Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
what we need is more people building a new one, where the values we hold dear are enshrined in the foundations of this new system we're building...
We do not care *if* governments accept our voting solution. Our business model for VOTE is independent of government acceptance.That is good to hear .. I was concerned about this and IMHO we should communicate this accordingly
If you bring it straight to the people and hold a parallel election and offer them a compelling goal: help us achieve higher voter turnout than traditional elections and restore integrity to the process then government will have no choice but to pay attention or fight it. Either way it brings massive media attention to the cause.
Just 36.4 percent of the voting-eligible population cast ballots in 2014 which means the elected officials are operating on approval of less than 19% of the population (on average). If you factor in that many of their votes were really "votes against" the other guy you have a situation where only about 10% of the voting population actually supports the people in office.
So if we can petition the government directly and call for honest voting and gain over 10% voter turnout we can start to claim that we have a mandate from the people.
So how can we get to 10% voter turnout without government mandate to use our system? It is a multi step process but it involves making people believe they can have a greater impact for their cause by voting in our system than by going to the polls.
Some research suggests that over 10% of the population is not confident their vote is counted correctly. Ron Paul scored support of 10% of the republican primary and most of his supporters are very much aware of how rigged the process is.
So we can turn this into a campaign issue. Does your candidate support or encourage honest voting. Every time a voting controversy pops up it is an opportunity to win converts who decide to "opt out" of the official process (reducing official voter turnout) and "opt in" to our new process.
So each person we can convince to abandon the existing system (vote against it) and join our system (vote for it) gives us 2x bang for the buck. Suppose we can score 3% of voters who opt-out today, 3% of voters who use both systems, and 3% of voters who switch? Voter turnout would fall to 30% and our turnout would be 9%.
The key here is to make voting so easy and provide some alternative benefits to encourage participation and referrals that it spreads. It is much easier to market voting than BitShares. But once you get them hooked on voting, the conversion to BTS is much easier.
Anyway, we have a solution that costs governments (taxpayers) nothing provides "free voting" and saves lives. We have a very compelling pitch for voting (we haven't revealed it all yet). So politicians can gain a lot of political capital by supporting our efforts but it will be very costly to attack a provably fair, private, and honest election process.
After all voting is 90% about expressing your opinion for everyone else to see and 10% about actually selecting a candidate. We are selling people a "voice" where the current system leaves people powerless to express it.
I want to say do it on December 23, the date the Federal Reserve was created, but looks like it will be in early 2015.
svk I think the biggest problem in this area is the lack of understanding between the East and West. I think it will be hard to communicate about the delegates from the 2 and so each side will be a little bit less trustful of the other side. I'd like to see as many Chinese delegates and I assume Chinese community would do a good job vetting them.
I'm talking about a economical situation in general .
Weather a delegate is capable and weather he can bring actual value to the system is two different thing .
The major concern is not vetting the delegate himself , but vetting the position and potential value for the system .
If this guy is good , do we want him ? Oh wait , let's see , the system already has 2 great guys are doing things in the same direction , can you joint them instead of applying a independent position ?
If this guy is good , but what he does can only gain value for the system maybe after 1 year or so , do we want to pay him to gamble the future ? We should think about it , and if we want to gamble , we'll vote for him .
If this guy sounds bad , but what he propose may actually gain value for the system in big time , do we want him ?
Votes can only be worth something if the ones voting it are thinking from every aspect .
Every company has votes , good employees at some point , but not every one of them survived .
By voting , we are not just voting for a person , we're voting for the future and direction of the system .
If everyone thinks "it should not be any doubt to vote for somebody" , then what will we become ?
If we lost the power or incentive for even a single doubt , then what is the voting for ?
My position is that anyone who was doing valuable work or looks like they might have a decent proposal to something should be given the chance.
Which delegate proposals are you against? It is really all a judgement call and I might very well agree with you on a particular case.
I've never said vote in anyone. I do think that there is a lot more to be lost by being very demanding for what amounts to part time job for most Western countries. This is especially true when you are drawing from a pool of known Bitshares supporters. Some will not provide enough value, some may provide value 100 x what they were paid.
This changes a lot later on.
People will be motivated to vote out bad actors quicker than they'll vote them in.
I do not know how to explain this but it is 'that the minimalistic (conservative) view is not the way to go.'
I am pretty sure that if we vote 70 possibly good choices, we will have 5 delegates that produce 100x the value... and this will way outweigh the 10 bad actors, that we will vote out in 3 mo. or less.
70 full paid delegates ? It's a wishful thinking , esp. if the price go up like stan expected by 4X .
Then you'll have 3000USD*4*70=0.84 million USD in salary a month .
You think if the price goes up 4X , the revenue in the system will go up 4X ? Nope , the salary will still be taking out of the the market cap by the factor of 20X . Unless those 70 full paid delegates can raise the revenue by 4X their salary , 4 months later , we'll still having this conversation .
25-30 full paid delegates is what stan expected if the inflation rate maintain at 1-2% a year .
What a huge endorsement of your ethos, tech and relationship building!
