Can We Build a Stable, Centrist Governance Model Using Approval Voting? Here’s My Real-World Experiment

Hi everyone! I want to share some thoughts and tell you about a small experiment I’ve been working on. Let’s talk?

First, a bit about where I stand ideologically: I’m not an anarcho-capitalist or a libertarian. I lean more toward institutionalism — meaning I believe in the importance of functioning rules and systems that hold society together.

My two cents on politics (using the U.S. as an example):

I think the U.S. Constitution is a pretty solid foundation for a federation, but I’d tweak two things:

1. Approval voting + runoff for all elections

What’s that? You can vote for all candidates you find acceptable. If no one gets a majority in the first round, the top two go to a runoff.

Why do it?

It reduces polarization. You don’t have to pick “the lesser of two evils” — you can support multiple decent candidates.

It keeps the two-party system intact (which I think is the least bad option), but forces parties to appeal to a broader center.

And most importantly: it doesn’t break the Constitution.

1. Extend the term for the House of Representatives from 2 to 4 years

So they focus more on governing, not just campaigning all the time.

I get that this one’s harder to implement, so #1 is the real point.

Also: I wouldn’t abolish the Electoral College. It helps maintain a regional balance between large and small states.

Now to the crypto project (and no, it’s not another “moonshot”):

Why I’m doing this:

Reason #1 (being honest): I’d like to recover some of what I invested — development cost me a lot.

Reason #2 (equally important): I wanted to test some ideas around governance and voting in a real system.

Important note: Yes, the project uses token-based voting. No, I don’t think this kind of “money = vote weight” setup is suitable for a real country. It’s just for this experiment.

The project is built on two key goals:

1. Price Stability

There are built-in mechanisms to keep the price from going wild.

It’s like having a mini central bank algorithm that adjusts emissions based on supply/demand.

(If you’re curious, I can explain the mechanics in the comments, but it’s a bit technical — some econ background helps.)

1. Transparent, stable governance Here’s how it works:

Board of Directors (BoD):

Elected through modified approval voting.

Any token holder can run.

Voters can support any number of candidates, either “FOR” or “AGAINST.”

Candidate rating = FOR votes − AGAINST votes.

The top 5 by rating become directors.

Director Voting:

Each director’s vote is weighted based on their share of the total rating.

Example: total BoD rating = 2000, Director A = 400 → their vote = 20%.

A decision passes if ≥ 52% of weighted votes support it.

Direct Voting (by all token holders):

Same idea: vote FOR or AGAINST a proposal.

If support reaches ≥ 52% of total BoD rating, the proposal passes.

It stays active as long as it keeps 52% support.

Every 4 years, all decisions and positions must be re-voted.

Conflict resolution:

If a decision by direct vote conflicts with the BoD — or two decisions contradict — a panel of 7 elected judges steps in.

Each judge has 1 vote.

4 “AGAINST” votes are enough to block any decision.

CEO:

Appointed by the Board.

Handles executive functions only — doesn’t interfere with governance or voting.

A little about me:

I’m from Tajikistan, and my native languages are Russian and Tajik. If you’re reading this in English, it was translated with AI — so please forgive any weird phrasing.

And again: I’m not selling anything. If you’re curious about how the voting system works, I’m happy to give you some free tokens to test it.

So — what do you think? Would love to hear your thoughts on the political ideas, the voting mechanics, or anything else. Drop a comment!