Eric Posner

Interesting discussion by Glen Weyl on rethinking data as labor, rights, auctions, and commodification from his Radical Markets book[0,1]. I wasn't aware of his or Posner's work [2] until seeing an announcement of a talk earlier today. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLOtMMylv5EQ-1iC15BmlQIZ3tFklQ5LtL&… [1] https://press.princeton.edu/titles/11222.html [2] http://ericposner.com/

If you are going to hand out points for people to vote with, may I suggest quadratic voting.[0] [0] http://ericposner.com/quadratic-voting/

There's a variant of this that's been studied: quadratic voting, but more in the context of corporate governance. It actually can have positive effects. http://ericposner.com/quadratic-voting/

Prior to writing my response I did a brief search and in less than five minutes found multiple such people. Here are some: 1. Eric Posner - http://ericposner.com/is-an-immigration-ban-on-muslims-unconstitutiona… 2. Peter Spiro & David Martin - http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-muslim-registry-con… 3. John Banzhaf - http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/president-obama-is-wrong-on-the-law-tr… And here (http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/12/constitution-check-would-a-… is a discussion that points out that it's a complicated question and "led some scholars to the confident conclusion that a flat ban on Muslims would now be upheld, without judicial interference."

How does Quadratic Voting fare in meeting these criteria? http://ericposner.com/quadratic-voting/

Look into quadratic voting (http://ericposner.com/quadratic-voting/) as a solution to e.g. the gay marriage problem.

Similar to quadratic voting. http://ericposner.com/quadratic-voting/

Why remove downvoting directly? I'm not against the idea, I just want to understand the thinking. I wonder if the problem is the binary nature of so many things. 5 star/1 star reviews are the most common, we have up and down votes, but no real context for that. I wonder if the problem that needs to be solved isn't context, rather than directional. This is me spitballing, so feel free to IGNORE everything below. I was listening to the Freakonomics podcast on proper voting (e.g. elections) the other day - this one: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/idea-must-die-election-edition/ - and there was an idea called quadratic voting. http://ericposner.com/quadratic-voting/ Anyway, the idea is that we all get X votes, and we can vote more on some things, e.g. if we REALLY want marijuana legal, I can vote 4 votes. The twist is that the cost of extra votes is the square of the number of votes, 2 costs 4, 3 costs 9 (we all get maths works). The theory is this lets people vote on what they care about, much less than simply voting equally. I was wondering there isn't some way to create a system where you earn votes, that you can spend in some similar way, e.g. you "earn" upvotes from others, and can spend them elsewhere. If everyone got a single vote, but you earned extra votes you could spend in interesting ways at increasing cost, e.g. you could heavily downvote an idea at an exponential rate, it might make people less a victim of common denominator views, give fringe views more…