I think you got a point, namely that the initial question is flawed, but I don't agree entirely. Anarchists might want no government, at all. However, even ana

I think you got a point, namely that the initial question is flawed, but I don't agree entirely. Anarchists might want no government, at all. However, even anarchists could participate on the side, for example by making a general suggestion ("Remove the government.") or by making particular suggestions ("Remove taxes", "Remove legislation", etc.). So I'm not quite sure what the original blog post is really about. After studying the side -- and I find the idea quite interesting --, I think there are some flaws in the basic design. For each suggestions can have at least one counter-suggestion. For example, the counter-suggestion to "End the Drug War" could be "Continue the Drug War". Strictly speaking, everybody is then probably going to make two votes, endorsing one and opposing the other. In fact, every topic may have several distinct proposals. For example, the topic "Drug regulation" may have the proposals "No regulation, at all", "Regulate hard drugs, but not marijuana.", "Regulate on a local level", "Regulate all drugs, even alcohol and tobacco", and many others. In such a design, nobody needs to vote against a proposal. Another point, although this one is going off-topic: As a European, I find it hard to make any informed decision on many of the topics. I guess, even as a US citizen, I would probably have the same problem, too. For example, what do people really mean when they suggest to "End the drug war"? Stop regulating drug ownership? Or allocate less money on drug law enforcement? A suggestion needs a proper explanation what activities are suggested. Next, why should I have to browse through thousands of opinions to read about the arguments for a certain proposal? A argument needs no header, no author, no date, no discussion (as long as it's a correct argument) and I don't care how many supporters found an opinion helpful. It certainly need no comments such as "Think of how much money and resources it took in 2007 to arrest, incarcerate and process the 800,000 citizens arrested for marijuana related offenses alone!" Well, how much money and resources were spend in 2007? I don't know. Why not just give me the facts: "According to the study by <institution>, 5 billion dollars were spend on arresting citizens for marijuana in 2007. This money could have been spend on real criminal problems." This is an argument, although people may disagree with it. Next, the idea of votes is probably flawed, too. There is no costs when supporting a proposal except time. Active people will have more influence by voting for lots of proposals, while less active people have less. A non-vote thus has two meanings: "I don't care" as well as "I have had no time to care, yet". I'd probably find it better when everybody gets a fixed amount of votes that can be spend anywhere. This way, spending 5 votes for a certain proposal makes me loose my ability to support other topics. Everybody will then be more careful where to spend his or her votes. Votes should be movable so when I change my mind, I can express that by moving votes out of certain suggestions and into other ones. Of course, double accounts might become more of a problem. But, on the other side, it already exists with the current design. This way, any political area -- such as "Drug regulation" -- can have an overview on all alternative proposals, including their relative support by participants. I'm not sure if my thoughts are helpful for the blog author. However, I certainly would find an alternative design more useful, more interesting, and I would certainly participate if I were a US citizen.