From an Australian perspective, my proposal is:
The reason for the diminishing weight of a vote is to correlate with the diminished exposure political decisions will have on the citizen.
It’s a Euthanasia Coaster where the cars are 802.3 frames.
This perspective betrays a complete lack of understanding and experience of being chronically suicidal. Inflicting the responsibility of how others conduct themselves on someone, particularly one in a vulnerable state, is beyond repugnant.
The only effective mechanism for prevention of chronic suicidality is to create an environment in which one can actively, freely, and legitimately choose to participate when they’re at their most vulnerable.
It could be a real address, but not within a /24, nor publicly routable.
Righty tightly, self-tapping.
I want wealth to be an indicator of a well-rounded member of society, instead of its current role as a proxy for sociopathy.
Also, how about relabelling excessive financial accumulation as something along the lines of ‘financial obesity’.
I create unique email addresses for every organisation and service I deal with, including an obfuscated date, so when an address is compromised I can nuke it with a hard rejection, and regenerate as needed. This all feeds into a catchall mailbox, with server-side sieve rules to filter the stuff I actually care about.
I besides some account specific and burnt addresses, I don’t actively track of any of the addresses I’ve created, it would be in the hundreds by now.
One benefit of this crazy setup is there’s one less common identifier to match across disparate data stores.
Finally, no one should do any of The above. From experience I consider it pathological.
Using the formula as written, anyone aged 40-49 would have a vote weighted at 85%. You’d have to make it to 210 years old to reach 0%.