.. If you are a big fish, lets say you buy votes and influence voting. Well, then the votes you bought are TRANSFERRED by the action of voting to the organizer of the poll/election/crowdfund. Please describe what you consider wrong in this example. People with money will influence the results while PAYING their money for their opinion. They will end up losing money. This seems fair to me.
on the one hand, in my opinion, this is not really an ideal situation it's exactly what happens in the US elections with big donations, those rich people with the moneys don't mind paying a lot to get their ways because it's worth it to them,
I forgot to add, that with VoteCoin, we're also considering ways how to enable "equal voice" votes, which would include a possibility for government to distribute only certain VOT coins to the citizens of given country, and let the citizens vote in some political elections using those "special" VOT coins only, so the elections couldn't be influenced by "big fishes" or even by people from different states. This is work in progress currently.
-Tom
on the other hand, this "equal voice" concept sounds like a good solution to this kind of situations.
Maybe different procedures of voting can be used for different purposes, and developing this platform to offer these solutions and solve current problems it a noble idea and we need to develop it to be versatile and general to be able to cover different scenarios and offer real and practical solutions to be used in many different kinds of situations.
I'm liking this more and more
