I would prefer to get the $200 million since I think using this money to fight existential risk would more than offset the 70% or so (as of now) chance that my preferred candidate will lose the election.
So, your preferred candidate (EY?) would be expected to provide less than about $285M delta to fight existential risk?
I was stepping somewhat outside the box set by the previous box- for me, X is greater than the amount of wealth on the planet, but P is so small for a non-mainstream candidate that XP is negligible.
X is greater than the amount of wealth on the planet
I don’t believe you. Compare your level of happiness/sadness over the election results to how you would feel if Bill Gates decided to give you $30 billion to spend however you see fit. Given that the House and Senate are controlled by different political parties (so each party has the ability to block any new law from going into effect) the election wasn’t as important as you are making it out to be.
Contrast “Being able to select one of two candidates” with “Being able to select from all people meeting constitutional requirements.”
$30B isn’t nearly enough to enact reform in the military (something the CiC can do without Congressional approval), nor in the rest of the executive branch alphabet soup. Decisions regarding what laws to focus on enforcing are nearly as effective as decisions to repeal laws. The tricky part would be implementing reform in such a manner as to outlive the single expected term of office.
I agree that I would rather have a large sum of money than personally deciding the election. An interesting question would be how much money would it take? There’s also the bias that I would take a small sum of money because it would benefit me. Perhaps a better way of framing this would be a choice between an effective charity or a random LW getting a sum of money or personally deciding the election.
Let X = the amount of money such that you are indifferent between being given X and getting to choose who wins the election.
Let P = the probability your vote would decide the election.
XP = the rough expected value of voting.
Say we need XP>$10 to make it worth voting. If P = 1/20M then you need X>$200M, which seems way too big.
Of course risk aversion would complicate this.
If you had a choice between getting large amount of money and personally deciding the election, what would you do?
I would prefer to get the $200 million since I think using this money to fight existential risk would more than offset the 70% or so (as of now) chance that my preferred candidate will lose the election.
So, your preferred candidate (EY?) would be expected to provide less than about $285M delta to fight existential risk?
I was stepping somewhat outside the box set by the previous box- for me, X is greater than the amount of wealth on the planet, but P is so small for a non-mainstream candidate that XP is negligible.
I don’t believe you. Compare your level of happiness/sadness over the election results to how you would feel if Bill Gates decided to give you $30 billion to spend however you see fit. Given that the House and Senate are controlled by different political parties (so each party has the ability to block any new law from going into effect) the election wasn’t as important as you are making it out to be.
Contrast “Being able to select one of two candidates” with “Being able to select from all people meeting constitutional requirements.”
$30B isn’t nearly enough to enact reform in the military (something the CiC can do without Congressional approval), nor in the rest of the executive branch alphabet soup. Decisions regarding what laws to focus on enforcing are nearly as effective as decisions to repeal laws. The tricky part would be implementing reform in such a manner as to outlive the single expected term of office.
I agree that I would rather have a large sum of money than personally deciding the election. An interesting question would be how much money would it take? There’s also the bias that I would take a small sum of money because it would benefit me. Perhaps a better way of framing this would be a choice between an effective charity or a random LW getting a sum of money or personally deciding the election.