So the size and the constitution of the organization should be also subject to vote.
That makes much sense indeed!
On voting, an interesting observation I had personally: In recent years I had intelligent friends giving me a call when they needed to cast their vote for national government, or local government, asking me what to vote. That was the moment I realised and questioned myself: Who does really think about what they vote. Luckily with me as the advisor, my friends have someone who think in general interest, and tries to be as objective as possible. But not all advisors are like that :( and :)
There is nothing wrong with mentors and philosophers trying to influence the voters with reason and evidence.
What is wrong is when propagandists are doing it with pure emotional manipulation and subversion.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Fully in agreement. But what if I was giving my friends the advise to vote what is good for me and not for them? Fact is that many countries now have populist in their political systems and not only 10% but up to 20 and 30% of the voters are blinded by what they say. That could also happen in a new system where the community votes for whatever needs to be voted for, or for instance when doctors vote for something... I like to believe in people, and think that the majority is cleaver enough individually and as a collective to win and move the train in the right direction at all times (with here and there some setbacks), but I still need to see it in practise to be sure if all the 'bad' votes can be over won by the 'good' votes. Maybe with the 90%, but it requires vote obligation, rather than voluntarily voting.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit