Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Quadratic voting in Colorado rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Erik Henry
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind—Einstein
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Democrats in the Colorado House of Representatives used an interesting voting scheme to decide which appropriations bills to bring forward. Rather than having the 41 folks just do a straight vote for their favorite amongst the 60+ bills, they used a quadratic voting scheme developed by Lalley (U. of Chicago) and Weyl (Microsoft).

Quote:
“We have a limited pot of money to spend on new legislation every year,” says Chris Hansen, a state representative from Denver and chair of the House Appropriations Committee. “So we needed to devise a method for accurately capturing the preference of those caucus members.” Hansen isn’t just a pol. He’s a PhD energy economist with an interest in game theory. He’s open to weird science, is the point. So a pal of his, hearing about his plight, told him about a new idea: quadratic voting.

Each rep was given 100 tokens to spend on the bill of their choice -- with the catch that the cost of multiple votes on the same bill increases quadratically. So to place one vote on your favorite bill costs one token, but two votes on that bill cost four tokens, five votes cost 25 tokens, or ten votes would use up all 100 of your tokens.

So you could, for example, buy 10 votes for one bill; buy 7 votes for two different bills and 1 vote for two others; buy 5 votes for four different bills; buy 2 votes for twenty-five different bills; etc.

The idea is this helps to capture not just your choices, but how intensely you value those choices.

Colorado Tried a New Way to Vote: Make People Pay—Quadratically


One drawback I could see (if it's a drawback), is that coordinating votes amongst a coalition could skew the results. That is, if four of us get together and agree to each vote for each others' bills, we could each place 5 votes on the four different bills -- for a total of 20 votes on each. If we each worked independently and just voted on our own bill, each would only get 10 votes.

Any thoughts?
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anatoly
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Very clever, but complicated. Thus it is doomed.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
フィル
Australia
Ashfield
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
badge
I am the wasp / that burrows in! I am the shriek / of twilight din!
Avatar
mbmbmb
It’s basically planning poker:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_poker
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Erik17 wrote:
One drawback I could see (if it's a drawback), is that coordinating votes amongst a coalition could skew the results.


And hence political parties. In fact quadratic votes (which I had not previously seen suggested) make parties stronger, and they are already strong with linear votes.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sbszine wrote:
It’s basically planning poker:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_poker


Having just skimmed that article, no, I don't think it is. QV is allocating from a limited pool of resources and high bids cost you. That's not what I saw there for PP. But thanks for the link.

But (sticking to PP) there's an interesting account of a major fail in estimating in Kahnemann's book (Thinking Fast and Slow). To cut it short, all people estimated a task at about 2 years. Then the one person in the room who had done something similar (and who had estimated about 2 years) was asked how long that had taken. 7 years. Did anyone now want revise their estimate? No. How long did it turn out to take? 9 years.

(And I've been there. The things no one thinks about are the 1 month delay while we wait for Bob to do his bit, but he's moving house, and the 2 month delay while we wait to all be available for a face to face meeting, and ...)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
Professional Agitation Consultant... HTTP Error 418 I'm a Teapot!
Avatar
mbmb
and that is why you should always use

'The Scotty Principle

(n.) The defacto gold star standard for delivering products and/or services within a projected timeframe. Derived from the original Star Trek series wherein Lt. Cmdr. Montgomery 'Scotty' Scott consistently made the seemingly impossible happen just in time to save the crew of the Enterprise from disaster.

The premise is simple:

1) Caluculate average required time for completion of given task.

2) Depending on importance of task, add 25-50% additional time to original estimate.

3) Report and commit to inflated time estimate with superiors, clients, etc.

4) Under optimal conditions the task is completed closer to the original time estimate vs. the inflated delivery time expected by those waiting.
The following situation is a simulation of the Scotty Principle in practice.

Kirk: "The ship seems sluggish today. When was the last time you did a tune-up on the warp drive?"

Scotty: "Aye, sir. She's due. Last maintenance was 56 days ago."

Kirk: (light chuckle) "Well, what are you waiting for? An ambush from cloaked Romulans?"

Scotty: "I'll need to check how much dilithium we have in supply, but she'll be better than new in no time."

Kirk: "And that will be...?"

Scotty: "Six hours."

--- four hours later ---

Scotty: "All done, sir. Care to test her out?"

--- Enterprise taken rapidly to warp 3, does a few doughnuts, comes to a smooth stop ---

Kirk: "Scotty, there's no finer engineer in this quadrant!"'.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mortego
United States
New Kensington
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Many years ago when I was a high school marching band director (1999) I did Drum Major tryouts in a similar way. A colleague of mine had said that elections in some Nordic country (can't remember which one) did elections this way.

I gave each voting student 3 "fixed" tickets with numbers on them indicating their strength in preference. One ticket had a "1", another a "2" and one with a "3".

There were 7 candidates for Drum Major, I wanted two of them.

The results were very satisfying and the two that got the position seemed to do well in those positions. However, neither of them were the ones I would've chosen myself.

There were a few other determinants involved, one being a conducting audition and another giving commands all adjudicated by my professional music peers, I did not want to participate.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Olli Juhala
Finland
Turku
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Erik17 wrote:
The Democrats in the Colorado House of Representatives used an interesting voting scheme to decide which appropriations bills to bring forward. Rather than having the 41 folks just do a straight vote for their favorite amongst the 60+ bills, they used a quadratic voting scheme developed by Lalley (U. of Chicago) and Weyl (Microsoft).

Quote:
“We have a limited pot of money to spend on new legislation every year,” says Chris Hansen, a state representative from Denver and chair of the House Appropriations Committee. “So we needed to devise a method for accurately capturing the preference of those caucus members.” Hansen isn’t just a pol. He’s a PhD energy economist with an interest in game theory. He’s open to weird science, is the point. So a pal of his, hearing about his plight, told him about a new idea: quadratic voting.

Each rep was given 100 tokens to spend on the bill of their choice -- with the catch that the cost of multiple votes on the same bill increases quadratically. So to place one vote on your favorite bill costs one token, but two votes on that bill cost four tokens, five votes cost 25 tokens, or ten votes would use up all 100 of your tokens.

So you could, for example, buy 10 votes for one bill; buy 7 votes for two different bills and 1 vote for two others; buy 5 votes for four different bills; buy 2 votes for twenty-five different bills; etc.

The idea is this helps to capture not just your choices, but how intensely you value those choices.

Colorado Tried a New Way to Vote: Make People Pay—Quadratically


One drawback I could see (if it's a drawback), is that coordinating votes amongst a coalition could skew the results. That is, if four of us get together and agree to each vote for each others' bills, we could each place 5 votes on the four different bills -- for a total of 20 votes on each. If we each worked independently and just voted on our own bill, each would only get 10 votes.

Any thoughts?


I can see advantages for something like this within a caucus for deciding legislative priorities and bills to push forward with, but I don't think it has significant advantages for passing bills in a chamber.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I thought everyone else was going to vote for Hillary, so I voted for Jill Stein instead.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
growlley wrote:
and that is why you should always use

'The Scotty Principle

(n.) The defacto gold star standard for delivering products and/or services within a projected timeframe. Derived from the original Star Trek series wherein Lt. Cmdr. Montgomery 'Scotty' Scott consistently made the seemingly impossible happen just in time to save the crew of the Enterprise from disaster.

The premise is simple:

1) Caluculate average required time for completion of given task.

2) Depending on importance of task, add 25-50% additional time to original estimate.

3) Report and commit to inflated time estimate with superiors, clients, etc.

4) Under optimal conditions the task is completed closer to the original time estimate vs. the inflated delivery time expected by those waiting.
The following situation is a simulation of the Scotty Principle in practice.

Kirk: "The ship seems sluggish today. When was the last time you did a tune-up on the warp drive?"

Scotty: "Aye, sir. She's due. Last maintenance was 56 days ago."

Kirk: (light chuckle) "Well, what are you waiting for? An ambush from cloaked Romulans?"

Scotty: "I'll need to check how much dilithium we have in supply, but she'll be better than new in no time."

Kirk: "And that will be...?"

Scotty: "Six hours."

--- four hours later ---

Scotty: "All done, sir. Care to test her out?"

--- Enterprise taken rapidly to warp 3, does a few doughnuts, comes to a smooth stop ---

Kirk: "Scotty, there's no finer engineer in this quadrant!"'.


This was expounded upon in The Next Generation, as well, when LaForge gave accurate time estimates in front of him. "No, no, no, you have to add time to the estimate!" Also he had written a manual on something and LaForge was like, "But it's only rated for X" and Scottie's like, "I wrote the manual. It'll hold."

Loved that episode.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan C
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Erik17 wrote:
The Democrats in the Colorado House of Representatives used an interesting voting scheme to decide which appropriations bills to bring forward. Rather than having the 41 folks just do a straight vote for their favorite amongst the 60+ bills, they used a quadratic voting scheme developed by Lalley (U. of Chicago) and Weyl (Microsoft).

Quote:
“We have a limited pot of money to spend on new legislation every year,” says Chris Hansen, a state representative from Denver and chair of the House Appropriations Committee. “So we needed to devise a method for accurately capturing the preference of those caucus members.” Hansen isn’t just a pol. He’s a PhD energy economist with an interest in game theory. He’s open to weird science, is the point. So a pal of his, hearing about his plight, told him about a new idea: quadratic voting.

Each rep was given 100 tokens to spend on the bill of their choice -- with the catch that the cost of multiple votes on the same bill increases quadratically. So to place one vote on your favorite bill costs one token, but two votes on that bill cost four tokens, five votes cost 25 tokens, or ten votes would use up all 100 of your tokens.

So you could, for example, buy 10 votes for one bill; buy 7 votes for two different bills and 1 vote for two others; buy 5 votes for four different bills; buy 2 votes for twenty-five different bills; etc.

The idea is this helps to capture not just your choices, but how intensely you value those choices.

Colorado Tried a New Way to Vote: Make People Pay—Quadratically


One drawback I could see (if it's a drawback), is that coordinating votes amongst a coalition could skew the results. That is, if four of us get together and agree to each vote for each others' bills, we could each place 5 votes on the four different bills -- for a total of 20 votes on each. If we each worked independently and just voted on our own bill, each would only get 10 votes.

Any thoughts?


This method is reminiscent of Phil Eklund's card markets in games such as Pax Porfiriana, Pax Renaissance, or Pax Pamir, where cards available further up the market are available but at an ever-increasing cost.

But can politicians do basic math? That would be my biggest concern--that each would have to hire a 1st grade helper to make sure their numbers are right.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lola Granola
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jythier wrote:

This was expounded upon in The Next Generation, as well, when LaForge gave accurate time estimates in front of him. "No, no, no, you have to add time to the estimate!" Also he had written a manual on something and LaForge was like, "But it's only rated for X" and Scottie's like, "I wrote the manual. It'll hold."

Loved that episode.


"I told the captain I would have this diagnostic done in an hour."
"And how long will it really take you?"
"An hour!"
"Oh, you didn't tell him how long it would really take, did you?"
"Of course I did."
"Oh, laddie, you have a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker."
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.