There are many different kinds of socio-political organs like states, cities, clubs, unions, - and companies. They all resemble each other in their need to reach majorities to keep a decision making process alive. They all consist of members as the root sources of voting power. They differ quite extremely, though, in how the voting power of a single member is determined.
Whereas for states and the likes members have a uniform voting power, voting powers in companies are determined solely by a members share of the organisations capital. Let us term the former organisations as ’socialistic’, the latter as ‘capitalistic’ and put this all up in a mathematical model.
Starting with a capitalistic organisation the voting power of a member i can be calculated as:
VPi = Ci/C,
Ci being the amout of capital of member i and C being the sum of the capital of all members.
Example: If members A, B and C built up a company and contribute 10, 30, and 60 units of capital, respectively, member A will have a voting power of 0.1 as this members share is 10 out of 100.
The formula can be rewritten as:
VPi = (Ci/C )^1/p with p = 1;
The answer for ‘Why such p?’ comes with increasing p.
For the example above with p = 2 the voting powers will be calculated as:
VP(A) = 0.32
VP(B) = 0.55
VP(C) = 0.77
Again with p = 10 the voting powers will be calculated as:
VP(A) = 0.79
VP(B) = 0.89
VP(C) = 0.95
As can be seen from the numbers the voting power of each member tends toward 1. This becomes obvious for p = 100:
VP(A) = 0.98
VP(B) = 0.99
VP(C) = 0.99
As the individual voting powers come closer and closer to 1 they become more and more equal! Means, with a growing p an organisations political structure becomes more and more ’socialistic’. And for p being infinitely big, the above named formula represents what we termed ’socialistic’ and what is generally termed ‘democratic’. So - take that in mind - socio-political organisations as we know them today are only found in positions p=1 und p=indefinitely big. Not only mathematically such positions are ‘extreme’. For p=1 a members share and stake may differ a lot. For p = indefinitely big a members share and stake may be closer together. But what is your stake, if you have no share at all?
Shares are easily introduced for a democratic organisation: Let every member buy a share for a single cent and set a very high value for p. Practically nothing will change. Theoretically it is a revolution. And people may start feel differently about their stake.
Subsequently lowering p, I dont say it is an aim to come close to p=1. Answers to the question where to find better performing democratic organisations may be found somewhere in the middle. Again, there must not be an optimal point at all: lowering and lifting the p level can help a political system to adjust to changing conditions. Compare this with the base interest rate and its function in the monetary part of the economic system. And again, it is possible to introduce some pi, allowing for individual p-factors. But that might just go too far.
NODDR strongly supports to give people a share. Have a stake!