Better how? Better why?
Umm it seems that in the end you conclude that it's not a "balanced" approach? What could be MORE balanced? Its balance won't change the fact that it's still a poor idea.
You see a few people participating in the voting and you disregard their ability to vote. What else is there to say, you think that people cannot use their vote effectively, what I want to know is what is the qualia for Centralization of Power if you consider a list of 50 people that omits 350 others or relegates them to being picked by typing in the name as an impendent to people voting, and ultimately positing that those whose votes actually count, or the ones whos accounts are Powerd Up are somehow unable to use the functionality of the website to vote for anyone other than the top 50. It's one leap of logic to another, I don't buy it, demonstrate that a) centralization of power in a very 'deep state' kind of way and b)game is rigged are apt descriptions and not blatant misrepresentations and exaggerations compounded with asenine insinuations of inVestor's lack of common sense.
Better because at least if I personally get to register a vote on specific issues, my vote (might) count for something. Representational democracy is just a farce that pretends to give people a voice, but which in practise only serves to concentrate vast power in the hands of the few. How many people ever meet their 'representative'? How many people's real voice is reflected in the actions of the representative? The number is tiny in both cases.
A voluntarist society would be more balanced than democracy and it requires an evolution of the heart and a willingness to live peacefully. I have written several times on this, but for some reason google isn't brining up the most relevant posts. Here's one that covers the topic to some extent:
https://steemit.com/politics/@ura-soul/an-economic-model-for-world-peace-heartism-plus-understanding-capitalism-vs-communism-and-voluntarism
I have no idea what this line refers to.
Here's some data on that:
https://steemit.com/steem/@ura-soul/does-the-fact-that-the-witness-voting-page-only-shows-50-witnesses-effect-the-voting-outcome-an-analysis-of-the-spread-of
Here's a solution that would be EASY to implement:
https://steemit.com/utopian-io/@ura-soul/suggestion-improved-witness-voting-page-for-steemit-com
Only just now I was informed (as often happens) that someone wanted to vote for me and thought he had voted for me, but the vote wasn't logged in SteemD (but WAS showing in steemit.com). Just another 'bug'.
You asked me why direct democracy was better, I explained why it is better. the end.
your statement 'have an equal vote for the witnesses' is imprecise. to clarify, I simply want all witnesses to be visible in the list from which people make their votes.
I do not equate voluntarism with democracy, so unless you are calling voluntarism an idiotic idea, again, I am not clear what you are saying here.
I think you have misinterpreted something I have written because I have no idea what you are talking about here - it just doesn't fit in with the situation. I am not disregarding anyone's ability to vote.
Any account owner, regardless of their SP is going to be hindered in the process of freely choosing a voting candidate, if they cannot see all of them - it's not difficult to understand is it?
I already provided a link to an analysis that shows how the amount of votes received by users in the 40/50 region jumps fairly profoundly. I have spoken with a witness who moved into the top 50 fairly recently and who confirmed that it is unfair and he receives hugely more votes now he is in the top 50. I can also show two posts from the last few hours where people have tried to vote for me using the steemit witness page and they have typed my name in, the interface has shown that they have voted for me, but the vote was not logged in the blockchain.
If you cannot understand how this is unfair then that is not my problem.
a) They have no way of knowing who the witnesses outside of the top 50 even are, unless they do significant amounts of research.
b) Even when they do choose someone outside of the top 50, there are at least two major reasons why there is a good chance their vote will fail.
Without Steem, Steemit is completely useless - but in any case I am really only talking about issues in Steemit.com and not issues in Steem.
Several users who have commented on this issue over several posts in the last few days, that I have made, have said that for most of the time they used the system they had no idea how witnesses functioned or what the voting was for - so they just pretty much randomly clicked on names from the list of the top 50 to make up their 30 votes. This appears to be more common than people actually doing research.
They have a way, but they ware unlikely to take it and in any case, whether they have a way or not does not change the fact that the situation is unfair.
One issue, as stated multiple times here already, is that the votes often aren't even logged. The other issue is that the design of the 'vote' button and text input works in a way that is counter to expectation - you type in the name and click 'vote' and then the user's name and a 'vote circle' icon appears. In a large number of cases, people then click the new 'vote circle' button - thinking that they need to do that to vote. The then unvote the account. You can look through the history of votes for probably all of the witness accounts below the top 50 and you will see many examples of votes being cast and then immediately uncast - this is where people unvote accidentally. I catch some of them, but surely not all of them. This is the THIRD hindrance witnesses below 50 face and for no good reason.