I think a lot more quantitative modeling of voting patterns and value of votes would be justified before adopting this. It’s not clear to me that “buying votes” is a problem (or that it’s a bigger problem than non-monetary vote swaying through misleading advertising or celebrity platforms).
Agreed—just trying to think of possible failures, really. I think it would probably be a huge problem if absolutely nothing was done to prevent it. But it is possible that it’s an easy problem to avoid.
I would think that one of the features that defines “selling” is that once agreed on sells will be enforced by a court. Once you have given the thing away you have given the thing away and can’t choose to get it back. “you always have the right to take it back” in essence means inalienable right to recall which means its basically impossible to use the vote against its originator.
A desperate person ends up “selling” the vote, spends the money and then gets unhappy about vote usage. Recalling the vote as inalienable right propably leaves the buyer very angry. There is likely to be a claim about debt owed for the price. So if the buyer goes to contract enforcement agencies to forcibly collect the money would the police or court with a straight face play along? No. There is no real product for any buyer to receive.
One problem which could arise—if you can take back votes instantly, but the other party instantly knows it was you, then the benefits of being in a club could be revoked based on this.
Everyone is free to leave the “get X dollars in the mail every week” club at any time, but once you leave, it’s difficult to get back in (EG, requires sending votes w/o revoking them for a specified time period to re-establish trust—just an example).
Of course this becomes very difficult if the votes are somehow made anonymous, EG slow feedback on how many votes people have actually assigned to your name.
Ah, true. I suppose I started thinking “always having the right to take it back seems a bit impractical, maybe that part will be removed in implementation”.
Although really, it is only impractical for paper-trail versions, where physical votes are moved around.
I think a lot more quantitative modeling of voting patterns and value of votes would be justified before adopting this. It’s not clear to me that “buying votes” is a problem (or that it’s a bigger problem than non-monetary vote swaying through misleading advertising or celebrity platforms).
Agreed—just trying to think of possible failures, really. I think it would probably be a huge problem if absolutely nothing was done to prevent it. But it is possible that it’s an easy problem to avoid.
I would think that one of the features that defines “selling” is that once agreed on sells will be enforced by a court. Once you have given the thing away you have given the thing away and can’t choose to get it back. “you always have the right to take it back” in essence means inalienable right to recall which means its basically impossible to use the vote against its originator.
A desperate person ends up “selling” the vote, spends the money and then gets unhappy about vote usage. Recalling the vote as inalienable right propably leaves the buyer very angry. There is likely to be a claim about debt owed for the price. So if the buyer goes to contract enforcement agencies to forcibly collect the money would the police or court with a straight face play along? No. There is no real product for any buyer to receive.
One problem which could arise—if you can take back votes instantly, but the other party instantly knows it was you, then the benefits of being in a club could be revoked based on this.
Everyone is free to leave the “get X dollars in the mail every week” club at any time, but once you leave, it’s difficult to get back in (EG, requires sending votes w/o revoking them for a specified time period to re-establish trust—just an example).
Of course this becomes very difficult if the votes are somehow made anonymous, EG slow feedback on how many votes people have actually assigned to your name.
Ah, true. I suppose I started thinking “always having the right to take it back seems a bit impractical, maybe that part will be removed in implementation”.
Although really, it is only impractical for paper-trail versions, where physical votes are moved around.