When a person starts voting, they are probably not as educated in politics as people who have been voting for a while. So the first time you vote you get 1/4 vote. The second time you get 1/2, third 3/4, from the fourth time on you get a whole vote. or maybe if you don't vote for a long time it will drop down again.
this would also encourage people to vote, because the more you vote, the more it counts.
However, there might be the problem of people just voting at random and not bothering to read about what they're voting on.
-- flyfast, Jun 07 2003

Weighted Voting http://www.worth1000.com/faq.asp#162
Largely to prevent trolls skewing the vote, Worth has a scheme whereby your votes are weighted by your karma; to determine your karma, your votes are ranked against the group average; if you deviate from the nrom to grealty, your karma goes down; if it's largely in line, it goes up; selected jurors get a specially high karma. [DrCurry, Oct 04 2004]

Most complicated weighting Internet voting scheme I've seen so far is on Worth - see link. Complex, but it stops people deliberately skewing the voting.

"...there might be the problem of people just voting at random and not bothering to read about what they're voting on." - my understanding is that the real problem here is with people *annotating* things they haven't bothered to read.
-- DrCurry, Jun 07 2003


It's been @ 2 months since this idea has come up, as opposed to the usual month. flyfast, don't worry about votes.
-- thumbwax, Jun 07 2003


No, some people won't vote until one day, there's an issue that's so compelling, so critical (such as a plebiscite on national sovereignty) that they turn out.

I don't even like Worth's system. It is an outlier exclusion mechanism and sometimes these outliers are the voice of reason. In fact, it just encourages people to vote where the group is heading. In the HB, ideas that accumulate a few positive (or negative) votes would get carried away by people trying to inflate their Karma.

Trolls could set up ghost accounts that always vote in the middle of the road and build up huge Karma to dump on their adversaries.

Any system that skews the result from one person: one vote is inherently counter-democratic.
-- FloridaManatee, Jun 07 2003


One fish, one vote.
-- thumbwax, Jun 07 2003


Impossible to get anyone to register to vote in a key election, since the person knows their vote will only count for 1/4 of a vote.

Will lead to bribes, e.g. Full One Vote If You Contribute $200 To The Independent Party...
-- phundug, Jun 08 2003


// this would also encourage people to vote, because the more you vote, the more it counts. //

What kind of wacky logic is that? People's votes already count as a 'full vote' now and they don't do it. No way they'll go through this process.
-- waugsqueke, Jun 08 2003


As long as everyone starts out at the same level, then "1/4 vote" really means 1 vote (your vote is exactly equal to everyone else's). So voting more would allow you to effectively increase your vote to 2, 3, or 4 times that of a novice. This would, of course, discourage voting among young people and the politically distracted (poor folks), who haven't voted enough to build up their voting power. And any scheme that makes middle-aged white guys more powerful is a *bad* scheme.
-- ConsultingDetective, Feb 07 2004


hmm... why not simply vote "time spent in constituency" ?

Children would also be eligible to vote: their votes wouldn't count for much but it would give their parents a bit more oomph in the arena if they could con(vince) their kids to vote with them.
-- FlyingToaster, Aug 31 2009



random, halfbakery