I've separated out the key successive statements you make concerning the core feature. Unfortunately, each is loosely-phrased, is unsupported by facts or argument and thus fails to communicate much at all ...
1. Voting in a real world scenario is flawed to the core.
2. Decentralizing it, making it trustless and transparent on the blockchain, fixes those fundamental flaws.
3. Human nature is the weakest link, so we remove it from the equation.
4. Then we take that innovation of voting on the blockchain and actually use it ourselves to further the very project that created it.
I'll pick one (not entirely at random) and challenge you on it, just as a thought experiment ...
“Human nature is the weakest link, so we remove it from the equation”
Exactly how is “human nature” (whatever you think you mean by that term) the “weakest link” (whatever you think you mean by that term), and from which “equation” (whatever you think you mean by that term) is it to be removed?
The statement conveys no useful information about what you plan to do because it's constructed from undefined, informal terms which can mean whatever you want them to mean.
The same goes for the other three statements, they are all semantically vacuous.
I'm not questioning your integrity, I'm pointing out that you're not saying clearly whatever it is that you think you're saying.
Voting in a real world scenario is flawed to the core. Decentralizing it, making it trustless and transparent on the blockchain, fixes those fundamental flaws.
It's difficult for me to see how it could be anything other than screamingly obvious to a businessperson such as yourself that you at least have to present a supporting case for your twin statements that i) voting in a real world scenario is “flawed to the core” and ii) that a blockchain-based implementation “fixes those fundamental flaws”.
As it stands...
The first claim can be trivially dismissed with: “Sez who? WTF do
you know about it?” (hint, using the term “in a real world scenario” simply signposts the content as confected gibberish).
I can't in all conscience call the second statement a “claim” because, in the absence of support, it's simply a non-sequitur. There's a
lot of work ahead of you in preparing an argument to support your claim that a blockchain-based solution actually
does “fix” (whatever you think you mean by that term) the core flaws in real-world voting (whatever you think you mean by that term).
Cheers
Graham