This topic has gone dead, but it is critical.
In all the discussions here, it is assumed that the real value of a Flux representative is their capacity to vote on bills. Ignoring the DD/LD/IBDD breakdown, the end result of all this effort is a vote on a bill.
However, a vote on a bill only becomes valuable if you can win the Flux ballot in the first place, and if the representative then takes your win to parliament where they hold the balance of power. How often is that likely to happen?
So the real value comes from the presence in parliament of a Flux representative. Off the top of my head, here are a few ways they can operate in parliament and through their operations add value to Flux voters:
They can negotiate with other parliamentarians to change their vote to the Flux vote, based on evidence.This will increase the number of times the Flux vote can swing a vote. So they need highly developed lobby and negotiation skills, and there needs to be a process to determine how they prioritise their lobbying capacity.
They can present private members bills on behalf of Flux voters. Again they need highly developed lobby and negotiation skills so that they can win support for their bills.
They can access an information and research infrastructure. In this case there needs to be a protocol on who can access their time for research and under what circumstances.
They have funds to do stuff. How are those funds best spent?
Critically, none of the issues above can be settled by counting tokens. They require value judgements, so the question arises as to who makes those judgements and how.
THE BALANCE OF POWER
We need to start talking about these additional benefits because the ability to vote on bills is only valuable if we care about the bill and if Flux holds the balance of power for that bill.
As the number of Flux representatives increases, they will increasingly hold the balance of power, but voters will have to be convinced of the value of voting for a Flux representative long before there are enough representatives to routinely hold the balance of power.
Direct democracy as it relates to bills may be the least important part played by Flux representatives until they have achieved significant numbers.
PRIVATE MEMBERS BILLS
Maybe the ability to submit private members bills on populist and mostly non-partisan issues issues is what really matters. Much of the rhetoric is about creating a new style of leadership where "experts" rather than career politicians lead. Experts will rarely be interested in voting on bills that have been framed and presented to parliament by the existing political parties - which is most of the bills presented, and are which are about tweaking the status quo. They will be interested in the ability to frame private members bills to further their causes and change the status quo.
The issues that matter to ordinary people include issues such as:
* quality of welfare
* quality of education
* quality of health care
* animal welfare
* the envirnoment
* what we do with out troops (offensive, defensive, peace-keeping)
* immigration policy
* overseas aid policy
* etc etc.
These are the issues we go to election on, but which become policy rather than legislation once a government takes power. These are also the areas where they are most likely to break their promises on once the are "ruling" us. What we really need to get our governments under control is the ability to influence the party in power to change their policy. We need the ability to present private member's bills and have them passed.
To do this we would have to start very very carefully so we present bills that were sufficiently non-partisan that they might get enough party support and so be passed into law. Initially they would have to be seen as adding value to the policy position of the ruling party rather than threatening an existing ideological position.
This will not result from a random approach to which bills are presented based on the capacity of the proposer to trade tokens in the IBDD system. It will come from careful and expert consideration of each potential vote to assess it's potential to succeed.
This is just a start. There are many more issues that need to be addressed, so what about everyone raising their "emotional glitch" points here to see if we can rationalise where they come from and how they can be resolved?