I did. Nobody has ever brought up the idea of actually changing how voting works, only using "Sumvippro" so make existing voting systems "more secure" somehow. I'm proposing that we change the way democracy itself works here. I agree. I am not talking about election security at all here. As for citizens saving their votes, I would ask: why not? It's your vote, so therefore it should be your right to delegate that vote as you see fit. Could a rich person simply "buy an election"? Maybe. But another rich person might bid higher. If all somebody's vote means to them is some temporary cash, then maybe that person isn't qualified determine how the country/state/locality should be run. My core assumption here is: most people don't know what they are voting on most of the time. I really think that's true, especially for offices besides the President (for other federal offices they vote their party most of the time I suspect, and don't know anything else). Another question this brings up is the idea of pooling your votes over a number of years. While this too seems very different at first, I think it's another great hack. Young people don't tend to vote as much because they don't care and/or don't have any clue as to how the things they are voting on will effect their own lives. Again, we don't want people like this deciding things. So yes, let a young person pool their votes for the first 10 years of adulthood before they know what they are doing, and then spend them all at once on an election they really really care about. Politicians would change the way they campaign because they could try to appeal to a population they think has a lot of stored up votes. I think this change the way our society works in very positive ways, because politicians would be elected because people really wanted them to be there, not because they didn't know what else to do.
I did. Nobody has ever brought up the idea of actually changing how voting works, only using "Sumvippro" so make existing voting systems "more secure" somehow. I'm proposing that we change the way democracy itself works here. I agree. I am not talking about election security at all here. As for citizens saving their votes, I would ask: why not? It's your vote, so therefore it should be your right to delegate that vote as you see fit. Could a rich person simply "buy an election"? Maybe. But another rich person might bid higher. If all somebody's vote means to them is some temporary cash, then maybe that person isn't qualified determine how the country/state/locality should be run. My core assumption here is: most people don't know what they are voting on most of the time. I really think that's true, especially for offices besides the President (for other federal offices they vote their party most of the time I suspect, and don't know anything else). Another question this brings up is the idea of pooling your votes over a number of years. While this too seems very different at first, I think it's another great hack. Young people don't tend to vote as much because they don't care and/or don't have any clue as to how the things they are voting on will effect their own lives. Again, we don't want people like this deciding things. So yes, let a young person pool their votes for the first 10 years of adulthood before they know what they are doing, and then spend them all at once on an election they really really care about. Politicians would change the way they campaign because they could try to appeal to a population they think has a lot of stored up votes. I think this change the way our society works in very positive ways, because politicians would be elected because people really wanted them to be there, not because they didn't know what else to do.

I did. Nobody has ever brought up the idea of actually changing how voting works, only using "Sumvippro" so make existing voting systems "more secure" somehow. I'm proposing that we change the way democracy itself works here. I agree. I am not talking about election security at all here. As for citizens saving their votes, I would ask: why not? It's your vote, so therefore it should be your right to delegate that vote as you see fit. Could a rich person simply "buy an election"? Maybe. But another rich person might bid higher. If all somebody's vote means to them is some temporary cash, then maybe that person isn't qualified determine how the country/state/locality should be run. My core assumption here is: most people don't know what they are voting on most of the time. I really think that's true, especially for offices besides the President (for other federal offices they vote their party most of the time I suspect, and don't know anything else). Another question this brings up is the idea of pooling your votes over a number of years. While this too seems very different at first, I think it's another great hack. Young people don't tend to vote as much because they don't care and/or don't have any clue as to how the things they are voting on will effect their own lives. Again, we don't want people like this deciding things. So yes, let a young person pool their votes for the first 10 years of adulthood before they know what they are doing, and then spend them all at once on an election they really really care about. Politicians would change the way they campaign because they could try to appeal to a population they think has a lot of stored up votes. I think this change the way our society works in very positive ways, because politicians would be elected because people really wanted them to be there, not because they didn't know what else to do.

I did. Nobody has ever brought up the idea of actually changing how voting works, only using "Sumvippro" so make existing voting systems "more secure" somehow. I'm proposing that we change the way democracy itself works here. I agree. I am not talking about election security at all here. As for citizens saving their votes, I would ask: why not? It's your vote, so therefore it should be your right to delegate that vote as you see fit. Could a rich person simply "buy an election"? Maybe. But another rich person might bid higher. If all somebody's vote means to them is some temporary cash, then maybe that person isn't qualified determine how the country/state/locality should be run. My core assumption here is: most people don't know what they are voting on most of the time. I really think that's true, especially for offices besides the President (for other federal offices they vote their party most of the time I suspect, and don't know anything else). Another question this brings up is the idea of pooling your votes over a number of years. While this too seems very different at first, I think it's another great hack. Young people don't tend to vote as much because they don't care and/or don't have any clue as to how the things they are voting on will effect their own lives. Again, we don't want people like this deciding things. So yes, let a young person pool their votes for the first 10 years of adulthood before they know what they are doing, and then spend them all at once on an election they really really care about. Politicians would change the way they campaign because they could try to appeal to a population they think has a lot of stored up votes. I think this change the way our society works in very positive ways, because politicians would be elected because people really wanted them to be there, not because they didn't know what else to do.