something, but it seems as though QV is associating how passionate a party (specifically a minority) is about a topic with the importance that their view be equally represented against an apathetic opposition. The problem inherent to this is lack of education of topics that will be well know to a minority party but unknown to a majority. The majorities ignorance is not the same as not caring, and the impetus to gain knowledge may not always be clear. Beyond this its seems like minority opinions no matter how impassioned should not become the center of debate merely because they have spent more money. The act of voting involves far more than the act itself as evidenced by the prolonged campaign periods in the US. The national attention span is short and is already dominated by the extreme and the rich.

glenweyl 11y ago
As Marty Gillens argues in his book Affluence and Influence (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9836.html http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9836.html), on almost every issue there is a sub group within those who feel a particular way on an issue that is highly informed about that issue and a subgroup that is less informed. 1p1v gives both groups equal weight while QV gives much more weight to the informed. This is much fairer, because the uniformed group will typically be easily swayed by advertising and manipulation to vote the other way, making groups with more uniformed people easily undermined even if there are some members that are informed and who could speak for this group's interests. This is a major problem in American politics: the poor often favor less redistribution than the rich do (again see Gillens)! So I actually think QV would improve the situation precisely along the dimensions you are highlighting.
- McDoku 11y ago
  Part of the real issue is identity politics and the black box thinking it generated. Rethorical devices would still maintain the greatest power. You don't need information just conviction and resources.

by bspates 11y ago

glenweyl 11y ago

As Marty Gillens argues in his book Affluence and Influence (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9836.html http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9836.html), on almost every issue there is a sub group within those who feel a particular way on an issue that is highly informed about that issue and a subgroup that is less informed. 1p1v gives both groups equal weight while QV gives much more weight to the informed. This is much fairer, because the uniformed group will typically be easily swayed by advertising and manipulation to vote the other way, making groups with more uniformed people easily undermined even if there are some members that are informed and who could speak for this group's interests. This is a major problem in American politics: the poor often favor less redistribution than the rich do (again see Gillens)! So I actually think QV would improve the situation precisely along the dimensions you are highlighting.

McDoku 11y ago
Part of the real issue is identity politics and the black box thinking it generated. Rethorical devices would still maintain the greatest power. You don't need information just conviction and resources.