<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>ComputerGuru</author><text>This is susceptible to ballot poisoning: lobby to put something you had no intention of doing but your opposition feels very strongly about on the ballot and then watch them waste their credits “reaffirming” the status quo of the hot-button issue while educating “your” voters to prioritize the actual issue under contention.&lt;p&gt;Imagine a ballot with one contentious question A. Opposition Y adds a question B they know will flop but is guaranteed to disproportionately attract all the attention &lt;i&gt;of the other party&lt;/i&gt; to the ballot. Party X voters waste their credits on the red herring question B (which has greater than 50% support in the overall population anyway and would never fail them) while opposition Y advises its voters to spend the credits on the actual question A they care about.&lt;p&gt;As a completely contrived example, the real question is a controversial “add a carbon tax” that could go either way and one party either adds “ban all abortions in all cases for everyone” or “ban all firearms for all people” to the ballot to misdirect. Either of these is guaranteed to disproportionately attract all the attention of one of the parties more than the other despite neither having a remote chance of passing. Because of the phrasing and the topic chosen, even if you don’t educate your voters you can rely on the fact that &lt;i&gt;their&lt;/i&gt; voters simply care a lot more about the topic than yours do.</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The user experience problems of quadratic voting</title><url>https://timdaub.github.io/2022/03/27/the-user-experience-problems-of-quadratic-voting/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>captainmuon</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t understand how quadatic voting can deal with collusion. Say I want to give 4 credits to A, and a friend wants to give 4 credits to B. So each of us gives 2 votes to their preference. But if we join together, we each give 2 credits to each option, that is sqrt(2) votes. So each option gets 2*sqrt(2) ~= 2.8 votes instead. So we are strongly incentived to found a party and to pool our votes. I&amp;#x27;m not sure this is what people intended.&lt;p&gt;It also seems to punish caring strongly for a certain issue, whereas I wonder if that isn&amp;#x27;t maybe an indicator that you are informed about a topic, and thus your vote should count more rather than less?</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The user experience problems of quadratic voting</title><url>https://timdaub.github.io/2022/03/27/the-user-experience-problems-of-quadratic-voting/</url></story>