Always impossible! - not

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Saari wrote in part--

Personally, I prefer a system where money is used.  With a sufficiently steep
scale ($1, $10, $100) there would actually be only a slight opportunity for
rich people to have more influence.  (A poor person casts a $10 triple-vote; a
rich person casts a $100 quadruple-vote.  The rich person only has 4/3 the
influence of the poor person.)  If all money goes into a pool which is divided
equally, the money of the extravagant voters flows in the direction of the
poorer people...)  While I still like the requirement to explain votes
(especially Oppose votes), the money system would take up people's time the
way the comment system would.

-----
Is Mr. Saari suggesting that if 99 poor voters spend $1 each on a choice and
if 1 rich voter spends $100 to oppose such choice that the rich person should
prevail ??

I note that many former so-called civilizations have fallen when a rich
oligarchy caused major problems-- France 1789 (producing the tyrant Napoleon),
Russia 1917 (producing the tyrants Lenin and Stalin), etc. etc.