I really don't see why there needs to be a list of top witnesses to choose from to begin with. Anyone I want to vote for I know the name of, and so I would simply put it in the field, much like tests in school worked before multiple choice tilted it all in a direction decided by people we don't know for some political agenda.
I do not want preselection by anybody. Election results are always dependent upon voter education and this place is no different.
That said, I still seem to understand too little about witnesses and the voting process myself, as I cannot seem to vote for the one guy I really would like to be more involved as a witness in helping to steer and maintain this place as a community-driven environment of actual people supporting each other (@chiefmappster)
Guess one needs to put himself up as a witness "candidate" first, right? Or why won't my vote go through?
His deeds prove his merit to me, and have done so over and over again since I joined so it's a no brainer for me. Until I find anyone else (beside you, who I CAN vote for apparently and who has proven his community-driven intention many times over as well, who I want to support in helping this place out), I will not vote for anyone on there just because they are on some list. Until I stumble upon them naturally, doing something worthwhile, like I have with you or with blocktrades who I see involved in many things I deem worthwhile up until this point.
It's either an election or it isn't. And I am sick and tired of the divide and conquer party games of pay to play and swaying people just so they give consent to their own long term disadvantage by being tricked into using some psychology-blackmagic-format like a voting list.
Though I NEVER do so, let me quote the ominous book: "You shall know them by their fruits."
All the rest is PR and dogmatic society bamboozlement. Voting for the sake of voting is always a terrible idea and gives consent to the lowest common denominator (or the one with the loudest stupidest voice or the fattest wallet to market himself), so I am not sure I want everybody to rush to vote as long as the list is in place as you have laid out here.
Voting is a statement of legitimization and support and should be entirely free of form and coercion, as well as the preconceived influence by others - especially on a digital platform like this where all limitations are completely artificial and arbitrary (because there is no actual NEED for those restrictions, technically).
I say, drop all names from that list, let people figure out who they like, not who is ALREADY liked. And then see who would actually have the competencies to run that position from amongst those most voted on (regardless of voting weight, but dependant on number of votes by provably authentic accounts).
Thanks for your heartfelt comment. I think the value of an unedited list is that those of us who want/need to learn about all the choices can do so without having to stumble into witness candidates by choice. Without having a central place for all witness candidates to be seen, we are left with the same problem of 'pay to play' being exacerbated, since those with the biggest wallets and ability to have their posts seen will be the ones who are best known as witnesses, while those with smaller budgets will not be seen at all. Not having any list would be like allowing small, independent political candidates in an election, but not having their name on the ballot papers - except there is an 'other' field you could write their name into if you happen to have heard of them. Ballot papers are a kind of advertising in and of themselves if they are honest and complete. The voter might not randomly choose a new candidate on the basis of the paper, but at least they can go and research the names they seen on it for next time.
Mhhmm, guess you are right, the wallet factor would remain even without a 'centralized' list.
I need to research this more before I waste more of your time, as in how people get on that ballot to begin with. Guess I will talk to my favorite directly and ask whether he would WANT to be on there and if so, how the community supporting him can help him do that.
Thanks for your reply to my somewhat overemotional comment - (money-influenced) politics remains one of my least favorite topics of our era and I get frustrated with it rather quickly. Happy you are voteable at least, will dig to find the others that I want to support on the ballot, as long as that current way of handling it stands.
You are welcome - poly-ticks is absolutely a problem and not a solution!
I agree with your principles, but the candidates have to be made known somewhere, in a list ,of some kind, @drakos page does that best of breed right now.
Thanks, will check it out!
I have been in a battle with politics for a long time, because weight of influence and required competency seldomly have much to do with one another. so we end up having lawyers decide about agriculture, and bankers decide about family matters.
Will have to dig more to know the basics of the status-quo on Steemit to make any proper suggestions that are workable in the current environment on steemit. cheers!