Voter Apathy - We need to provide incentive for people to vote

[liondani]

what about to pay the top x slate publishers?

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

[teenagecheese]

The minority of shareholders who care a lot. Not me.

No. The board of directors supervises.

The shareholders choose the board of directors.

The current bitshares model asks shareholders to vote for executives/employees (delegates) directly. Rather, it should ask shareholders to support directors (slate publishers). All the politics should be at that level - directors campaigning for shareholders' proxies, and delegates should only be asking for directors' support - not running campaigns themselves.

ok that's fine with me, good idea. But I don't want to have to do is all I'm saying. And I shouldn't have to to have the system function well. If my participation is necessary, bitshares is no good.

...and by the "smart guys who run google" I meant generally whoever makes decisions, so that could include the board of directors. The analogy was not meant to be so specific, just to say that the average Joe investor should not have to be involved except for under extraordinary circumstances.

[teenagecheese]

It is not that the 14% of stakeholders that are currently voting are doing a bad job. It is mainly that it is a security risk.

It's ok to have a 14% voting security risk because if those 14% do collude or whatever in a manner serious enough to really hurt things, the rest can respond by voting. Just make the system such that this can happen easily when it needs to, maybe a delay for implementations of large code changes so people have time to respond. There are a lot of ways to make this work without me being bothered most of the time.

It's the same thing with our govt. It works good enough for me so I don't waste my time with it. If they ever really start effing up I'll take some time to exercise my right to vote to change things. This is going to end up a lot like that and it's o.k. It is a better system because it is sooooo easy for people to vote when they want.

The ability to instantly update your vote is awesome too. That solves a huge problem with not being able to vote for the little guy for fear that you are just wasting your vote if barely anyone supports him. This could really be used in our current system to eliminate the two party dominance.

[FreeTrade]

The minority of shareholders who care a lot. Not me.

No. The board of directors supervises.

The shareholders choose the board of directors.

The current bitshares model asks shareholders to vote for executives/employees (delegates) directly. Rather, it should ask shareholders to support directors (slate publishers). All the politics should be at that level - directors campaigning for shareholders' proxies, and delegates should only be asking for directors' support - not running campaigns themselves.

[chryspano]

What if every time the user tries to sent a transaction the wallet checks if the user is voting and if not then he is quickly asked to vote for a slate/group like "Developing, Marketing, Reliability... or Manual Voting" All the user has to do is one click to pick a slate/group, 2/3 of the voting power can go to delegates that are already voted in the 101 and the remaining 1/3 randomly amongst the rest, or something like that. If the user is not Manual Voting then he can be asked to choose a slate/group again in two weeks or a month.

[CoinHoarder]

Pragmatism.

I don't want to have to vote or think about voting ever. I should always be able to vote if I choose, but 99% of the time I don't want it to be even slightly present in my life. Humans are lazy and busy, they don't need or want anything else to do. A minority of people really care about this stuff, the politics, the ramifications for the future of man kind and freedom and finance. They should vote. I would love to see that happen, but not enough to do any work.

Owning/Using bitshares should be absolutely as easy as possible for as many people as possible. Who cares if a minority is in control as long as they are doing a good job and can always be voted out. I am here because I want to make money with the least effort possible. I am confident most people feel this way.

This is a product you are selling to people. A good, desirable product that will attract people should not add to the complications of their life, it should reduce them. You do want to attract people to use bitshares, right?

I agree with this. A system should be in place that automatically votes for these people. Leaving things the way they are is unacceptable both for security and public perception reasons. You need to protect people that won't protect themselves... IE. the reason for TITAN and protecting people's financial privacy... by not voting people are poking the bear so to speak. They may not care or not realize.. either way something should be done.

The minority of shareholders who care a lot. Not me.

Unless things get extremely ridiculous and on the verge of collapse and people rally me and make a big scene to get my attention, then I do still have the right to vote with my stake and I do it.

It is not that the 14% of stakeholders that are currently voting are doing a bad job. It is mainly that it is a security risk.

[teenagecheese]

The minority of shareholders who care a lot. Not me.

Unless things get extremely ridiculous and on the verge of collapse and people rally me and make a big scene to get my attention, then I do still have the right to vote with my stake and I do it.

[FreeTrade]

When I buy stock in Google, I want to completely trust those really smart guys there to do a great job and do absolutely nothing myself.

Follow that thought . . . what if those smart guys go off the rails, or start acting corruptly . . . who supervises them?

[hpenvy]

Some interesting ideas:

- Slates should have 'owners'
- Slates should be 'subscribable'
- Users will subscribe to slates from trusted, public figures
- Users who subscribe to these slates are notified when changes occur
- Slate owners are given the option to write reasons why they are changing their slate
- If the user takes the time to review the change, then they can accept, deny, or make an amendment to the change
- If the user does not review the change after a given time period, it will automatically be set to accept
- Popular slates should be readily available within the client

I like this. Representative democracy more effective than direct democracy.

+1

If we're very very very lucky, we'll be able to get members to point to a guy and say 'I trust him to make good decisions about delegates, here's my proxy(slate)'.  That is the very most we can hope for.

The point is you shouldn't be trying to get lucky. You need to figure out a way to not have to have people vote unless they are naturally driven to by their own prerogative. Most people should never be bothered in the slightest. Even asking them to think about being bothered is unacceptable. When I buy stock in Google, I want to completely trust those really smart guys there to do a great job and do absolutely nothing myself. The most I want is to know I can vote and participate if I choose. It MUST NOT be necessary for the majority to participate for bitshares to function! This is critical.

+5%

[teenagecheese]

Some interesting ideas:

- Slates should have 'owners'
- Slates should be 'subscribable'
- Users will subscribe to slates from trusted, public figures
- Users who subscribe to these slates are notified when changes occur
- Slate owners are given the option to write reasons why they are changing their slate
- If the user takes the time to review the change, then they can accept, deny, or make an amendment to the change
- If the user does not review the change after a given time period, it will automatically be set to accept
- Popular slates should be readily available within the client

I like this. Representative democracy more effective than direct democracy.

+1

If we're very very very lucky, we'll be able to get members to point to a guy and say 'I trust him to make good decisions about delegates, here's my proxy(slate)'.  That is the very most we can hope for.

The point is you shouldn't be trying to get lucky. You need to figure out a way to not have to have people vote unless they are naturally driven to by their own prerogative. Most people should never be bothered in the slightest. Even asking them to think about being bothered is unacceptable. When I buy stock in Google, I want to completely trust those really smart guys there to do a great job and do absolutely nothing myself. The most I want is to know I can vote and participate if I choose. It MUST NOT be necessary for the majority to participate for bitshares to function! This is critical.

[FreeTrade]

Some interesting ideas:

- Slates should have 'owners'
- Slates should be 'subscribable'
- Users will subscribe to slates from trusted, public figures
- Users who subscribe to these slates are notified when changes occur
- Slate owners are given the option to write reasons why they are changing their slate
- If the user takes the time to review the change, then they can accept, deny, or make an amendment to the change
- If the user does not review the change after a given time period, it will automatically be set to accept
- Popular slates should be readily available within the client

I like this. Representative democracy more effective than direct democracy.

+1

If we're very very very lucky, we'll be able to get members to point to a guy and say 'I trust him to make good decisions about delegates, here's my proxy(slate)'.  That is the very most we can hope for.

[FreeTrade]

2.  The next least a person can do is express trust in some other slate, by overriding their wallet's default slate and pointing to one provided by some celebrity or developer or personality you trust.

This is the level to aim for.

It's late. I'll write more about this in time.

[teenagecheese]

Pragmatism.

I don't want to have to vote or think about voting ever. I should always be able to vote if I choose, but 99% of the time I don't want it to be even slightly present in my life. Humans are lazy and busy, they don't need or want anything else to do. A minority of people really care about this stuff, the politics, the ramifications for the future of man kind and freedom and finance. They should vote. I would love to see that happen, but not enough to do any work.

Owning/Using bitshares should be absolutely as easy as possible for as many people as possible. Who cares if a minority is in control as long as they are doing a good job and can always be voted out. I am here because I want to make money with the least effort possible. I am confident most people feel this way.

This is a product you are selling to people. A good, desirable product that will attract people should not add to the complications of their life, it should reduce them. You do want to attract people to use bitshares, right?

[bobmaloney]

Low voter turnout is a good thing.  It means people aren't pissed off.

In the case of Bitshares, I agree.


But it can also mean that those with the ability to vote don't feel it will change whatever they are pissed about.
I think this reasoning represents a significant percentage of the non-voter attitude in the US, at least - and I agree with them.

[sschechter]

Low voter turnout is a good thing.  It means people aren't pissed off.