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

281–290 of 343 posts

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#281

Post by munk-a »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #216
Para2016 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're irrelevant differences to me. I care about local and state issues. For instance local infrastructure, local school districts, local road maintenance, local taxes, etc. Federal politics is a distraction. A useless distraction that you're obsessed with. That's the kind of thinking that's "dangerous".

> Federal politics is a distraction. A useless distraction that you're obsessed with. That's the kind of thinking that's "dangerous". While I realize this is pretty much a trolling post, I just want to highlight that you are in quite the privileged position to believe this. You couldn't possibly believe "federal politics is a distraction" if: 1. You desire to get married to someone of the same sex. 2. You have anyone…

I'll add one hilarious thing to this list - local school districts. Local school funding is usually done out of the funds of the local government (sometimes city, sometimes district, sometimes county) which means that poor locales don't have enough money to fund their schools. This was a famously contentious issue where I grew up in MA and where inner city schools were and continue to be terribly underfunded.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#282

Post by ModernMech »

SkyBelow wrote: post #179
kro92kfmrzz wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically they disagree on how to treat their fellow citizens. Democrats are against outright hostility and blatant marginalization of certain classes. But both have largely been ok with everyone being exploited by feudal trade economics, bombing other nations to satisfy global political norms, and swindling developing nations out of their resources, while emotionally coddling elites. It means something to not be out…

>Democrats are against outright hostility and blatant marginalization of certain classes. Republicans are against outright hostility and blatant marginalization of certain classes. Not the same classes, perhaps even classes that many don't want recognized, such as the unborn, but the statement is still just as true.

Abortion isn't blatant hostility toward fetuses. No one gets an abortion because they hate fetuses.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#283

Post by blunte »

Semiapies wrote: post #279

The basic form of quadratic voting, with actual money, also makes trying to protect yourself and your rights against hostile voting blocks expensive. Are you black? Muslim? Transgender? The majority votes to screw you over in some way, and you spend to vote harder against them and so manage to stop them. And then you've spent quite a bit of money, which gets redistributed to all voters (ie, everyone in your group see…

This assumes the majority would focus their energy on a narrow set of issues. Unless you have studies to back up that assumption, I would not believe it.

And if the majority actually did feel so strongly about a narrow set of issues, then it should be very expensive for a minority to counter that.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#284

Post by [deleted] »

blunte wrote: post #283
Semiapies wrote: post #279

The basic form of quadratic voting, with actual money, also makes trying to protect yourself and your rights against hostile voting blocks expensive. Are you black? Muslim? Transgender? The majority votes to screw you over in some way, and you spend to vote harder against them and so manage to stop them. And then you've spent quite a bit of money, which gets redistributed to all voters (ie, everyone in your group see…

This assumes the majority would focus their energy on a narrow set of issues. Unless you have studies to back up that assumption, I would not believe it. And if the majority actually did feel so strongly about a narrow set of issues, then it should be very expensive for a minority to counter that.

[deleted]

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#285

Post by dane-pgp »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #112

> Quadratic voting “is the one vote pricing rule under which voters who intend only their own gain are led, as if by an invisible hand, to advance the interests of society,” What's so special about n^2? I'd suspect n^phi is optimal.

Why phi?

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#286

Post by godelski »

Semiapies wrote: post #279

The basic form of quadratic voting, with actual money, also makes trying to protect yourself and your rights against hostile voting blocks expensive. Are you black? Muslim? Transgender? The majority votes to screw you over in some way, and you spend to vote harder against them and so manage to stop them. And then you've spent quite a bit of money, which gets redistributed to all voters (ie, everyone in your group see…

Isn't this just baked into any form of representative government or democracy? It doesn't seem like voting is the issue as much as how you proportionally represent your society.

The problem is that any minority group will always have less voting power than the majority group (if their interests are disjoint and no other coalitions are formed).

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#287

Post by sokoloff »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #122
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bribery would be more rampant than it is now. With no career aspirations to keep them in line, unethical people would take the lobbyist money and run.

Bribery doesn't seem rampant in jury service, where members are chosen by lottery. I'm sure we could find ways to keep bribery away.

If you picked and announced the jurors 60-425 days before they had to serve, I bet you'd see bribery in jury duty emerge.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#288

Post by bilbo0s »

pdonis wrote: post #273
bilbo0s wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the US man. We didn't pay the British Crown a cent, and no one saw any reason to change that policy for southerners. Paying for freedom is not something America as a nation was given to doing in the Late 18th and 19th century. Heck, vast majority of us wouldn't do it today. This country was literally founded on the principle of not paying for freedoms. And this history is the very reason we carried so much ca…

> What's with these ideas? Paying off the slaveowners is not just an "idea". It actually happened . In every other country that ended slavery. That's why I'm drawing the comparison. Every other country managed to end slavery without fighting a war that cost a million lives. So why did the US have to? > what part of our history to 1860 would lead you to believe that it was our policy to pay money for freedom? You're m…

Oh guy. Come on man.

You don't negotiate with terrorists.

Maybe I should just ask you to get a better idea of how you're thinking about this whole thing, do you think we should have paid the British?

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#289

Post by CamperBob2 »

ng12 wrote: post #275
awinder wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminder: having shitty ideas is not a protected class, and “free speech” does not mean you get to say whatever batshit crazy thing comes to mind without other people expressing themselves

Plenty of people on both sides have "batshit crazy" ideas, except one leans more heavily on mob mentality thanks to the self-righteousness that comes with the unshaken belief that you have the moral highground. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMc8pczn-hs

except one leans more heavily on mob mentality thanks to the self-righteousness that comes with the unshaken belief that you have the moral highground.

Well, Goldwater tried to warn the Republicans about what would happen if they kept sucking up to the evangelicals, and...

Oh, wait, were you talking about Democrats?

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#290

Post by bilbo0s »

pdonis wrote: post #272
bilbo0s wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US wasn't willing to make that compromise; we let the moralizers drive the process, so we had to fight a war and kill a million people... Yeah, "moralizers" like Hamilton, Washington, and Ben Franklin, who were so obstinate and short sighted they refused to simply pay the British Crown instead of fighting such a destructive war. Too bad you couldn't be there to show them the error of their ways. /s Yeah, this i…

> moralizers" like Hamilton, Washington, and Ben Franklin, who were so obstinate and short sighted they refused to simply pay the British Crown instead of fighting such a destructive war You think the Colonies could have paid the British Crown to become independent? Where are you getting that from? What makes you think the British would have accepted it? But if you are just asking as a pure hypothetical-- should the…

There was no option to pay the south either, but you believe we should have. So why not engage in revisionist fantasies.

But no, I don't believe we should have paid the British either. Of course not. Pay off every world power hard up for money that comes along? No way. You start off that way, you've set yourself up for extreme and painful failure. Best to have one war at the outset so that all the other global powers get the message loud and clear.

You can try paying off bullies if you like in your own life, but I can guarantee you that it won't work. The only thing it will create is more opportunists.

You're being a bit naive man.

Post reply on HN