VOTE DAC Just Got More Interesting

[bytemaster]

For example: in my opinion there is no difference between the two major parties in the US and I know the process is rigged.  Knowing that my vote is not even worth the time to cast it, I would gladly sell my vote because my life would be better by selling my vote than by not selling it.

but how ethical is this?

How ethical is it to vote on whether or not I should be enslaved 50% of the year?    The whole voting process is unethical. 

[liondani]

For example: in my opinion there is no difference between the two major parties in the US and I know the process is rigged.  Knowing that my vote is not even worth the time to cast it, I would gladly sell my vote because my life would be better by selling my vote than by not selling it.

but how ethical is this?

[cgafeng]

glad to hear +5%

[bytemaster]

If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.

It also creates a whole host of problems.  The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US).  The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money.  For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off.  This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests.  The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.

Presumably votes like that will be anonymous and so there will be no way of proving who you voted for. So the political party A can pay Bob, 'X' and he can take it but vote for party B instead.

If it is a problem, a DAC also has delegates who can act as gate-keepers. They can refuse to process requests that involve soliciting electoral votes perhaps.

A system where Bob can verify his vote was counted properly is a system where Bob can prove his vote. 
A system where Bob cannot verify his vote was counted is a system where Bob does not count the votes.... thus the votes are meaningless and unverifiable.

The only things the voting system does is make it such that if Bob *wants privacy* he can vote and destroy his private key.  No one will know who Bob voted for unless he reveals it.

[bytemaster]

If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.

It also creates a whole host of problems.  The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US).  The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money.  For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off.  This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests.  The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.

The problem with voting that is divorced from property rights is that people will vote themselves other peoples money via theft.   
A vote is a property right, if someone can vote for Obama just because he is black.... or someone else can vote without considering the issues... then why shouldn't someone transfer their vote to someone willing to pay them for it. 

Votes are bought all the time... only they are bought with campaign promises to steal other peoples money to pay welfare and special interests.   At least buying votes up front is being done with the vote buyers money rather than the money of the people who voted against the welfare. 

So you see.. vote buying has been made into an irrational politically correct opinion rather than a rational realization that for the average person selling their vote to the highest bidder is much better for them.

For example: in my opinion there is no difference between the two major parties in the US and I know the process is rigged.  Knowing that my vote is not even worth the time to cast it, I would gladly sell my vote because my life would be better by selling my vote than by not selling it.   

If we wanted to have a rational political system it should require 95% voter approval and that approval would have to be BOUGHT.   5% error to prevent deadlock for those unwilling to sell at any price...

You may be able to buy up 90% of the vote cheaply... but to get the approval of those who would be harmed the most by a bill 5% minority... would be a lot more expensive.    You would have a government with 95% consensus based upon property rights.   

So if a bill was generally acceptable and not likely to harm people unfairly then the cost of buying up the votes would be low...  if the bill was terrible (Obama Care) the cost of buying up the votes would be prohibitive. 

I conclude from this that vote buying + super majority is a far better system than we have today.   I would be compensated a lot more for all of the economic harm being done to me.   This system would also work much better if laws required re-approval to stay in effect.   This would allow me to set my "lease rate" on my loss of freedoms.   

Those that hold out in the last 5% would end up having the law passed anyway and forfeiting an opportunity to be compensated for what ever harm was done to them.

[Empirical1.1]

If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.

It also creates a whole host of problems.  The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US).  The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money.  For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off.  This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests.  The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.

Presumably votes like that will be anonymous and so there will be no way of proving who you voted for. So the political party A can pay Bob, 'X' and he can take it but vote for party B instead.

If it is a problem, a DAC also has delegates who can act as gate-keepers. They can refuse to process requests that involve soliciting electoral votes perhaps.

[pariah99]

If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.

It also creates a whole host of problems.  The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US).  The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money.  For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off.  This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests.  The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.

[zerosum]

A system that actually allows people to openly and officially sell their votes?

This does not and will never sell one's vote . The Vote DAC is a business model where in setting up a voting system for organizers, class and political parties, events for reality show for choosing the winners and other stuff that need people's majority decision.

If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.

[fuzzy]

.... just so excited I couldn't keep it in. 

Welcome to my life.... :P

[Pheonike]

I think I know, Focus group polling for marketing firms. Companies that run focus groups and surveys are always looking for people and they are willing to pay. Participates can provide details about themselves and (age,sex,income,location) and can still remain anonymous through the DAC. They can then get paid by participating in online focus groups. The marketers can target the segments they want.

[donkeypong]

A poll tax! Bring back the poll tax!  :D

[Empirical1.1]

Ok I like mysteries, so I've given it my best current guess, I reserve the right to amend this in the morning...

Part 1: Dilution + Bonuses

There's a theory network effect can be driven by dilution being used to fund new user bonuses and a referral program. While it's contentious adding dilution to BTSX, VOTE  already has enough dilution built in.

So I predict dilution will be used to fund a user sign-up bonus and referral program using dilution to bring in UNIQUES.

Of course the question is how do you monetize VOTE?


Part 2:  Each UNIQUE person that signs up is valuable to VOTE.

Where BTSX shareholders benefit the more people use BitAssets. VOTE shareholders benefit the more UNIQUE people they have on their database.

How are they valuable?

Got a new DAC? Why only honour an unknown group in PTS or AGS when you can honour the VOTE database. (For the cost of a transaction fee to each UNIQUE paid in VOTE)

If VOTE has 100 000 UNIQUES then you can give 100 000 people equal stakes in your DAC via VOTE and you immediately have those 100 000 UNIQUE users.

If VOTE tracks more information (by consent) then a new DAC can even target the 20 000 people that most suit them based on key criteria.

It also has applications in voting, market research and other areas.

For example imagine if VOTE already had 100 000 uniques...

Wouldn't BTSX pay a big fee to access 100 000 UNIQUES to help kickstart and bootstrap BitAssets?

So I predict VOTE will use dilution to fund bonuses and a referral program to attract those UNIQUES and build up their database and then charge a VOTE transaction fee to access each UNIQUE.

UNIQUES get the sign up bonus, similar benefits to PTS shareholders (DACs want to honour them),
+ other offers too. (Eg. Fee for taking part in market research or signing up for 'X')

VOTE will kickstart it's database using the BitShares community and all the people signing up for the TBA, BTSX debit cards + other partnerships.

Best guess atm.

Edit 1: A deposit and referral bonus for signing up for a BitAsset debit card will actually be partly funded by VOTE on the premise that new BitAsset users are also signing up as a UNIQUE for VOTE at the same time?...

[Stan]

That is so unfair... can we have the smallest of all small clues please.

[biophil]

Lets just say that all ideas to be included in this DAC have been discussed in part on the forums already, but the particular combination and in particular STRATEGY for deployment and capturing of network effect is what has me excited...

This will kill the tiny rest of sleep I get during night .. THANK you

;D

I expect a full report on your findings. :D

[speedy]

I cant yet see how a voting system can achieve a network effect. I would have said that anyone who wants to run a vote on something would just fork the software. I hope to be shown otherwise though.