snafuy

• snafuy 23 Dec 2021 23:58 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Martin Randall’s comment on: Quadratic Vot­ing and Collusion

  OK, by “cannot cooperate”, you meant “unable to coordinate communication about their already-shared values” rather than “unable to agree to support each others’ unrelated interests”. Got it.

• snafuy 28 Nov 2021 14:11 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: leogao’s comment on: Quadratic Vot­ing and Collusion

  I don’t see how that’s a useful hypothetical scenario. If you have enough secret agents that you can coerce a large percentage of voters to do what you want, what voting system is able to stop you?

  “I will help you with your thing if you do the same for me” is the core ethos of non-dictatorial civilization. IMO, QV encouraging cooperation (not “collusion”) is a point in its favor, not against.

• snafuy 18 Nov 2021 16:57 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Edgycam’s comment on: Quadratic Vot­ing and Collusion

  I don’t understand. A 40% group will (and IMO should) beat 3 non-cooperating 20% groups in pretty much any voting system.

  A system that encourages groups to work together for their collective benefit seems like a solution for that situation, not a problem.