I have also wondered if it wouldn't be better to return to the old method of selection of the Senate. And I do believe that there should be a wider role of referendum in politics now that the technology is such that it would make mass ballot initiatives practical. One thing I would suggest, however, is that maybe we should make measures have to pass by a certain percentage of the total "possible" vote, sort of a quorum of the electorate. If not enough people vote to reach a quorum, then nothing can pass. This would weaken the power of special interest groups. I also wonder if any time a ballot is cast, we shouldn't have some sort of fact quiz, just to make sure that the person voting actually knows what they are voting on, as opposed to just filling out what they were told to....this may be a little difficult to do in a nonpartisan way.
Of course, we could count resources instead of individuals....the more resources you have control over, the larger the percentage of the vote. Some subscribe to the theory that the voting process is a surrogate for combat, with everyone conceding that the one who won the vote would likely win an armed conflict, and thus it is better for both sides to let the vote decide, which is less costly for both. If this is indeed the case, then it would be reasonable to assume whatever side in an issue had control of the most resources would likely win (regardless of number of "personalities", unless those ARE counted as resources). This way, we would avoid the problem of trying to sort out "who" gets "a" vote. Of course, some issues people place such value on that they are unwilling to concede defeat ever. These are not usually settled at the polling place even today.
Just some thoughts spun off the cuff....what do y'all think?
Glen