> Why do I need to pick someone who poorly represents my views and will probably vote against my interests, when I could easily vote on actual issues. That's a

> Why do I need to pick someone who poorly represents my views and will probably vote against my interests, when I could easily vote on actual issues. That's a great idea! In fact, I can see a business opportunity for an enterprising individual (or group of individuals, as it may be) under such a system: one could assemble a team of advisors who would analyse and debate legislation in order to decide on an optimal outcome for the country. Their advice could then be given to paying subscribers, who would vote in accordance with it, and thus pass legislation which benefits the country. If the subscribers disagree with the advisors, then they could subscribe to a different team of advisors after a period of time, and use that team's advice. This way, the subscribers get the benefit of deciding the country's future without the hassle of having to deeply analyse issues each-and-every time a new piece of law comes up. This is especially beneficial if they are not knowledgeable in or care little about a given field, but do not wish to leave legislation of that field to a small, entirely self-selected group of individuals (democracy is about representing the interests of the whole, after all). Yes, I've got the basics all sorted out. To paraphrase Phil Karlton, the hard part is thinking up a name for the damn thing! I was thinking something edgy and retro like "The Parliament" or perhaps "Congress", but I'm open to other suggestions as well.