Post by phicksur on Jun 23, 2017 14:07:05 GMT
On its face, the concept is for all matters non-fiscal, each member gets one vote. I will not call them 'citizens' because that involves a nation and that is a lot more complicated. For now, we are all just members.
On matters not pertaining to the specific spending of money, like rights, basic rules, and similar behavior-related laws each person gets one vote, and the majority would win.
Once laws are prepared, a financial impact study will be performed. The costs of implementing the law, and the means by which it would be paid, would be considered and, if the law has a cost, it would then be voted upon by all members who have paid their membership fees in accordance with the following section.
The rules will be that they who have contributed more will have a greater say in how money is spent as dictated by the following algorithm: # votes = 2 * log5 (membership fee paid)
This would be calculated once per fiscal year based on the membership fees paid over the course of the previous fiscal year (or, upon founding in the case of the very first fiscal year).
This comes out to the following chart (I am using USD for the denomination as that is what I am most familiar):
You should be able to notice by the chart that if a very wealthy person pays a large amount of membership fees, they possess a great number of votes. It should be pointed out, however, that if 20 people each pay $1 in fees, they can still outvote someone who has paid $1,000,000 in fees (as that would be 17 votes). It has been pointed out that if a wealthy person 'hires' people to vote for them, they can skew the vote. That is correct, which is why part of our membership rules is that any 'contracts' that require votes to be made a certain way are invalid and unenforceable. There is no penalty for attempting to buy people's votes, but there is also no way to enforce such a contract and, as such, is made at the buyer's risk. There is nothing obligating the receiver of funds to actually vote in the manner they were paid to vote.
All voting will be secret, but each individual will be given an official certificate that they may keep which signifies how they voted so that they may keep a copy. In the event of a claim of 'voter fraud', those individuals will be asked to compare the official vote with their own copy and, if there is a discrepancy, the copy they have retained will be considered the official vote of record and the official vote will be changed. Each individual will only be able to view their own official vote. Those who do not verify their vote would be investigated and, if malfeasance is found, those votes would be removed.
This also makes the paying of those membership fees entirely voluntary.
How does this sound?
On matters not pertaining to the specific spending of money, like rights, basic rules, and similar behavior-related laws each person gets one vote, and the majority would win.
- In order to protect the rights of the minority, however, any failed votes should be investigated by a small group with limited funding to discover if the majority was, in fact, wrong. The process by which this is done will be established later.
- Rights can only be taken away with a 80% vote from all registered members, and they will apply to all member equally.
- Laws or rules will not in any way single out a particular group, examples are societal, racial, or ethnic but are not limited to just these groups. All members are considered a member of all groups under the rules.
Once laws are prepared, a financial impact study will be performed. The costs of implementing the law, and the means by which it would be paid, would be considered and, if the law has a cost, it would then be voted upon by all members who have paid their membership fees in accordance with the following section.
The rules will be that they who have contributed more will have a greater say in how money is spent as dictated by the following algorithm: # votes = 2 * log5 (membership fee paid)
This would be calculated once per fiscal year based on the membership fees paid over the course of the previous fiscal year (or, upon founding in the case of the very first fiscal year).
This comes out to the following chart (I am using USD for the denomination as that is what I am most familiar):
Membership Fees Paid | Number of Votes |
$0.01 - $2.24 | 1 |
$2.25 - $5.00 | 2 |
$5.01 - $11.18 | 3 |
$11.19 - $25.00 | 4 |
$25.01 - $55.90 | 5 |
$55.91 - $125.00 | 6 |
$125.01 - $279.51 | 7 |
$279.52 - $625.00 | 8 |
$625.01 - $1,397.54 | 9 |
$1,397.55 - $3,125.00 | 10 |
$3,125.01 - $6,987.71 | 11 |
$6,987.72 - $15,625.00 | 12 |
$15,625.01 - $34,938.56 | 13 |
$34,938.57 - $78,125.00 | 14 |
$78,125.00 - $174,692.81 | 15 |
and so on |
You should be able to notice by the chart that if a very wealthy person pays a large amount of membership fees, they possess a great number of votes. It should be pointed out, however, that if 20 people each pay $1 in fees, they can still outvote someone who has paid $1,000,000 in fees (as that would be 17 votes). It has been pointed out that if a wealthy person 'hires' people to vote for them, they can skew the vote. That is correct, which is why part of our membership rules is that any 'contracts' that require votes to be made a certain way are invalid and unenforceable. There is no penalty for attempting to buy people's votes, but there is also no way to enforce such a contract and, as such, is made at the buyer's risk. There is nothing obligating the receiver of funds to actually vote in the manner they were paid to vote.
All voting will be secret, but each individual will be given an official certificate that they may keep which signifies how they voted so that they may keep a copy. In the event of a claim of 'voter fraud', those individuals will be asked to compare the official vote with their own copy and, if there is a discrepancy, the copy they have retained will be considered the official vote of record and the official vote will be changed. Each individual will only be able to view their own official vote. Those who do not verify their vote would be investigated and, if malfeasance is found, those votes would be removed.
This also makes the paying of those membership fees entirely voluntary.
How does this sound?