Take note if you're thinking: > Hmm, but what if "a minority that cares passionately" are nazis or religious fanatics or some other extremist group? Then they

Take note if you're thinking: > Hmm, but what if "a minority that cares passionately" are nazis or religious fanatics or some other extremist group? Then they cause an outcome by paying all the people that are not in the minority lots of money, and then next election the majority uses that money, more effectively per voter, to reverse the outcome. If you think the median individual is rational enough to be allowed to vote at all (I don't), then the passionate minority still has to keep the majority happy or else they transfer large sums of money and therefore a larger sum of distributed-voting-power onto that group for future elections. Understanding the quadratic effects and that the money is returned per capita is absolutely key to the beauty of it. Imagine 10 rich voters buying an election out of 1000 voters. They spend $10 million to do so. The next election, those 990 (now unhappy) voters, with the proceeds of the $10m money they received, can all buy many more distributed votes than the 10 voters were able to buy, and reverse the decision overwhelmingly. So if you're really worried about this (and think voters are rational), just allow snap elections or votes of no confidence if there's enough protest, and the majority with their new dollars can right the ship very quickly.