Do you have some ideas to share about how NEM should institute voting?
The following is a forwarded from @generalbloat on Telegram. [url=http://pastebin.com/VMkvUaFE]http://pastebin.com/VMkvUaFE
Enable transparent voting in the NEM platform using the message feature already in place in the current software.
Question forms:
Type 1) Yes/No
Type 2) Multiple Choice
Type 3) Number
Start of the life of a vote:
Developer A wants to gather the opinion on a certain topic.
Do you think the amount of vested balance should be reduced in the next hard fork? (Type 1)
i) Yes
ii) No
How much do you think the vested balance amount should become? (Type 2)
500-10.000
What colour should the next front-end be like? (Type 3)
A) Blue
B) Red
C) Green
D) etc.
All wallets with a number of vested XEM >= 2.000.000 and a block height age of >= 30 days should be able to receive the message. This is to reduce the likelihood of someone wanting to steer the outcome of a certain question by splitting the capital and creating multiple accounts and greatly increases the legitimacy of a vote.
Furthermore this puts an incentive on obtaining or buying a large set of XEM if one wishes to partake in the voting process and empowers the ones already having bought into XEM with the risk of losing it all.
This message comes at a certain cost to prevent spamming on the network (for example, promotion of websites, services, etc.) referred to as voting posing cost equal to the number of messages sent times the transaction cost (Theoretical maximum amount of 4.500 XEM per question). Which also ensures the quality of the question has a certain minimum value equal to or greater than 4.500 XEM.
The cost of replying to a question (vote) voting cost equals the minimum amount needed to send back a reply. This costs represents the willingness of voters to answer in all seriousness equal to or greater than 10 XEM. This could also be a barrier for some to engage in a voting system, or could be raised (only count votes >= 100 XEM) to address very serious matters.
All votes are counted equally just as a regular votes in a normal democratic system.
Results:
The results are then filtered out of the block chain according to a given set of parameters unique for every vote:
Start vote date: 01/01/2016
End vote date: 01/02/2016
Voting address: XDLA-AALKS-MASAA-ASJAK-ASKASN
Possible answers: 0-1000, YES, NO, A, B, ETC.
And then counted to give a certain outcome.
For example in a YES/NO vote:
Number of people voted: 176
Number of people voted YES: 103
Number of people voted NO: 73
Percentage of people voted YES: 41.5 %
Percentage of people voted NO: 58.5 %
Number of people eligible to vote: 1020
Number of people voted: 176
Turn up: 176/1020 = 17.2 %
Then with certain requirement before a bill/referendum passes, examples:
Minimum amount of people voting (absolute number): 100
Minimum amount of people voting (percentage wise): 25%
Minimum amount of YES/NO: 75%
People can manually browse through the transaction history to validate the outcome of each and every vote, voting is transparent and verifiable through the block chain.
Coding:
The only thing that needs to be written in code on top of the existing one is a feature that allows a developer to automatically send a message through a transaction to all the addresses on the network that meets the following requirements: vested XEM >= 2.000.000, address age >= 43.200 days.
The outcome and result can easily be done manually or semi-automatic by filtering out the messages in the block chain sent to the initiators address and later on published through the public announcement team of NEM.
This feature should be available to NEM developers only to prevent and limit users from spamming the network.
Anonymous voting:
People who vote send their vote go into a tumbler (just like a regular tumbler service on other block chains) which gets send to the voting address erasing any trace back to the original voter rendering legitimate anonymous votes.
I'd rather use importance to limit who is eligible to vote. We have POI, why go POS with voting ? 
1 Like
Definitely utilize POI. Also have various levels of support. Movement of community funds towards a project must be 60% majority YES. Major fork of NIS at 75%. Crowning Ms Ivan Sirko Home coming Queen 33% and so on.
Hahahaha. I like that.
I especially like the idea of voting on forks.
75% sounds good to me for hard fork and maybe 60% for soft fork.
It will be really nice to have this governance in place so we can avoid the problems of Bitcoin and basically every other crypto ever.
I also think a good voting management system should be worked out by V1 that starts to work for anything after V1
Hahahaha. I like that.
I especially like the idea of voting on forks.
75% sounds good to me for hard fork and maybe 60% for soft fork.
It will be really nice to have this governance in place so we can avoid the problems of Bitcoin and basically every other crypto ever.
To me it kinda sounds like a recipe for disaster but it is an interesting idea to make this choice easier.
Of course the final vote is always whether harvesters with POI will run the new software.
Well I guess the final vote is what our devs like to do 