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

Quadratic Voting (2014)

ericposner.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 156 posts

Re: Quadratic Voting (2014)

#31

Post by [deleted] »

cwp wrote: post #30
eridius wrote: post #3

Just reading the linked summary (and not the paper itself), it seems like this doesn't take wealth disparity into account. If the cost for your votes is the square of the votes you want to cast, then that means people with a lot of money can trivially buy significantly more votes than people with very little money, even if they don't necessarily care more about the issue than the people with very little money. It see…

The thing is, we already have the tyranny of the wealthy. The Tullock paradox is basically that the cost of lobbying is dwarfed by the returns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullock_paradox I'm still getting my head around it, but it seems that Quadratic Voting would actually increase what wealthy people pay to influence public policy. Edit: Just as an example, the largest "outside money" spender in the 2012 election…

[deleted]

Re: Quadratic Voting (2014)

#32

Post by smsm42 »

ryanthejuggler wrote: post #10

I feel like this could potentially work with "voting tokens" or something else that's not money. Maybe with some sort of crypto verification. You'd still have the scarcity that the system demands, but without the "inequality baggage" you'd start out with if the system were implemented with actual money. If you implemented this system using money to buy votes, then you'd end up... well probably with something like the…

I think one feature of the system is that the accumulated funds are then distributed equally after the vote. With tokens, this would not be very useful, as if everybody gets the same amount tokens, there's no difference between getting one token and getting one million, tokens themselves have no value.

Re: Quadratic Voting (2014)

#33

Post by glenweyl »

dnautics wrote: post #2

If this is really a good thing (tm) then perhaps the best incubator to test the theory in a 'crucible of experiment' would be in corporate governance. As more corporations move towards QV (with, hopefully, good results) it may find its way into political public policy.

We decided to follow the advice of a leader in the field, Rory Sutherland, and pursue the application to market research surveys first: http://www.research-live.com/impact-magazine/the-shape-of-th.... My start-up, Collective Decision Engines, is actively working on this.

Re: Quadratic Voting (2014)

#35

Post by smsm42 »

smsm42 wrote: post #28
tlholaday wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paper has examples with dollar amounts starting around page 30. If ten thousand poor people buy one vote each for $1, the wealthy would-be tyrant needs to buy 10,001 votes to win, at a cost of $100,020,001. If the tyrant goes ahead and does this, after the election all the poor people will receive $10,001 each.

It would probably be cheaper for the would-be tyrant to just promise $5000 to each of the poor people (not necessarily in cash - i.e. "if I am elected I will institute a new support program for the people with the budget of $5000 per capita", etc.) - that's how it is done nowdays and works quite frequently.

Additionally, the $5000 per capita program can be financed with budget income and not private cash, making it virtually free for the would-be tyrant once he's elected. Of course, the budget is limited so you have a cup on how much you can offer, and people more adept in economics would figure out it's ultimately their own money that they are being promised, but usually the margin between competing politicians is small enough that people who would vote on the promise of getting "free money" have a good chance to tip it over.

Re: Quadratic Voting (2014)

#36

Post by smsm42 »

gipp wrote: post #5
Redoubts wrote: post #4

I suppose it seems cool, since the fund pays back to the voters -- so it's effectively a tax on political influence against those who would spend a lot on a campaign. But I have to naively ask if this will really change anything. How will this divert money in politics away from directly buying off people in power. It seems like a new, parallel avenue to assault with big bucks.

Read to the bottom -- it looks like the general idea here is to empower direct democracy. Less institutional power in the form of representational voting and beauraucratic/constitutional checks on each other means less attack surface for corruption.

Direct democracy is a very dangerous thing and unchecked can very quickly lead to oppression of minority contingents and minority opinions. And, of course, direct democracy is vulnerable to the base form of corruption in the form of "vote for us and we'll take money from the other guys and give it to you".

Re: Quadratic Voting (2014)

#37

Post by smsm42 »

jacques_chester wrote: post #17

> Majority rule based on one-person-one-vote notoriously results in tyranny of the majority–a large number of people who care only a little about an outcome prevail over a minority that cares passionately, resulting in a reduction of aggregate welfare. Except in voluntary voting systems, where highly motivated voters dominate the apathetic majority.

Mandatory voting won't help as apathetic votes would be either distributed randomly or given according to preference having nothing to do with the issues, such as which candidate is better looking or which one appears more on a popular comedy shows.

Re: Quadratic Voting (2014)

#38

Post by cwp »

learnstats2 wrote: post #27
tlholaday wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paper has examples with dollar amounts starting around page 30. If ten thousand poor people buy one vote each for $1, the wealthy would-be tyrant needs to buy 10,001 votes to win, at a cost of $100,020,001. If the tyrant goes ahead and does this, after the election all the poor people will receive $10,001 each.

And so? My $100m made me lord tyrant ruler of the universe. Is existing inequality enough that quadratic voting realistically dismantles rather than reinforces existing power structures? Has QV been used in any practical context? If so, I'd welcome replies as I didn't pick up on this.

Your $100M got you 4 years in Congress. Let's say you can pass a key bill that'll make you more than $100M. It had better not piss people off very much, because in the next election they'll buy TWO votes each and you'll have to spend $400M to keep your law in place. In the meantime, all those poor people you outvoted are $50,000 richer.

The interesting thing about this is that the more votes you buy, the more you fund your political enemies.

Re: Quadratic Voting (2014)

#40

Post by fmdud »

I don't understand, so basically if you're homeless or don't have a bank account, or if you're not in the workforce for one of a million reasons, you don't get a say at all?

Am I missing something?

Post reply on HN