[ingenuous2]

How does that resolve? If I pay 0% to the military, but the US gets a favorable trade deal b/c theyre worried for invasion, do I get the reward without any skin in the game?

Wouldn't a savvy gamesman just vote for their own self-interest?

[zo1]

Perhaps that could be a feature? Everyone voting not just for their own self-interest, but for the things they think are important government features. Over the entire populace, it'll average out and their gaming won't amount to much.

The idea is that it's more "expressive" than one person = one vote. And it's more manageable than pure direct-democracy. Look, you could fiddle with things and have "minimum" amounts so that people can't completely break a government feature if they don't like it. E.g. 100% of people voting to have 0 military spending. But, if that were to happen, is that not a hint to politicians that none of the voting populace wants military spending?

To me it's another way to give more power to the individuals, rather than leaving it solely in the grasp of politicians.

[ingenuous2]

Do you think it's desirable to give more power to individuals? Personally, I think enlightened despotism is probably the best form of government in terms of fairness, efficiency, etc.

In the US (a democratic republic), I see that the decision makers act in their own short term self-interest.

The risk with an enlightened despot (think typical corporate structure) is that the person at the top can really cause damage, because they don't have checks on what they can do. We can imagine the downside right now -- the strength of the republic is currently being stress tested to see if it can salvage itself simply by resistance, friction, and inefficiency to prevent Mr. Trump from destroying so much.