There are two disadvantages with the 'one-BBR one-vote election' plan.
1) without refunds, the losing voters are forced to pay to support a brand they explicitly do not support (which discourages/penalizes participation)
2) there is no incentive for the winning vote block to contribute more than the 1 BBR needed to secure victory over the 2nd place opponent
An auction for naming rights would maximize funds raised, and force only the winners to pay for their choice.
I fully support a BBR vs Rune fundraiser auction - it's the optimal solution for our self-imposed predicament.
1) But without refunds voters are forced to put their money where their mouth is. No refunds will likely weed out mischievous votes.
2) The count is not done until the end of voting then tactical bidding cannot occur.
Keeping losing bids in an auction makes zero sense and ensures participation is minimized. That's why no auction does it, besides scam penny auctions.
To maximize funds raised, we want to encourage tactical (IE competitive) bidding, in a transparent environment (one address for BBR, another for Rune).
But I'm not going to risk my coins going to the Rune dev fund, since James can one-up me.
Even with refunds for losing bidders, we would be bidding money where our mouths are. Because risk of winning means coins go away, as does risk of loss/theft, and opportunity cost of having coins tied up in escrow, plus escrow fees.
To minimize "mischief" CZ could keep 5% of the losing bid as a service fee.