pull down to refresh
50 sats \ 13 replies \ @Bell_curve 10 Apr \ on: Stacker Saloon
We need new voting rules: only landowners can vote
It should just be an outright auction mechanism, but you can put money for or against anyone. Whoever ends up with the highest positive total wins. Third parties would have a real shot, plus it would raise a bunch of money that could offset taxes.
reply
Is there literature on this type of auction
reply
There's literature on a bunch of different voting mechanisms, I'm not sure if anyone's looked at this one, specifically. I ran it past a friend who's into mechanism design and he thought it made sense, but he hadn't heard anyone talk about it before.
It's a type of all-pay auction and those have certainly been studied extensively.
I have seen people advocate for a system where you can buy as many votes as you want, but they increase in cost exponentially. I know that's been studied. Supposedly, that design has a bunch of really nice properties.
reply
Campaign donors would cease to exist?
Instead save your money for voting
reply
Exactly. There are quite a few implications like that. Maybe I'll write up a post about it tomorrow to see what other people think about it.
reply
reply
It is similar, but without the part where you trust politicians to "formally define and manage an after-the-fact measurement of national welfare".
What I'm talking about is just bidding on the outcomes you want. Voting is cheap talk, while this is a costly signal. If anyone can appreciate why that matters it's the SN team.
reply
Iām curious about the mechanics and rules etc
reply
It would basically work by pledging money towards the outcomes you want to see: i.e. $1000 on Biden losing, $100 on RFK winning, etc. Whichever outcome happens, that's what you pay.
I misspoke earlier. It's not an all-pay auction. I hadn't thought about this in a while and forgot exactly how it works.
reply
Prediction markets?