Introduction. Before proceeding directly to the reform of democracy or its optimization, it is worth making an excursion into the history of ancient Rome. The most important phenomenon in the socio-economic and political life of Rome. 2nd century should be considered a crisis of the policy organization. The old republican institutions, adapted to the needs and demands of the small Roman community ( polis ), turned out to be insufficiently effective in the new conditions. This discrepancy was especially evident, for example, in the issue of provincial governance. They were actually placed at the uncontrolled disposal of governors ( proconsuls , propraetors) appointed by the Senate [1].
About the activities of "publicans".
How similar this is to the current structure of power in the post-Soviet space. Only the "provinces" suffer from the destructive activities of oligarchs, often both regional and national, and democracy itself has turned into only a screen behind which hides the total local power of certain industrial and financial groups that grew out of crime or from the special services. And all officials are actually their proteges. Further, the activities of the publicans, who, taking over the collection of taxes and depositing a certain amount into the Roman treasury, then extorted it with huge surpluses from the local population, were especially ruinous for the inhabitants of the provinces in ancient Rome [1]. And if in the ancient world part of the money went into the national pot and only the surplus was appropriated, then budgets at all levels, in fact, became feeding troughs for those close to them. Where is the salvation? It is precisely in the right and opportunity of citizens to periodically drive away the presumptuous proteges of the oligarchs from the feeding trough. And for this we need a clear, most effective and transparent mechanism for changing power through the implementation of universal suffrage. It is obvious that the existing vote counting process is easily corrupted and falsified. Which actually deprives citizens of the right to vote.
About the disadvantages of counting.
So, in addition to the ease with which vote counts can be rigged, there are other disadvantages to the traditional ballot approach to elections. For example, perhaps the main drawback is that elections require money both for organizing the process itself, and for advertising or pre-election campaigning, and in some places for bribing members of election commissions at all levels or stages of the election process. Including banal expenses for direct bribery and voters. As they say, people sell their votes for buckwheat, and do not choose. The next drawback is the difficulty of monitoring the voting process. As I. Stalin supposedly said, "It doesn't matter how they vote, it's important how they count." In full, the institution of observers recruited from acquaintances or from the street on a low-qualification visa, and often nepotism on the ground, do not even notice the violations that occur at polling stations, and often do not understand where and what violations are being committed. The vast majority of control over the expression of will processes is carried out by random people, as well as interested parties.
About voting through websites
In addition to purely practical problems associated with attempts to falsify elections. There are also ethical issues. Why, for example, is the voice of a citizen who does not work anywhere valued on par with the voice of a fully adequate successful member of society? Etc. Unfortunately, the election process is easily corrupted, and the results are falsified or distorted for various reasons. The process of both voting and counting votes is too cumbersome. It may be objected that you can introduce online voting from a smartphone or other computer device. A person goes to a website hosted on a server and votes. But this is not a solution either, how you can start cheating votes and come up with a lot of digital tools to falsify the count. Online voting in the form that is proposed will also inspire even less confidence than standard procedures. But there is a way out
Organizations with trust from the population.
Yes, there are organizations that 90% of the population trust: banks. Or the banking system that has developed in the country. For example, the Central Bank, based on the trust of the population, will give a head start to any counting commission supposedly assembled from the people to count the votes. The population has more trust in any bank than in any election commission. Moreover, banks already have all the necessary tools to conduct elections. We just need to break the stereotype that it is necessary to throw ballots with crosses into the ballot box.
About voting with money.
It is necessary that the population vote with their honestly earned money. That is, any post office or bank office, or an application on a smartphone, anything that allows a voter to send a transfer to the account of a particular candidate, should become a polling station. And the bank account will accept this "transfer-voice", but only once. And then the measure of victory will not be the stupidity of gaining votes. Namely, the availability of money in the account opened for each candidate at the National Bank. With this approach to voting with money, each person decides for himself how much his vote weighs. The most advanced and most secure system of interbank payments can quite easily and effectively cope with both the identification of a citizen and the transfer of his funds to the bank account that belongs to the selected candidate.
Money instead of ballots.
With this approach, there is no reason for the candidate to bribe anyone, or even spend on advertising, the candidate can simply put this entire amount into his own account. By voting for yourself. Also, all sponsors of the candidate will be able to directly transfer a one-time unlimited amount of money to the candidate's account. Yes, the poor will be able to allocate less money to transfer to the candidate's account or vote with money than the rich. But there are more poor people, and due to the number of transfers and ultimately a larger amount, they will be able to give an advantage to the candidate for whom they vote. At the same time, which of the candidates wins can be seen thanks to modern means of communication in real time, for example, on a website on the Internet. Where the amount for each candidate will change in real time with each transfer. And making a one-time translation is easy at the software level. So, if the same person tries to transfer money several times, he will be denied a repeat transaction to the candidate's account. Moreover, with such a system, a person will be able to vote for each candidate simply by sending one-time money to each individual candidate's account [2].
The money goes to the budget.
As a result, at the end of voting using a money transfer. The winner is the candidate who collected the most money. Further, all the money collected by the candidates goes to the budget of the state or community in which the elections are held. That is, in fact, citizens do not just vote for this or that candidate, they hire him. Since, in the end, the elected person will, in one way or another, be involved in the distribution of the budget, including the distribution of the amounts received from citizens during the voting process.
About justice.
The proposed system for identifying the will of the people is, first of all, fair. Each voter decides for himself what "weight" his vote will have. Since each voter votes with the amount at his own discretion. But just once. Moreover, if a person is in doubt, he can vote for all candidates by allocating a certain amount for each. The system of such voting is anonymous thanks to bank secrecy and at the same time completely eliminates any fraud with ballots since it is guaranteed to 100% identify the person who makes the transaction for a particular candidate. Moreover, such elections are beneficial both to the community, if elections take place at the regional level, and to the state. Since instead of expenses there is profit and filling the budget. You can even transfer part of the amount to banks for carrying out transactions for using the current interbank payment system. That is, elections are no longer unprofitable for the budget, but you can also make money from them.
Conclusions.
The population has much higher trust in such a banking payment system than in election headquarters and a bunch of strange people who do not understand how they process ballots. People participating in elections, in essence, hire the future head of state or community and even create some initial capital for him. Banks make money from elections and elections can be held promptly at any time thanks to a permanent bank transfer system. Falsification, zero reliability in determining the leader of the election race, one hundred percent. The weight of the voices of the marginalized, on the one hand, is depreciated in comparison with the voices of successful members of society. On the other hand, anyone can increase the "weight" of their voice if they wish, simply by selling something or simply borrowing money. That is, such an approach encourages people to be successful and prudent, because it's not just throwing a piece of paper in the trash bin, it's taking and giving your money. Hence the conclusion that the modern vote counting system is a relic of the past and an anachronism. Democracy as the power of the people must keep up with technology and the demands of society.