论文标题

流动民主。关于投票委派的两个实验

Liquid Democracy. Two Experiments on Delegation in Voting

论文作者

Mooers, Victoria, Campbell, Joseph, Casella, Alessandra, de Lara, Lucas, Ravindran, Dilip

论文摘要

参与式民主的支持者赞美流动民主:决定由全民投票做出,但选民自由地委派了他们的选票。当出现更好的知情选民时,代表团可以增加正确决定的可能性。但是,必须将委托使用很少使用,因为它通过投票减少了汇总的信息。在两个不同的实验中,我们发现代表团表现不佳,既多数投票也不是更简单的弃权选择。在严格控制的实验实验中,以精确的数学术语和非常明显的方式传达了受试者的信息精度,结果是由于过度造成的。在一个在线运行的感知任务中,信息的精度不确定,代表团仍然很高,而且表现不佳,多数投票和弃权。此外,受试者显着高估了更好知识的选民的精度,强调流动民主对多种噪音来源脆弱。本文通过结合两个截然不同的实验程序来做出创新的方法论贡献:对投票规则的研究将受益于对受控实验的补充,并在模棱两可的情况下使用已知的信息精确度进行了测试,这是在许多投票情况下的现实假设。

Proponents of participatory democracy praise Liquid Democracy: decisions are taken by referendum, but voters delegate their votes freely. When better informed voters are present, delegation can increase the probability of a correct decision. However, delegation must be used sparely because it reduces the information aggregated through voting. In two different experiments, we find that delegation underperforms both universal majority voting and the simpler option of abstention. In a tightly controlled lab experiment where the subjects' precision of information is conveyed in precise mathematical terms and very salient, the result is due to overdelegation. In a perceptual task run online where the precision of information is not known precisely, delegation remains very high and again underperforms both majority voting and abstention. In addition, subjects substantially overestimate the precision of the better informed voters, underlining that Liquid Democracy is fragile to multiple sources of noise. The paper makes an innovative methodological contribution by combining two very different experimental procedures: the study of voting rules would benefit from complementing controlled experiments with known precision of information with tests under ambiguity, a realistic assumption in many voting situations.

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源