Discussion about this post

User's avatar
guest's avatar

Choosing between A, B, C, D, E is often less important than deciding what those letters are exactly. Every fine detail and wording behind them can change the end result and the best choice. Negotiation, fact finding, consensus building, preparing choices are the hidden core of democracy.

Before any choice is made, people involved should meet and discuss and chart the options, invent experts and interest groups. That's the hard part in representative, direct and any form of democracy.

Political scientists are trying to figure out how to make this process better as a whole. The overall quality of the process decides how good the end result is. There are proposals for participatory or deliberative democracy or improving legislative process in representative democracy.

Democracy requires legitimacy. You need to make people commit to choices made in the process. Making decision process less personal and mechanical can be a mistake.

Suggestion: Robin, you should try find a way to embed the prediction market into the early phases in the legislative process. The role of experts and information acquiring already exists in the system but it's not as principled as it should be. In my opinion prediction markets and information aggregation should work as guide during the legislative process, not a method for making choices.

Suggestion 2 Law might have clause that ties it into prediction market. If it looks like the intent of law is not achieved by the law at some point based on the market, the law must be voted again or it expires.

Expand full comment
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

1) in that case your 4th paragraph should either say that it's not considering non-bounty gains G, or it should include them by changing (A+C)/B to (A+C)/(B+G), as you effectively did 2 paragraphs later.

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts