RE: What's in it for me?
Thanks for the well thought out reply.
It is impossible to hold elections that have a meaningful character because of the possibility of setting up multiple accounts.
Yes, if Steemit were to adopt democratic principals it would be pointless to base voting on each individual account. It would most definitely need to be based on one person. That would be the end of the illusion of being completely anonymous as each person would need to verify their identity and have that linked to at least one account for the privilege of voting.
I believe there would a huge upside and the possibility of mass adoption if it went down that road. Especially if there were no compulsion to register identity to open an account, only to vote on issues and for Witness selection.
Maybe that answers the other valid point you raised below?
you can't send one "player" against the other "serious taker", because it's impossible to reconcile these two mentalities.
Thank you for the links I will give them more attention tomorrow
Interesting, so you're saying that only when you're voting - and not when you open an account - would it have to be like identifying or logging in with your real name to participate in the voting process? Did I get that right? Would not then people who do not have an account on Steemit also be entitled to vote? Which is an interesting thought, too.
However, I still think that nobody would give such a sensitive document as an identity card to someone else - Steemit in this case. I would not.
I hope you will read the linked posts, as to talk with me maybe in further exchanges about systemic consensus. It's otherwise not possible :=D