Reply #6: continuous election doesnt mean continuous 'voting'

[Charlls]

the system would work as this: you go to the electoral office and select your supporting candidates. From that moment, you dont have to do anything else to "vote", because you are already accounted supporting that candidate. When that candidate doesnt please you anymore, you go again to the office and update it again.

In particular this means that no matter if you "really care" or you "dont care", your vote weights exactly one, and no matter how often you update, you vote doesnt weight more, just "oscillates".

The system can be as easily rigged as a bank account, but now with the added difficulty that its really easy to verify that votes states are correct; its enough to do a random sampling of voters are queried for their vote support status and that is compared against the national repository.

I really dont buy that argument that people will change their vote because the president had a bad haircut or said something stupid; remember that people will still have to do a bureocratic procedure to update their vote, and its still a pain in the ass, no matter how efficiently is done. Most people will have to feel a bit of a commitment to update the vote.

About the fact that people dont go to elections; thats totally true. But compare the amount of people that go to elections to the amount of people that have a driving license. Maybe the fact that a driving license can be done almost anytime along the year helps a bit, dont you think?