I don't see the problem with that, because it would require me to convince you to vote for Y although you want X.

And in addition, seeing as this is an anonymous (I'm assuming) vote, then I could lie to you and vote my way (to get more votes for Y), but then if everyone will do it, the colluding wouldn't work, so we need to be able to trust each other and work together, which is exactly what we in the end, for people to work together and not against each other.

Coordinated groups have voting power of sqrt(total money)*sqrt(number of individuals), uncoordinated ones have sqrt(money). If you are for some cause, you should just find like-minded individuals and pool your total money. They have very limited incentive for keeping the money for themselves because they also agree with you on the issue.

Then the other side should also coordinate tightly in this manner, and now you have a new problem: polarization.

Yeah but you're assuming people naturally line up in two camps. It's possible that you've been inadvertently trained to think this way if you inhabit a duopolistic society.

Money?

100 'dollars' to spend

> I don't see the problem with that, because it would require me to convince you to vote for Y although you want X.

X and Y need not be alternatives for the same problem, X might be about financial deregulation and Y about privacy deregulation.

Sounds like how party coalitions work in the US.

“Your religion, your salvation, requires that you allocate tokens as your local Party Organizer assigns. Only then can we combat the godless agenda the elites have shamelessly created this quadratic system to perpetuate. Do not let them bait you from deviating from our coordinated plan to stop them.”

Anonymous voting doesn’t help when independent thought itself is trained away from an early age.

This is just persuading your compatriots to vote, which is normal and part of democracy. That's not "collusion" (an increasingly vacuous word these days).

There's nothing wrong with persuading people.