SAFE Network Voting (QuadraticVoting + Bitvote)

Sorry, not getting your argument. Voting is pointless because all political processes are corrupted by coercion? Ahh…you mean Democracy itself is something we shouldn’t engage in?[quote=“fergish, post:17, topic:6502”]
Entering into a vote about a contractual matter is a different thing. Contracts involve a meeting of the minds, identified or not, to be valid.
[/quote]
Not really grasping the distinction tbh…[quote=“fergish, post:17, topic:6502”]
Votes depending on social contracts are an excuse to do coercive stuff in the name of everybody, as if everybody agreed to be bound by the vote in the first place.
[/quote]
Oh No…I think that argument has been flogged to death in many other threads and to date I haven’t heard a workable alternative. This isn’t the thread for bringing that argument up again in any case - we’d just go round in circles again.
Democracy may not be perfect, but it’s better than the alternatives touted on here. :smile:

Why is that question still being asked? Anyway, the answer is no.

Glad that you made that decision for the likes of Fergish, so that he doesn’t have to tire himself considering his preferences.

And more importantly, how long this has to go on before you and Eddy admit all the proposals from this topic are completely ridiculous and open to blatant abuse by the government (or the governing body), vote buyers and vote sellers? The only party that does not benefit from this system are those who are supposed to benefit - those who aren’t corrupt(ible).

Good idea! Any one of them doesn’t work, so why not make a nightmarish combo of all three?

I already commented on the first two (open to the same type of abuse and vote buying) but I couldn’t help not to notice that true breakthrough: behavior based voting! I can already see how great that would work for some poor laborer who runs a Pi with micro SD card: if the damn thing goes down, he’s screwed. Whereas Jeff Bezos can afford to leave his home because his vaults run on EC2 cloud with high redundancy options enabled.

1 Like

Not made any decisions for @fergish, just expressing my opinion, same as you two.[quote=“janitor, post:22, topic:6502”]
And more importantly, how long this has to go on before you and Eddy admit all the proposals from this topic are completely ridiculous and open to blatant abuse by the government
[/quote]
I don’t have to “admit” anything - I’ve pointed out the problems as I see it with the “Bitvote” system and do not support it. The actual voting proposal I did make (Votecoin) has also been dismissed by you as unworkable and loses Anonymity - obviously you haven’t explained why yet and actually muted the topic when asked to explain…lol

Of course you have.

Some three weeks ago I explained in another topic that a democracy is possible in a free society (say a community or city could have a democratically elected government), but a free society is not possible within a democracy (a group of people in a country cannot organize their government as they see fit).

You support democracy and you and other voters are actively supporting the system of government that violates human rights both domestically and abroad.

And what’s this?

Your two 2 last comments before I called you out (the one quoted just above, and the other I quoted in my previous comment) show that you kept ignoring obvious weaknesses, as well as arguing for democracy. But now you say you do not support the idea (I loved how you “upped” the suggested vote recycle rate from 5% to 50% - very Chavez-like).

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

I don’t see why not as the guy in Alaska ends up eating Monsanto’s food. Something like 99% of the food in the US is GMO. And let’s not forget all the food the U.S. exports to other countries. cough Canada cough Mexico * cough cough * Africa cough And you’re quibbling over another STATE in the same COUNTRY getting a vote? Seriously? Not to mention what with greenhouses and global warming yes it is feasible to grow food in Alaska now. It is being done. So yes they are affected by things like the whole conflict over GMO vs organic seeds. And do you have any idea how expensive it is to ship food up north and thereby how expensive food prices become? YES all voices count not just those in Ohio. Monsanto is a global issue. They are being taken to INTERNATIONAL court for crimes against humanity. I can get you the link to that if you’d like. We are long past “Is this an isolated state issue?”

This sums up my feelings on democracy nicely. It’s inherently corruptable as people inevitably buy votes.

This actually makes the most sense I’ve heard in a long time. If you’re inevitably going to buy votes and money = votes then why not do it in an organized fashion so that big spenders risk losing their money and the little guy has reason the throw in his pocket change.

Perhaps but that’s still more expensive than bribing a few key officials because you’re balancing how much people hate you and want to get you out vs how much on average it takes to bribe the Joe voter in order to break even in the polls. And different people have different prices and differing levels of integrity. And you end up bribing the general populace, therefore paying money out to the general public, rather than some individual elite. The money gets distributed more or less. Moreover next time you screw up the price of compensating your voters goes up because they end up being even more upset with you. And that’s assuming of course they don’t take your money and vote the other way just to screw you.

Well this would motivate people to be salient of their rights and politics. You don’t stay informed and your wallet ends up hurting.

Of course this begs the question why have the gov’t in the first question or the policies or services in question?

1 Like

I hoped that example won’t become an object of discussion, but … The guy Alaska and any guy anywhere could end up eating food that contains Monsanto’s inputs. But if you eat something bad at Chipotle (or buy it at Whole Foods) that doesn’t mean you can sue some random guy from any of their suppliers. Your relationship is with the seller.

In the rest of your argument you are justifying One Government and global(ist) control over everyone. How sad. I’d rather be free and do my best to buy food from suppliers I trust (I don’t think there’s anything wrong with GMO, by the way).

Your right is to not be informed. Not consuming the mainstream media doesn’t and can’t void any of your rights.
But I think you’re also wrong on the most basic level: like I said - but you didn’t understand that - this type of vote is nothing but an additional tax. So here’s the same example in extreme: using this system, the government organizes a vote on raising the debt ceiling.

If you’re against it, you have to pay (e.g. pay this new tax). If you are for it, your vote is initially basically free (e.g. it costs you $50 to vote, but you’re a freeloader who gets more than $50 through various debt-funded Federal programs).
If you don’t vote, you’re at the mercy of whoever wins but in any case in the long term you lose (either you have to pay more tax or you accept to owe even more in future taxes).

But secondly, if the government either isn’t happy with the outcome or likes to collect money from the voters, they can pretend they want to be more responsive and put this matter up for a vote once a month. And then further break it down and put to the vote each individual Federal program, etc. There is absolutely no way a citizen can win in this game.

What is common to many of these ideas is that there is no relationship between how much one puts in and how much he gets out. And that is no coincidence: it has to be that way in democracy because without redistribution there’s no need for government. That’s why all such proposals try to remain “inclusive”.

We’re not discussing a case of rot or disease here. We’re discussing a case of genetic engineering where poison and foreign DNA has been engineered into the plant itself. Ironic that you would cite Chipotle which refuses to use GMOs and keeps it’s food organic. And yes if someone gets food poisoning and it is found the fault lies not with the retail outlet but with the supplier then YES they can be held liable. Monsanto is not some “random supplier.”

I am doing nothing of the kind. Monsanto is a global international corporation. They sell GMO seed and herbacide to multiple nations the world over and have affected ecologies, human health and economies on an international level. Several nations around the world, especially in Europe, are banning GMOs and Monsanto because of this. Moreover Monsanto has it’s own claws in politics resulting in such legislation as the Monsanto protection act in the U.S. If their product is so good why do they need political protection from consumers wanting to hold them accountable for damages? You can’t compare Monsanto to some little organic farmer or gardener on a municipal or state level who only affects themselves and their local community. If you have customers, especially unhappy customers, all over the globe then naturally you must be held accountable to them. You can’t be making a mess all over the planet and not expect people to be pissed and want you to clean it up.

I don’t care if you want to grow or eat GMOs. But when you grow GMOs and start cross contaminating your neighbours organic crops or killing off whole species of animals (like bees on which we all rely on) THEN I most certainly have an issue. When a farmer goes bankrupt and suicides because he has to buy Monsanto’s patented GMO seeds every year instead of just replanting heritage organic seeds, like what’s gone down in India, THEN we’ve got a problem. When glyphosate is showing up in human mother’s breast milk. THEN we most certainly have issues. Monsanto isn’t isolated to Ohio, it isn’t isolated to the U.S., it doesn’t keep it’s business contained, and it’s affects aren’t limited to it’s customers. Believe me I’m trying very hard not to turn this into a rant against Monsanto and GMOs though perhaps this would be best taken to another topic. But the point here is this isn’t at all about supporting some global government but rather Monsanto making a mess of a whole lot of back yards and people coming with their torches and pitchforks to hang the irresponsible corporation. Similar to what happened with BP and it’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. You make a big mess and a lot of people will cry foul.

Let me break this down for you. You want to grow GMO? Do it responsibly. Don’t infect organic crops. Don’t force those who do not want to eat GMO to do so or to suffer financially from crop contamination. Do not sue organic farmers when your seed blows on the wind into another farmers field when you were careless enough not to contain your crop in the first place. Organic farmers do not want anything to do with GMOs! GMOs mean loss of sales to an organic farmer, there is no reason to sue them. Which is why many organic farmers are suing Monsanto. Label GMO food as GMO food. I mean if GMO food is safe why is there so much resistance to labeling it and giving consumers a choice? Producers print new labels every quarter, it would be nothing to them to add a few new lines of text.

At the end of the day I don’t have a problem with people eating GMO or buying GMO if that’s what they choose. My problem is with how GMO and the pesticides that are connected with it affect the environment, it’s affects on human health, and the ability of organic farmers and your average urban farmer or gardener to grow their own crops in peace.

You say you want to be free to select your own suppliers that you trust. I agree! Freedom over one’s food choices works in one’s favor whether one wants to eat GMO or organic.

How this all relates to the voting system is this: Monsanto in this case affects an international community and therefore it is suitable for an internatonal community to vote on the issue at hand, not just Ohio or all of the states. The more people you affect the wider your voting circle would get.

@Blindsite2k If you want to discuss GMOs etc please take it off-topic.

Was thinking that yeah though it does tie into the subject at hand quite a bit.

1 Like