Can't say I agree about quadratic voting being superior to approval or range voting, though. Simplicity is a virtue in electoral systems, particularly in a relatively low-trust society like the US- and that's ignoring implementation.
Can't say I agree about quadratic voting being superior to approval or range voting, though. Simplicity is a virtue in electoral systems, particularly in a relatively low-trust society like the US- and that's ignoring implementation.
I'm more interested in getting our revenue sources right (i.e. the public collection of land rent). Is the tyranny of the majority a major concern after that? It seems like the most viable projects should move forward by simply majority and the remainder can be returned as a citizen's dividend. Tyranny only exists when a decision creates a barrier to alternatives right? Perhaps someone can give an example where a spirited minority may want to use public funding for something that the majority does not want (or is less interested in) and that this spirited minority could not take their dividends to provide for themselves.
https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/147740277221558682...