Thanks for the thoughts. I agree that the first thing you point out is a problem, but let me just point out: in the event that it becomes a problem, that means that our platform is already a wild success. After all, I’d be very happy if our platform took out single-digit millions of money out of politics (compared to the single-digit billions that are spent). If we become a large fraction of all money going into politics, then yeah, this will become a problem, perhaps solvable in the way you suggest.
Regarding your thoughts on ads, that seems like a plausible hypothesis. But regarding matching funds going toward anti-polarization organizations: well, I’d be quite interested in that if there were effective anti-polarization organizations. And maybe there are, but I’m not aware of any, and I’m not super optimistic.
I think the Center for Election Science, an EA organization that advocates approval voting, could be an effective anti-polarization organization. There seems to be widespread dissatisfaction with the 2-party system, and I believe it’s contributing significantly to polarization.There’s something rather delightful about money being matched from Republican and Democrat donors in order to fund an organization which aims to get rid of the 2-party system :)
Naturally, as the ED for CES, this is my favorite idea!
I agree that the first thing you point out is a problem, but let me just point out: in the event that it becomes a problem, that means that our platform is already a wild success.
Alternatively, people will predict this and then refuse to use it in the first place in those cases.