At the end of the day, we expect skin in the game. I would argue there are plenty of ways in which people have skin in the game simply by being alive and living in a state. There are separate ways in which taxpayers have skin in the game when it comes to laws authorizing spending. Still others in which parents and young people have skin in the game when it comes to legislation disproportionately impacting future generations.

I don't think it's a one-size fits all answer here, but it certainly seems like we could do better. It also doesn't help that we generally vote for politicians rather than individual measures/legislation.

I think you should be allowed to sell your vote...

It was called democracy. It could be dying. If you start that path of giving more vote power to someone then you could end up just wanting to skip the voting all together. People with very voting power would not want to participate because it would be irrelevant.

There's an old novel by Nevil Shute called In The Wet (https://www.amazon.com/Wet-Nevil-Shute/dp/0884113183).

A big theme in the book is that one person can have multiple votes, if they've achieved certain things. I can't remember what they all were, but things like starting a business, getting a college degree, getting married, having kids, things like that.

Nevil Shute is an author from decades ago, he wrote most of his work between the 1930's and early 1960's. His books are often really outstanding reads, I've enjoyed all of them. If you want to start with one, the best are Trustee from the Toolroom and A Town Like Alice.

I think people should bid on outcomes, rather than just vote: i.e. pledge an amount of money in the event their desired outcome occurs.

This solves a lot of issues with rent seeking and conflict of interest.

Ideology. It's about as near to a religious belief as can be.

It is not practical or rational.

If you have lived long enough and met enough people you can see why we have the issues we have. Few are qualified to even be considered as a voter.

Might I recommend Democracy the God that Failed.

Anyone working in government has a conflict of interest as a voter. Same goes for any business regulated by the state. It's a mess or incentives. Even assuming people were hard to manipulate its just a disaster. The whole affair incentives demigogs that promise things they have no ability to deliver. They have no skin in the game. They are easily controlled by the wealthy and sly. It's a mess.

If you give more voting power proportionately to those who have more skin in the game, you inevitably end up in a situation where only a few can vote at all, because they hold the majority of resources. But you’re missing the point. The real problem is allowing people who have NO skin the game whatsoever to get a vote. First off, cut off whoever lives abroad. If you don’t get to pay for the consequences of voting wrong, why are you voting at all? Second, cut whoever lives off welfare. I don’t need to explain this one. Third, there should be an exam that gives you the right to vote. It measures your IQ, but also checks if you are above 21 yo, have a job, and own any property. If you pass, than you get a “voting permit”. This way, you avoid people who have no skin in the game to vote, without giving disproportionate power to a small elite. What do you all think?

In Britain, it used to be connected to you ownership of land, basically making it more akin to shareholders in a joint enterprise.

As a wealthy landowner, I have more to lose from democracy gone haywire than the slum schmuck

Reading through the comments it seems like essentially the sentiment is we have a situation of perceived misaligned incentives and the root cause is voting equality.

I kind of can understand the imperfection of the current system. I have some loosely held thoughts about this and maybe can expand on them some more when I’m not chasing my kids, but I think the biggest concern I have is what protective measures are in place to ensure the group with the most dominant voting public doesn’t continuously manipulate the criteria and change the goal posts to ensure they keep it? I acknowledge this exists to some degree already with gerrymandering but acknowledging a fault doesn’t concretely answer this question. :)

I think you are explaining Proof of Stake

The in-group doesn't necessarily vote for the place's success. They vote for the policies that continue to keep them in the in-group, which may well exclude the out-group from ever becoming part of the in-group. The out-group will only put up with that for so long.

We should at least start with if you are a net recipient of government money you do not get to vote.

I agree 100%. It makes no sense that every person gets the same one vote. A fault of "our democracy"

@SimpleStacker return of the strong gods?

Democracy is a god that failed.

I agree!!!

And that way we would prevent many "idiots" from being manipulated by the political charlatans who are trying to get that vote at any cost!!! Damn!! I hate politicians!!!