Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 343 posts

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#31

Post by bilbo0s »

yourbandsucks wrote: post #16
crazygringo wrote: post #9

It's clever, but it doesn't solve the problem. Because the problem isn't with strong preferences -- it's with extreme preferences. If there were 7 versions of a bill (A,B,C,D,E,F,G) ranging from ultra-conservative (a "A") to ultra-liberal (a "G"), in a polarized community people could still be spending the minimum 1 point each on the A's or G's and none on B-F. The problem with politics today isn't that people are si…

Additionally, it's got almost nothing to do with ideas anymore. It's about tribes. If you're in tribe A, your media tells you tribe B are literally devils. There's no understanding a devil, or compromise with one. If they say something that sounds reasonable? It's probably a trick. Hannity or Maddow will explain why tonight.

>Hannity or Maddow will explain why tonight...

There is something very sad, yet true, about that statement.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#32

Post by howard941 »

kitsy wrote: post #23
crazygringo wrote: post #9

It's clever, but it doesn't solve the problem. Because the problem isn't with strong preferences -- it's with extreme preferences. If there were 7 versions of a bill (A,B,C,D,E,F,G) ranging from ultra-conservative (a "A") to ultra-liberal (a "G"), in a polarized community people could still be spending the minimum 1 point each on the A's or G's and none on B-F. The problem with politics today isn't that people are si…

I disagree. Many bills are written with compromises in place, so they appeal to enough voters. I would rank the American ACA bill as E on the A to G scale.

It's striking even at this late a date to find the AEI proposal with mods crafted (or with pay offs as it was billed at the time) to appeal to the far right of the Democratic party rated as being practically at the edge of the far left.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#33

Post by erentz »

crazygringo wrote: post #9

It's clever, but it doesn't solve the problem. Because the problem isn't with strong preferences -- it's with extreme preferences. If there were 7 versions of a bill (A,B,C,D,E,F,G) ranging from ultra-conservative (a "A") to ultra-liberal (a "G"), in a polarized community people could still be spending the minimum 1 point each on the A's or G's and none on B-F. The problem with politics today isn't that people are si…

> The problem with politics today isn't that people are single-issue voters...

The problem is the people have no representation, what people want does not impact the likelihood of passage of a law.[1]

People on the left in right have a lot more in common with each other than everyone likes to make out. But even where they agree still nothing happens. I think this “polarization” line is a convenient distraction from this reality.

[1] https://bulletin.represent.us/american-government-isnt-democ...

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#34

Post by Muximize »

cabalamat wrote: post #13

Let's say Alice only cares about proposition A. And Bob only cares about B. Alice can spend all her 100 tokens on A, and she gets 10 votes on A. Ditto Bob can spend all his 100 tokens on B, and he gets 10 votes on B. But if each of them spends 50 on A and 50 on B, then A and B both get 2*sqrt(50) ~= 14 votes, so both Alice and Bob win by colluding. What's to stop them doing this?

Because it is a Prisoner's Dilemma.

Bob can convince Alice to spend half her tokens on proposition B but then betray her and spend all his tokens on B, resulting in 17 votes for B and only 7 for A.

When voting is anonymous there is no way to detect if voters keep their pledge or not, so this should deter them from voting in any other way than in their own interest.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#35

Post by larrydag »

crazygringo wrote: post #9

It's clever, but it doesn't solve the problem. Because the problem isn't with strong preferences -- it's with extreme preferences. If there were 7 versions of a bill (A,B,C,D,E,F,G) ranging from ultra-conservative (a "A") to ultra-liberal (a "G"), in a polarized community people could still be spending the minimum 1 point each on the A's or G's and none on B-F. The problem with politics today isn't that people are si…

I agree. For this "tribal" reason of picking a party I've been more inclined to have term limits on Congress.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#36

Post by SubiculumCode »

crazygringo wrote: post #9

It's clever, but it doesn't solve the problem. Because the problem isn't with strong preferences -- it's with extreme preferences. If there were 7 versions of a bill (A,B,C,D,E,F,G) ranging from ultra-conservative (a "A") to ultra-liberal (a "G"), in a polarized community people could still be spending the minimum 1 point each on the A's or G's and none on B-F. The problem with politics today isn't that people are si…

Especially since the Federal level of government has increased in both power and attention over last century where winner takes all. If States regained the political and power emphasis, more politics would be local and generally conducted among people with more similar views....and if you dont like it, chances are that another State caters to your viewpoint.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#37

Post by tialaramex »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #26

This is just deciding the order of business - not voting in the sense a civilian understands it. The other way this can be done in parliamentary systems is to have a lay member body sort through and produce a draft order of business. This body also decides which motions are in order which are duplicates and which need to be composited (ie a merge in tech speak) and also works out any conseqensionals (eg if Motion A p…

Yes the usual situation we're familiar with is picking a candidate in an election (which is what millions of Brits were doing yesterday) but it's the same for all these decisions. The key ingredients are more than two options (if there are only exactly two options we can solve this nicely and if there's only one option it's trivial) and wanting to incorporate preferences from many different people (ie let's not have a dictator or use sortition)

Neutral arbiters (your "lay member body") are very expensive because they can be captured so you need to defend against that, and even when they aren't captured you'll have to put up with accusations that they /were/ by sore losers who didn't get what they wanted from the neutral arbiter. For a sovereign government you can't impose the neutral arbiter on them, so they'll have to agree to suffer it, and such agreement is necessarily conditional. You can do it (that's how the Speaker of the House of Commons in the UK works) but it's fragile and I wouldn't advise it.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#38

Post by nabla9 »

cabalamat wrote: post #13

Let's say Alice only cares about proposition A. And Bob only cares about B. Alice can spend all her 100 tokens on A, and she gets 10 votes on A. Ditto Bob can spend all his 100 tokens on B, and he gets 10 votes on B. But if each of them spends 50 on A and 50 on B, then A and B both get 2*sqrt(50) ~= 14 votes, so both Alice and Bob win by colluding. What's to stop them doing this?

Collusion is a secret cooperation or deceitful agreement in order to deceive others. The plan you suggest is not deceiving anybody. It represents an political agreement and cooperation.

Alice and Bob are making a good deal. Well working democracy should involve maximum amount of deliberation and deal making. It's a good thing. If you want more of that kind of deal making votes should be visible though (quadratic voting between representatives in parliament might work the way you suggest).

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#39

Post by asark »

youdontknowtho wrote: post #19
crazygringo wrote: post #9

It's clever, but it doesn't solve the problem. Because the problem isn't with strong preferences -- it's with extreme preferences. If there were 7 versions of a bill (A,B,C,D,E,F,G) ranging from ultra-conservative (a "A") to ultra-liberal (a "G"), in a polarized community people could still be spending the minimum 1 point each on the A's or G's and none on B-F. The problem with politics today isn't that people are si…

There are literally millions of single issue voters who vote for conservatives because of abortion in the US. Literally millions of people.

Yeah, NPR found plenty on their part of the national media's "how the hell did this happen?" tour right after the election. Lots of "well yeah he's awful and I wasn't happy to vote for him. But... court nominations and Roe v. Wade, so I kinda had to."

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#40

Post by morley »

erentz wrote: post #33
crazygringo wrote: post #9

It's clever, but it doesn't solve the problem. Because the problem isn't with strong preferences -- it's with extreme preferences. If there were 7 versions of a bill (A,B,C,D,E,F,G) ranging from ultra-conservative (a "A") to ultra-liberal (a "G"), in a polarized community people could still be spending the minimum 1 point each on the A's or G's and none on B-F. The problem with politics today isn't that people are si…

> The problem with politics today isn't that people are single-issue voters... The problem is the people have no representation, what people want does not impact the likelihood of passage of a law.[1] People on the left in right have a lot more in common with each other than everyone likes to make out. But even where they agree still nothing happens. I think this “polarization” line is a convenient distraction from t…

I think you're pointing out a different shade of the same problem. People _do_ technically have representation in the form of their Congresspeople and Senators. But those elected officials have to polarize their viewpoints and thus their votes because when they vote out of party, the vocal members of their parties excoriate them as traitors. So the people in the middle feel like their representatives aren't representing them.
Post reply on HN