> It doesn't strike me as completely horrible. Lots of people all making small contributions is basically the kickstarter model. Prospective politicians could p

> It doesn't strike me as completely horrible. Lots of people all making small contributions is basically the kickstarter model. Prospective politicians could pitch thier platform on kickstarter or the like. It would work for some, and kickstarter is good proof of that, but what about all those who don't give a shit? Everyone has to pick a proxy (or all those who want to vote anyway) so the field will be dominated by the free options. If there are no free options allowed then this is basically a poll tax and is truly awful for a democracy. > But if politicians are perceived to be captured by lobbyists, they'll get fewer votes delegated to them Will they? Why would people act differently than they do now?. The results of a large scale test called every democracy tried so far has shown that that's not the case. You are assuming rational self interested actors participating in this system rather than human beings. > Nor does it show that this is always something to be avoided True, I was taking that as a given in any new system since it's a well discussed problem. A lot of the discussion around this idea assumes having a lot of politician/proxies competing for votes, but the party system has been shown to be the perfect method of keeping competition to a minimum, so I assumed you would need to limit party power in some way in order to get competition. But you are absolutely correct that it is not really related to this post except tangentially.