Is quadratic voting being significantly used anywhere in the world right now? Especially in any type of political system or social structure (beyond blockchains)?

  • 1
    "He believed the two main problems of the majority-rule model are that it doesn't always advance the public good and it weakens democracy." The majority winning weakens democracy? To the waste dump, please.
    – ccprog
    Feb 4 at 21:52
  • 6
    One might be skeptical that quadratic voting would actually reduce these issues, as I am, but it's not as facially contradictory as you make it sound. The idea seems to be that, for instance, a majority of Christians in a country might mildly like to make it harder for people of other religions to participate in politics, whereas a minority of Muslims, Hindus, Jews and so might strongly want to prevent such barriers from existing.
    – Obie 2.0
    Feb 5 at 10:16
  • 5
    So if everyone votes in a simple majority system on (for instance) whether non-Christians should have to pay a poll tax, the poll tax will always win. It does not cost the Christians anything. But if everyone has 10 votes, the non-Christians spend 9 of their 10 voting against the poll tax—whereas the Christians, who only care a little, spend one each and spend the rest voting on abortion and things like that. So in that sense, democracy is strengthened, because minorities can defeat measures aimed at stifling their participation.
    – Obie 2.0
    Feb 5 at 10:19
  • 8
    Whether it is a good solution is another question. It would probably reduce overt political attempts to disenfranchise minorities, which could usually be defeated by organization of those minorities, but at the expense of reducing democracy in other areas: basically, any areas that some reasonably large group does not view as an existential threat to their lives or political rights. For instance, if I strongly want polonium to be legal for purchase, but most people mildly want it to be illegal, my view would probably win out under this system.
    – Obie 2.0
    Feb 5 at 10:26
  • 2
    Doesn't the Wikipedia page you linked to already give examples?
    – user103496
    Feb 6 at 3:38

2 Answers 2


Colorado's Recently Terminated Experiment

Quadratic voting has been used for limited matters (setting budget agenda priorities) by Democrats in Colorado's state legislature since 2019. In Colorado, the Democrats currently have a two-thirds majority in the state house and are just one seat short of a two-thirds majority in the state senate.

A Colorado judge ruled against this practice in early January of this year (2024), because the internal caucus voting process was anonymous and secret, contrary to state constitutional requirements. As explained at this link:

Democratic leaders argued the process wasn’t a true vote, but rather that its outcome was a data point that members considered as they decided how to spend limited state money. While the unofficial vote was secret, they contended it was more representative than the prior practice in which key members of the legislative majority set funding priorities without broader input.

But that secrecy is what Denver District Court Judge David H. Goldberg took issue with, even while agreeing that the tool could be valuable for figuring out lawmakers’ broad interests quickly.

“Simply put, ranking a bill and emphasizing the importance of a bill evidences that legislator’s mental impressions, including strategic considerations, trading relationships, and sympathetic ideologies with other legislators,” Goldberg wrote. “These considerations may conflict or be consonant with a position that the legislator has taken with his or her constituents. The public has the right to know.”

This ruling came immediately prior to the 2024 legislative session (Colorado state legislature meets for the first 120 days of each year).

Three Other Examples

Wikipedia also notes examples of (1) one pan-European political party (Volt Germany) to priorities issues for its party platform on a one time basis at its second party Congress, (2) a city council in Brazil (to prioritize issues annually), and (3) a government sponsored, non-binding, online citizens input portal for budget issues in Taiwan.


Taiwan's annual Presidential Hackathon has used Quadratic Voting to judge contestants since 2019.

From GovInsider.Asia's interview with Digital Minister Audrey Tang:

If you were to share one piece of advice that you learned in 2019, what would it be? Quadratic Voting (QV) works really well. In this year’s Presidential Hackathon, we introduced QV: Each participant received 99 points, and voting for proposals required 1 point for 1 vote, 4 points for 2 votes, 9 points for 3 votes, and so on. Thus, the points spent are equal to the square of the total votes. The traditional one-person-one-vote design often fails to effectively reflect the strength of opinions. In QV, the more concentrated the votes, the more points must be spent, so that the effect caused by each vote is proportional to the cost for each additional vote. This avoids vote rigging, voiding, or other behavior that hides a genuine intention.

Quadratic voting was still used in the latest June 2023 Hackathon: See 2023 Quadratic Voting Results.

I believe it will also be used in 2024 and so this is a "currently active organization" that uses quadratic voting.

  • 1
    This answer was to the question, "Does currently active organization use quadratic voting?"
    – user103496
    Feb 6 at 4:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .