This is NOT what I expected by the phrase “deference games”. I was expecting an exploration of status, signaling, and the advantages of expressing respect for or subservience to a high-status idea or person. Or perhaps the motivations for victimhood or martyrdom expressions as a way to gain status by asserting false deference.
For your proposal—how is this different from just voting based on endorsements from your preferred source? Can people sell or otherwise contract away their cards (such that they CANNOT take it back at will, only after the contract ends)? Is the choice public so people can ensure that you’re voting the way you said you did?
If it’s just proportional non-districted representation with trivial reallocation, I’m not sure it solves many of the problems with voting. It may well make it worse, if there are lots of little issues that people are allocating their votes based on the same factors they use for actual voting today (bias, random advertising, partial knowledge, popularity).
This is NOT what I expected by the phrase “deference games”. I was expecting an exploration of status, signaling, and the advantages of expressing respect for or subservience to a high-status idea or person. Or perhaps the motivations for victimhood or martyrdom expressions as a way to gain status by asserting false deference.
For your proposal—how is this different from just voting based on endorsements from your preferred source? Can people sell or otherwise contract away their cards (such that they CANNOT take it back at will, only after the contract ends)? Is the choice public so people can ensure that you’re voting the way you said you did?
If it’s just proportional non-districted representation with trivial reallocation, I’m not sure it solves many of the problems with voting. It may well make it worse, if there are lots of little issues that people are allocating their votes based on the same factors they use for actual voting today (bias, random advertising, partial knowledge, popularity).