I wonder if there could exist a society where everyone would be required to allocate certain fixed taxes across a portfolio ranging from police maintenance, healthcare services to education, with the departments themselves convincing people to invest more in them than in other areas?
I wonder, what prevents the use of the three-ballot voting system? Its principle is as follows: each voter receives a ballot with a unique number that has three detachable stubs. To vote “FOR”, the voter marks the selected candidate on any two parts of the ballot, and to vote “AGAINST”, the candidate is marked only on one part of the ballot where they are listed. If there is not at least one mark for each candidate, the ballot is considered invalid. A validator checks that the following condition is met (the number of markings for each candidate is greater than or equal to one and does not exceed two). The voter receives a receipt with a number (but without an indication of whom they voted for). After the election ends and votes are counted, a list of voters and all parts of the ballots are published in a public ballot database, so that everyone can check if their vote was counted. According to the protocol, the number of ballots is three times the number of voters who participated in the voting and correctly filled out their ballots. The number of votes cast for each candidate is calculated as the difference between the number of marks for the candidate and the number of correctly filled ballots, divided by three. If desired, it is possible to reconcile the number of attendees with the number of different numbers. What are the drawbacks?
Hi, I'm Rauf Aliev. 