4 ms·
While we are at it, why not move to a delegative system. Every voter can directly vote for or against any given bill. They can also 'give' their vote to any oth
by gizmo686 14y ago
While we are at it, why not move to a delegative system. Every voter can directly vote for or against any given bill. They can also 'give' their vote to any other voter, who can vote on their behalf or pass the vote to yet another voter.
At any point in time, you can change who has your vote, or overrule them on a given issue. (And the person who you gave your vote to can do the same if he delegated it to a third person, and so on down the line.)
This has the advantage that if there is a bill that you care about, you can be sure that your vote goes the way you want. And otherwise, you can give your vote to the politician whose views most align with your own, and politicians have power directly proportional to their support.
- vidarh 14y agoI like the idea. The biggest problem would be to make it safe against voter intimidation/vote buying etc. by making it possible to build hierarchies of delegated votes small enough to chase down individuals.
- gizmo686 14y agoUnfourtuantly, the problem of vote buying is even easier to implement than that, as some could confirm that you actually gave your vote to them. You might be able to use cryptology to construct a system where it is impossible to confirm who delegated there votes to you (although this would likely limit the any-time switching of your vote, or reduce the granularity for which someone can know how many votes (s)he has).
- eli 14y agoHave you looked at California's system of requiring voter approval of certain tax bills? That does not seem like something I would want to emulate elsewhere.