On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Arkady English wrote: > On 25 September 2012 17:27, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Proposal: Two-way Plutocracy (AI=2) > > > > Amend Rule 2375 (Plutocratic Chamber) by replacing: > > > > Any entity may spend a Ruble to increase an entity's voting > > limit on a Plutocratic Decision by 1. > > > > with: > > > > Any entity may spend a ruble to increase an entity's voting > > limit on a Plutocratic Decision by one. Any entity may spend > > two rubles to decrease an entity's voting limit on a Plutocratic > > Decision by one (to a minimum of zero). > > Is there any known effect of having a negative voting limit? I'm just > wondering if the rule would be more interesting without the minimum.
We have a series of precedents and traditions that votes and currencies are treated like physical "things". That is, like physical things, negative numbers can be used in interim calculations but when the calculation is done, while you can owe someone an apple, but you can't actually possess a negative apple (or cast a negative vote). Because that just goes against the common definition of what a vote actually "is". That's not to say this tradition can't be overruled by an explicit rule, but the rule would have to do more than allow a voting limit to go negative, it would have to spell out the effects of a negative voting limit, otherwise the votes just wouldn't count. Not that designing a system couldn't have a good/interesting result! -G.
