Re:The Swiss reject key climate change measures
by tzs on Sunday June 13, 2021 @07:09PM
(#27497468)
Knowing HN, it would not surprise me if the downvotes are because you used FLOAT rather than DECIMAL.
As far as the actual idea goes, better would be to (1) make it finer gained, and to (2) make it depend on the issue being voted upon.
Maybe something like this (numbers for illustration only--much more thought would need to go into determining the right numbers):
(1) If the life expectancy for an average voter of your age is at least 30 years, your vote weight is 1.00.
(2) If your life expectancy is not at least 30 years, your vote weight decreases as a function of how much under 30 years it is, reaching a minimum of 0.25 at 10 years life expectancy and then staying at 0.25 for the rest of your actual life, unless #3 applies.
(3) If a particular issue will likely have major short term consequences, your vote weight is based on the percentage of that short term that occurs within your life expectancy.
If I'm only expected to live 10 more years and we're voting on something that is going to seriously affect people for much much longer than that, it seems only fair that the people who are going to be more affected should have more say than me. That's what #2 is trying to cover.
#3 is to protect people against front loaded projects. Say the vote is on building something that will take 10 years to build and then have a major impact for the next century, and construction is going to be paid for by a 10 year tax increase. People with 10 year life expectancy would only get a 0.25 vote under #2, but they would be fully hit by the taxes in this case, and see none of the benefit, so they should have more say. #3 in this case would supersede #2 and give them a 1.00 vote.
As far as the actual idea goes, better would be to (1) make it finer gained, and to (2) make it depend on the issue being voted upon.
Maybe something like this (numbers for illustration only--much more thought would need to go into determining the right numbers):
(1) If the life expectancy for an average voter of your age is at least 30 years, your vote weight is 1.00.
(2) If your life expectancy is not at least 30 years, your vote weight decreases as a function of how much under 30 years it is, reaching a minimum of 0.25 at 10 years life expectancy and then staying at 0.25 for the rest of your actual life, unless #3 applies.
(3) If a particular issue will likely have major short term consequences, your vote weight is based on the percentage of that short term that occurs within your life expectancy.
If I'm only expected to live 10 more years and we're voting on something that is going to seriously affect people for much much longer than that, it seems only fair that the people who are going to be more affected should have more say than me. That's what #2 is trying to cover.
#3 is to protect people against front loaded projects. Say the vote is on building something that will take 10 years to build and then have a major impact for the next century, and construction is going to be paid for by a 10 year tax increase. People with 10 year life expectancy would only get a 0.25 vote under #2, but they would be fully hit by the taxes in this case, and see none of the benefit, so they should have more say. #3 in this case would supersede #2 and give them a 1.00 vote.