So long as politicians are able to make choices independent of the people who voted for them voting will never be fair.
The whole point is to have a convenient and reliable system where people themselves can vote for things that matter to them and not delegate their power to politicians. Think along the lines of dedicating 10 minutes of your time every evening at your computer to vote for something you care about.
Consensus is difficult enough to get working within the context of people who live together in cohousing/ intentional community. Within the scope of a society, its lunacy. Maybe you are searching for another term?
I can start with simple example - there is a need to patch the road shared by 10 families in the neighborhood, nobody else uses that road (so they don't really care) and there is no central authority to call for. How would those families achieve consensus of who does what and who pays what.
It could be that one good guy just goes ahead and fixes it for everybody to benefit from it, but if that doesn't happen there needs to be a reliable mechanism to achieve consensus.
Can I opt out?
Sure!
You won't be able to vote, but if you don't want to/don't care it's totally ok.
EDIT:
This might give an answer to the questions like "who will build the roads?" and
"who will look after the old and sick?"
Also it doesn't need to get big or centralized, it can start as your local neighborhood of 10 families and stay that way.
Unless your group is going to be 6 people forcing 4 people to do and not do stuff you might as well just skip voting and go with actual consensus. Don't do stuff to people without their permission. You don't even need 10 people you can start by yourself. Don't hurt people and don't make excuses (uniform, election, tradition, etc) for people who do hurt others (including yourself).
There is no forcing of anyone to do anything. People who agreed to participate in the system would have an option to either accept the result of the vote even if they disagree with it or leave that particular consensus-society or never even consider participating in any to begin with. The idea is that people need other people to survive, to grow food, to build houses and those who will learn how to achieve consensus while working together in a most constructive way will prosper and flourish and show an example to other people how things can be done, not that other people have to necessarily follow that example.
Hi, could you explain what you mean by "provably fair"?
Describe precisely
what it is, and the
how is already done for you.
I can guess at the 'provable' part -- checks and balances to avoid various ways of gaming the system.
But what's the 'fair' part? Does it refer to
social justice? Or
fair division (game theory) or maybe another definition under the vague umbrella of
'fairness' ?
And just for fun, if you come up with some system (which may indeed be a very good one, I'm not pre-emptively disputing that), but someone else disagrees and wants
their 'provably fair' system to be used instead, except that its results are in conflict with your results, how is the final decision made?
I simply meant that the system cannot be rigged/hijacked with fraudulent votes.
It is 'fair' only in that sense and no other meaning was intended.
I think the 4th paragraph in OP describes the mechanism with enough details.
There is nothing about forcing this system against any other system, that decision would simply be left for free market to demonstrate which system works best. I only wanted to point out that with Bitcoin we now have a technical solution to voting problem that never existed before.
Two neighborhoods may vote within themselves to join forces, for example, and those who were opposed to this decision are free to leave and create their own neighborhood or stay alone.
Gang warfare. Brilliant.
The course of action that people will take in any situation will only reflect their level of development.
If they are aggressive and operate from the position of fear that there isn't enough for everyone we might observe what you just quoted. But it doesn't have to be that way if people want to build things and improve their way of life by using expertise and labor of other people in a consensus-based reality.
The regular people lacks the expertise and information to make an informed decision on majority of the government's operation, this is why we have to elect professional politicians to do it.
This is one of the general misconceptions that there is some 'government operation' and that 'they' know better than 'us' what is best for 'us'. If you delegate that decision making process of what is best for you to other people then you probably expect that those people know you better than you know yourself, which is frankly ridiculous. You are your government, you are your authority, you are unique point of view, you are particular perspective of the infinite - cherish your existence!
