Quadratic Voting

[Gromdor]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-01/a-new-way-of-voting-that-makes-zealotry-expensive?utm_source=pocket-newtab

What do you guys think about this idea?  The purpose of quadratic voting is to determine “whether the intense preferences of the minority outweigh the weak preferences of the majority,” Weyl and Eric Posner, a University of Chicago Law School professor, wrote last year in an important book called Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society.

Basically it is a means of letting politicians figure out what is really important to them by letting them vary the amount of votes they give to a particular issue via diminishing returns.

[Space Commander Travis]

sounds like something you;'d need a degree in quantum physics to have a clue about.

[Space Commander Travis]

Although I would like to see The Amazing Donald getting his head round it. 

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

sounds like something you;'d need a degree in quantum physics to have a clue about.

It's not that hard.  You get 100 tokens for issues.  1 token is one vote, but if you want to prioritize an issue you can sacrifice some of your voting power on other issues to push the one you care about with diminishing returns.  The second vote would cost two tokens, the third would cost 4 and so on.

If you cared about a single issue and nothing else you could have 10 votes on it, but you forfeit your votes and opinions on everything else.

[CrimsonKing]

Interesting topic,but i'd like to see some kind of "penalty" added for lets say a candidate uses 7 outta 10 on their "big issue",yet once in office they barely ever mention it again...

Not really sure what that penalty should be,but i'm sure we could figure something out.Gotta be a better way of keeping liars and two faced do nothings in check and out of power.

[Gromdor]

8 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

Interesting topic,but i'd like to see some kind of "penalty" added for lets say a candidate uses 7 outta 10 on their "big issue",yet once in office they barely ever mention it again...

Not really sure what that penalty should be,but i'm sure we could figure something out.Gotta be a better way of keeping liars and two faced do nothings in check and out of power.

It really isn't something to get people elected.  Rather it is a method to get stuff done in legislature.  Take the senate for instance: There are 51 Republicans, 47 Democrats and 2 Independents.  Whenever legislation comes up it is pretty much always around 51-47 whether the issue is important or not.  Using this method, the minority could cede some of their influence on other issues for additional votes on something they care about and have a chance of getting it passed if the majority regards it a trivial thing and doesn't feel it worth wasting influence of their own on.  This way more things get done and the legislatures actually have to weigh the value of what they will or will not pass instead of just voting party line on everything.

[+Desertrat56]

The premise is using faulty logic considering the majority have weak preferences.  There is a new way of voting that has been proposed in the U.S. and is being using in the state of Maine.  Everyone votes by choosing their top four in order of preference and the one who gets the most # 1 votes wins.  It makes sense as the goal of this type of voting is to eliminate the stranglehold the two party despotic system has the voters in currently.

[+Desertrat56]

7 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

It really isn't something to get people elected.  Rather it is a method to get stuff done in legislature.  Take the senate for instance: There are 51 Republicans, 47 Democrats and 2 Independents.  Whenever legislation comes up it is pretty much always around 51-47 whether the issue is important or not.  Using this method, the minority could cede some of their influence on other issues for additional votes on something they care about and have a chance of getting it passed if the majority regards it a trivial thing and doesn't feel it worth wasting influence of their own on.  This way more things get done and the legislatures actually have to weigh the value of what they will or will not pass instead of just voting party line on everything.

Now, in that context it makes sense.

[CrimsonKing]

6 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

It really isn't something to get people elected.  Rather it is a method to get stuff done in legislature.  Take the senate for instance: There are 51 Republicans, 47 Democrats and 2 Independents.  Whenever legislation comes up it is pretty much always around 51-47 whether the issue is important or not.  Using this method, the minority could cede some of their influence on other issues for additional votes on something they care about and have a chance of getting it passed if the majority regards it a trivial thing and doesn't feel it worth wasting influence of their own on.  This way more things get done and the legislatures actually have to weigh the value of what they will or will not pass instead of just voting party line on everything.

I hear ya,just don't really see it working very well...kinda throws out "majority" importance...

I don't see either side ever agreeing to budge in the slightest,the past 20 years has seen division in politics go off a cliff,think we've reached a point of no return...hell common citizens have been taught by their politicians to truly HATE the other side because of their political beliefs alone...

Something like this could throw the voting bases into seizures and fits of panic and rage at the thought of their politician trying something bipartisan lol...it has become "our way or no way at all"

[zep73]

6 hours ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

sounds like something you;'d need a degree in quantum physics to have a clue about.

Although I don't have a degree, I do understand QM quite well. But this is still puzzling...

[Big Jim]

It's not a whole lot different from the current system.  Out of 100 senators maybe 10 really care about an issue, but they get their colleagues and comrades to vote along with them.  But in asking favors they have to promise favors so they have to be careful who they ask.  In DC favors are currency.  So whether an issue gets passed by 10 senators using multiple votes and skipping other issues or whether they pass it by using their friends' votes and use up their favors it seems like in the end it will all come out the same.  Politics will always be run by politicians and they will bend any system to their own desires.

[freetoroam]

8 hours ago, Gromdor said:

It's not that hard.  You get 100 tokens for issues.  1 token is one vote, but if you want to prioritize an issue you can sacrifice some of your voting power on other issues to push the one you care about with diminishing returns.  The second vote would cost two tokens, the third would cost 4 and so on.

If you cared about a single issue and nothing else you could have 10 votes on it, but you forfeit your votes and opinions on everything else.

Yep, Vlad was right. 

Let me try and get this, as a voter i can put all my tokens on one issue? But if three different parties actually agree on that one issue, then i then have to decide which one i am going to put it on?

If party A, B and C all agree on protecting the environment, (theres my 10 tokens) now i still have to look at their other policies to decide which i will put them on. So whats the difference to how it is now? 

[spartan max2]

7 hours ago, Gromdor said:

It really isn't something to get people elected.  Rather it is a method to get stuff done in legislature.  Take the senate for instance: There are 51 Republicans, 47 Democrats and 2 Independents.  Whenever legislation comes up it is pretty much always around 51-47 whether the issue is important or not.  Using this method, the minority could cede some of their influence on other issues for additional votes on something they care about and have a chance of getting it passed if the majority regards it a trivial thing and doesn't feel it worth wasting influence of their own on.  This way more things get done and the legislatures actually have to weigh the value of what they will or will not pass instead of just voting party line on everything.

I get the intention behind it. However I would rather keep it the same.

The founding fathers set up a system with checks and balances so that it would be difficult to make major changes without significant support.

All the major changes in U.S history have been from overwhelming support.

It's frustrating when things change slow but it think that method is better then the reverse scenario of major changes every few years. Back and forth.

[Farmer77]

14 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Basically it is a means of letting politicians figure out what is really important to them by letting them vary the amount of votes they give to a particular issue via diminishing returns.

Man I was reading and thinking about posting that article right about the time you did.

I think its fantastic.

[RavenHawk]

I guess this is democratic.  If voting for federal elections, this is the extremes of democracy which must be avoided.  If it limited to representatives voting on bills, this is certainly an interesting idea.  Or maybe even voting in a primary for either party.  But caution must be taken to not be tricked into crossing that line between Congress using it for bills to the general electing a President.  This would be the opposite of the Electoral College.  And I think this is the ultimate goal of this proposal.

[aztek]

This is a masqueraded attempt to remove EC, it is pretty obvious.

[+Hammerclaw]

Getting the majority of States to abolish the Electoral College, diminishing their clout in elections and subjecting them to national majoritarianism is problematic. Similarly getting a majority of politicians to agree to diminish the clout of holding the majority is unlikely at best. Both proposals are non starters.

[+Desertrat56]

25 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Getting the majority of States to abolish the Electoral College, diminishing their clout in elections and subjecting them to national majoritarianism is problematic. Similarly getting a majority of politicians to agree to diminish the clout of holding the majority is unlikely at best. Both proposals are non starters.

It's not the electoral college, it is the fact that the democrat & republican Party control the elections.  If they didn't, the electoral college would work as it was designed.

[Will Due]

 

This is a step in the right direction. Allocating representatives with the power of multiple votes. However with this caveat. Legislators should be awarded more than one vote based on their qualifications.

For example:

• Based on seniority. Veteran legislators should be allocated more votes than freshman legislators. This will help to stem the tide of inexperienced lawmakers having an unearned advantage of being equal with their more experienced (and hopefully wiser) colleagues. 
• With veteran lawmakers, additional votes should only be allocated on their accomplishments and proven ethical performance. If reprimands are a part of their record, then it should be considered as disqualification for an otherwise full allocation of additional votes.

Clearly, our system of government needs to evolve. What's going on currently is unacceptable. Yes, the two major political parties have a stranglehold on the main purpose of representative government. This being that the majority is not always right.

It's also interesting that although the founding fathers should have been aware of the likelihood that political parties were bound to form, nothing was addressed in the constitution to control the negative affects of this becoming the problem that it is today.

 

 

[+OverSword]

This subject is moot.  See here that twenty years of data shows that our government does not care what you think.

https://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think

 

[+Hammerclaw]

19 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

It's not the electoral college, it is the fact that the democrat & republican Party control the elections.  If they didn't, the electoral college would work as it was designed.

It works as designed, even in States that choose to manipulate their votes rather than have them reflect the will of the State majority. That can be both good and bad, but the freedom to do so was designed into the Electoral College. The purpose of the Electoral College is to ameliorate or negate national majoritarianism which would negatively impact the status of States with smaller populations.