# Always impossible! - not

Saari at aol.com Saari at aol.com
Wed Jul 15 12:53:06 PDT 1998

```In a message dated 98-07-11 01:40:18 EDT, you write:

>Is Mr. Saari suggesting that if 99 poor voters spend \$1 each on a choice and
>if 1 rich voter spends \$100 to oppose such choice that the rich person should
>prevail ??

No, that's not how it works.  The proposed payoff scale is:
single vote - free
double vote - \$1
triple vote - \$10

So in the example given, there are 99 x 2 = 188 total votes in SUPPORT.
There is 1 x 4 = 4 total votes OPPOSED.

The ratio of total SUPPORT over total OPPOSED is 188:4 or  47:1

Assuming a pre-decided "passing ratio for all proposals" of majority, or 4:1,
or 10:1, then the proposal passes easily.  The extravagant OPPOSED voter has
less ability to "buy" the outcome than it might first appear.

I also note that assuming the vote fees are redistributed amongst the
participants, then each poor voter will get back 99c of their \$1, PLUS an
additional \$1 courtesy of the extravagant OPPOSED voter.  Sounds like a good
deal all around.

Mike S

```