I have advocated for Quadratic Voting here at Risk & Progress a number of times. With QV we can schedule a proper balance between majority rule and the “tyranny of the majority.”
For the most part, we try to do this using bicameralism today, QV is just a bit cleaner and more efficient.
I have advocated for Quadratic Voting here at Risk & Progress a number of times. With QV we can schedule a proper balance between majority rule and the “tyranny of the majority.”
For the most part, we try to do this using bicameralism today, QV is just a bit cleaner and more efficient.
A recent development is my own paper, that proposes that votes are used like money: if your option does not win, you keep the votes:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4326247
Hello, the post I was referring to is this one:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/zzr8Pgf7pMf6tTpbM/democracy-beyond-majoritarianism
Are you the decision theory google group?
I included more details there:
https://groups.google.com/g/decision_theory_forum/c/Nmq8fHtac7I
The method does seem like a viable alternative to QV. It's quite fascinating.
I'm not yet part of the decision theory google group.
Thank you for the interest; I follow your Substack with great interest too. Kind regards, Arturo
A substantially improved version of the paper is already accepted in Journal of economic interaction and coordination.