This is the question people have been asking since the first experiments with democracy in Athens. Nobody has ever solved the problem, so I doubt we're going to either. The best anyone can come up with is: a) civic responsibility, b) sometimes your vote really does matter.
Exactly. People vote when it matters to them which is why it's reasonable that the ones who ARE voting deserve to be heard over those that aren't IMO.
In the Scottish referendum on independence, people came out of the woodwork from all over the place to vote - people who had never even registered to vote before. There was such strength of feeling on both sides that nearly the entire population voted. On the other hand, in European elections - which actually do matter regarding certain areas of policy - you're lucky if 30% turnout.
The thing about Dash's voting system is that - unlike democracy - you can buy yourself votes.
Earlier today, emitkirby made this remark:
Otoh, I respect your right to make investments however the size of your investment in DASH gives you a lot of power. This is something I believe is holding potential investors back.
Although I think this is a reasonable view with regard to democracy, I don't really think it's reasonable with regard to governance of a commercial asset. The whole point of commercially traded assets is that you weild more influence over their governance the more you acquire. So the fact that Dash is doing justice to this principle should attract investors, not inhibit them. This principle applies universally in commerce. The fact that Steve Jobs held a huge number of shares in Pixar didn't inhibit people from investing in Pixar. Dash is a private currency - not a public one created by a central bank and backed by public debt.
Clarity is required. I don't see any other way that allowing large holders to wield more influence than small ones. In fact I think it's essential - it just gives them more responsibility thats all because the merits of their decision making (or in Dash's case, the decentralised will of the holders) will determine the propensity for others to invest.
If the governance process (however many participate) makes crap decisions then the asset will go down the tubes. If it is seen to take sensible, well thought out and generally 'safe' decisions then the asset will grow and attract more users.
In conclusion I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference whether 1 person votes or 1000. It's not the number of votes but the quality of the decision making that's important. If only 20 people care passionately whether Dashwhale gets a blockchain sponsorship and only those 20 people vote, then thats better than 200 people voting where the other 180 don't have a particular view IMO.
However, the fact that many people can "jam their foot in the door" in a crisis over a critical issue if so required is a hugely powerful backstop against corruption.
I like Dash's governance model. Everytime I try to "think my way out of it" I keep coming back to the way it is - an uneasy but ultimately very powerful and well secured blend of capital & popular democracy. It also puts a lot of trust in the holders to make good decisions so it's an open book which makes it "alive" and appealing.
A representative system could be worth considering, imho it'd be an ideal thing to test out the ID and trust systems on. There's likely to be a lot of proposals covering areas that few really give a damn about but someone they trust might and would let them decide on their behalf if given the option.
