How durable is the vote storage? I can see this as great if there’s a closed set of voters on a closed set of issues, and voters get to allocate the marginal importance to them of each issue, in order to use all their voting power for the most important. I suspect that for long-running governance-choices, this will feel unfair to young/new voters, and to older ones who’ve used their votes on previous things that they now realize were unimportant.
I will also say that I’m worried by the statement
a political system is not legitimate because of the consent of the governed, but because of the welfare of the governed
This treats people as moral patients rather than moral actors. That’s a framing that leads to disenfranchisement pretty easily.
That answer just raises more questions. How do new voters get votes, and what happens to deceased or newly-ineligible voter’s “stored votes”? Are votes transferable (or sellable)?
Money is very rather different from votes; there’s zero expectation of “fair distribution” or “equal weight”. That’s why we have different things for different purposes.
You COULD just do away with voting and use currency auctions. I think a lot of people would object.
This is the QV and I find it wrong. With money, at the end pivotal votes are only those of the largest money owners. Who can give money for collective choices? Those that can recover it, because their wealth is so large than individual consequences of collective decision is individually profitable. Keeping the political system separated from general purpose currency is critical (the Casella and Mace review agrees). The system as described in the paper is totally parallel to currency, while it works like it in the sense that you only pay votes when you get your alternative.
In SV PAYW the fixed number of votes is redistributed among voters after any election (votes casted in the winning alternative are those “payed”) in a one-vote one-man way. Even with no new votes for new players (and the votes from the dead are available for redistribution), new voters receive votes from the winners of each election.
A final remark: SV PAYW is more spectacular, but “the ideal political workflow” is more important.
How durable is the vote storage? I can see this as great if there’s a closed set of voters on a closed set of issues, and voters get to allocate the marginal importance to them of each issue, in order to use all their voting power for the most important. I suspect that for long-running governance-choices, this will feel unfair to young/new voters, and to older ones who’ve used their votes on previous things that they now realize were unimportant.
I will also say that I’m worried by the statement
This treats people as moral patients rather than moral actors. That’s a framing that leads to disenfranchisement pretty easily.
How durable is money? In this version there is a fixed amount of votes circulating among voters, and votes can be stored indefinitely.
Of course, if this model were successful, versions with “storage costs” could be considered. Let 1000 flowers blossom!
That answer just raises more questions. How do new voters get votes, and what happens to deceased or newly-ineligible voter’s “stored votes”? Are votes transferable (or sellable)?
Money is very rather different from votes; there’s zero expectation of “fair distribution” or “equal weight”. That’s why we have different things for different purposes.
You COULD just do away with voting and use currency auctions. I think a lot of people would object.
This is the QV and I find it wrong. With money, at the end pivotal votes are only those of the largest money owners. Who can give money for collective choices? Those that can recover it, because their wealth is so large than individual consequences of collective decision is individually profitable. Keeping the political system separated from general purpose currency is critical (the Casella and Mace review agrees). The system as described in the paper is totally parallel to currency, while it works like it in the sense that you only pay votes when you get your alternative.
In SV PAYW the fixed number of votes is redistributed among voters after any election (votes casted in the winning alternative are those “payed”) in a one-vote one-man way. Even with no new votes for new players (and the votes from the dead are available for redistribution), new voters receive votes from the winners of each election.
A final remark: SV PAYW is more spectacular, but “the ideal political workflow” is more important.