Online Voting System Analysis

Correspondingly, it is believed that the bottleneck and limitations lie on the implementation of the voting system itself. Democracy as an ideal construct is fine all by itself. So the problems can only arise when mankind tries to make it work in the real world. When originally conjured, there was no way to foresee the advancement in technology that we have today. Then it's merely proposed that we made use of said technology to the betterment of the process. A form of achieving metaphysical results by physical means. Eventually a solution; a point of equilibrium; should be reached in which a stable run of government remains in office. Just like the temperature of which an old fridge or resistive oven is kept; a natural monopoly will be set in place. In order for this desired result to be achieved, a first condition should be satisfied, and that is that unlimited and unrestricted elections should be possible; including further lowering the bar on candidates, in order to increase participation. This is nothing more that expressing economic freedom in the political sense. That is to say, that

One which may not vinculate to any actual implementation anyhow. And obviously all voters start with the same token amount of voting money; which would be comparable to their first salary. Otherwise it wouldn't be just and fair. A possible provision to never amount to nil; although there's no problem reasonably to start at it. The real problem is the emotional perception in the acceptance of the system by the people. In the end, it can alternatively be conceived as an isomorph simulation of a political massive multiplayer online game, in which all users start with the same score, and work their way up; or down; the board ladder. Since it's an abstract concept applied to that particular setting; even money itself. Other analogies then are also possible, of