Budgeting by Vote

Imagine, if you will, a government that decides to fund initiatives by a voting process. The process is simple: one dollar, one vote. In a given round of voting, you can choose between any number of proposals put forth by anyone, and you can place negative votes on proposals you do not want funded. In the end of the round, funding is split in proportion to votes assigned, coming from a preallocated budget.

This means you can propose that money goes straight into your own pocket, or you can consider that it goes to shared services that improve the quality of life, or also allocate some of it to go to the less fortunate as charity. Such a government at least needs to set aside an amount to keep the country running too.

Would such a structure work? Would it be able to satisfy the needs of its citizens?

Naturally, greed will be taking center stage, as it is all too tempting to line one's own pockets given the opportunity. If everyone decided to do this, you would not have a functional government. There are crucial services that need funding that are at least for maintaining order. No, you'd need a minimum amount allocated to such "critical" services. Just the right amount in the right places to maintain order while milking what you can.

But imagine that the voters decided to fund initiatives that improve the quality of life, or into initiatives that encourage foreign investment, tourism, etc. These are initiatives focused on making the available funding work more efficiently at bringing in more prosperity rather than an immediate focus on returns. The available funding will be much better with a better allocation of funding.

One path leads to a prosperous nation. The other sounds like an oppressive dictatorship. Or it could be a benevolent dictatorship. Who knows.

This construct is also pretty funny to think about. Imagine browsing an online ballot with proposals like

• Fund @eonwarped piggy bank.

Next to

• Fund art program A.
• Fund education program B.

This is the vein in which I invite you to think about STEEM as a budget allocation system in which your votes have influence.

What will bring prosperity to our world? Or what do you think deserves money?

Content is but a small part of this view. Important, but maybe not in a way many think about it. I'd argue anyone that can get people to enjoy being on this platform is doing much more than someone posting the most amazing short story nobody is talking about (unless it really gets a discussion going).

Giving a little boost to startups that enhance the STEEM experience is also worthy.

Charities funding? Sure, Crowdfunding is a powerful tool, but arguably it has a lesser effect on STEEM except as a proof of concept. It by itself won't grow the platform.

Why are people so focused on immediate returns on such a developing ecosystem? Returns focused growth is not what will keep people in this system if it cannot be backed by anything else. People being people, short term maximization is to be expected, but they are slowing growth potential.

I guess at the end of the day, what I'm saying is that we should promote tourism some more.

Posted using Partiko Android