I should clarify: I'm not trying to do away with methods, informal or formal, that allow individuals to sell votes. I'm just saying that - in the specific context of a discussion on the economy - it will always be a limited, occasional activity and not something to scale trading economies around, and it's not surprising to me that buying votes is a rare event.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote: > I mean, if someone thinks it is better for it to fail and it is in danger of > passing, they can buy my vote to make it more likely to fail. > > We could start giving incentives for people to have the minority opinion when > the vote is counted, but I can see how that could be objectionable. > It's also a fact that I am fine with maintaining systems which work in > theory, but not in practice, or serve a (not always obvious) purpose by > merely existing. I feel that even if I effectively don't > earn anything from the shop, it does serve a purpose which I find valuable. > > 天火狐 > > On 25 October 2017 at 14:25, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote: > > Given that I think VJ Rada is the only person who has purchased a > vote in > > the whole existence of me selling votes, I am inclined to agree. > > The issue is that - if the proposal is an actual idea (not a scam or win > attempt), people (a) want it to win on its own merit and (b) track the > public voting and can see if it's going up and down, and it's rare that > one or two bought votes make a difference. Especially because, if the > voting's close it's likely a "good idea but with something broken", for > which letting it fail and proposing a better proposal is preferred. > > If several people packaged a bloc big enough to make a difference, it > would probably instantly be used as a scam and the bloc would fall > apart. > > > > > >
