Surveys: Voting VS Spending

Which is a better way to rank options... voting or spending?  In other words, which is better... democracy or markets?

Poll: 73% support bill protecting undocumented "DREAMers." pic.twitter.com/5dMcivgcQG

— Fox News (@FoxNews) January 22, 2018

I felt compelled to tip! Have I been ‘nudged’ by Caffè Nero? #behavioralscience @rorysutherland pic.twitter.com/72Hy9IJJBc

— Chris Thurling (@ChrisThurling) January 11, 2018

It would be very helpful if you gave people the opportunity to use donations to help rank potential speakers. It would be a survey, but with spending instead of voting. https://t.co/idSS3I3awF Last year the @LPNational used this system to rank potential convention themes. pic.twitter.com/qbtZaEbqJQ

— Pragmatarian (@Pragmatarian) January 23, 2018

Scholarly papers are ranked by cheap signals (citations). Webpages are also ranked by cheap signals (links). Politicians/proposals/policies are also ranked by cheap signals (voting). Wouldn't it be a vastly bigger improvement to replace these cheap signals with costly signals?

— Pragmatarian (@Pragmatarian) January 30, 2018

Part of science is evidence. Do you have any evidence that voting is better than spending at measuring satisfaction? https://t.co/BlwKvfUv4c

— Pragmatarian (@Pragmatarian) February 1, 2018

Where's the proof that voting is better than spending at ranking politicians?

— Pragmatarian (@Pragmatarian) January 30, 2018

Who told you that voting is more useful than spending at measuring usefulness? https://t.co/BlwKvfUv4c

— Pragmatarian (@Pragmatarian) January 29, 2018

Recently I realized that democracy, capitalism and socialism are all about ranking options. Options are either ranked by voting, spending or committee. Do you think that scientists have ranked these three ranking systems?

— Pragmatarian (@Pragmatarian) January 24, 2018

Please quote exactly where Buchanan said...

A. The optimal supply of public goods does *not* depend on people's true preferences.

...or...

B. Voting is more effective than spending at revealing people's true preferences.

— Pragmatarian (@Pragmatarian) January 22, 2018

Which is a more useful measure of usefulness... voting or spending?

— Pragmatarian (@Pragmatarian) January 19, 2018

Do you have any evidence that voting is better than spending at measuring quality?

— Pragmatarian (@Pragmatarian) February 3, 2018

Do you have any evidence that voting (a cheap signal) is better than spending (a costly signal) at measuring usefulness?

— Pragmatarian (@Pragmatarian) February 3, 2018

What's truly insane is that democracy gives unequally irrational people equal influence.

— Pragmatarian (@Pragmatarian) February 4, 2018

Obama Presidential Center VS Public Park

The proposed plan is for 20 acres of Chicago’s Jackson Park to be destroyed and replaced with the Obama Presidential Center. Here’s the comment that I posted on the Dezeen story…

***************************

Imagine a survey…

Should the presidential center be built in the park?

Yes
No

But instead of participants simply voting for their preferred option, they would spend any amount of money on it. This system has two benefits…

1. Everybody would see and know the actual demand for/against the proposal.
2. The city would raise money to help reduce its ridiculously huge debt.

From my perspective, the world needs a lot more trees than buildings. So I’d definitely spend my money on the “No” option.

***************************

It is impossible for anyone, even if he be a statesman of genius, to weigh the whole community’s utility and sacrifice against each other. — Knut Wicksell, A New Principle of Just Taxation

The Suburbanist gets credit for bringing this issue to my attention…

Carve 20 acres out of Central Park for a library? What an awful idea. Better to buy the land for housing. https://t.co/MyrXMAPb6t

— The Suburbanist (@The_Suburbanist) January 17, 2018

http://ideaplug.org/?t=Chicago_feedback

The Efficient Allocation Of Babies

In my thread... Game Theory For Baby Names... Bombadil sarcastically suggested that babies be allocated according to spending.  It reminded me of the first episode of the Australian show "Offspring"...

And we land in whichever family we scored. Do babies end up with the families that suit them best?  Would we be better off swapping around?  

Do the best with what you're given, kids, like the rest of us.  For better or worse, you can't choose your family.