News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Quadratic Voting (2014). Parent comment

Re:Quadratic Voting (2014) by rosser on Saturday May 02, 2015 @06:50PM (#9478865)
> Billionares are vastly outnumbered by thousandaires.

While true, the billionaires' liquid and un-accounted-for dollars vastly outnumber the thousandaires'. If Joe Average has to choose between voting on something and paying his mortgage, while Jim Squillionaire is choosing between voting and buying another jet (yes, hyperbole; my point still obtains), guess whose votes you're more likely to see...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Quadratic Voting (2014) by SamReidHughes on Saturday May 02, 2015 @06:56PM (#9478883)
I just explained why spending $1 billion on votes won't affect the outcome of politics, in the other sentence of my post, that you didn't quote. That's part of the reason the cost of votes is nonlinear in this scheme.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Quadratic Voting (2014) by PepeGomez on Sunday May 03, 2015 @03:36AM (#9480385)
You didn't explain anything, you only provided a cryptic analogy.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Quadratic Voting (2014) by SamReidHughes on Sunday May 03, 2015 @02:20PM (#9482365)
Don't you have your square roots memorized? 31600 is approximately the square root of a billion. The U.S. population is about 316 million.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Quadratic Voting (2014) by glenweyl on Sunday May 03, 2015 @03:34PM (#9482670)
That is the point of the software!
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Quadratic Voting (2014) by sukilot on Saturday May 02, 2015 @07:40PM (#9479011)
That's easy to fix with a social security-like scheme that forces everyone to spend at least $1000 on voting.
[ Parent | on HN ]