The real problem is far too much authority was vested (taken?) by the federal congress. Smaller government is the key to keeping the government in check.
That feels like a bit of a non sequitor. Can you elaborate? Genuinely curious.
I don't think you'd want this to be linear either. My feeling is you'd want the pay to stay pretty low anywhere below a 50% support level and climb pretty steeply above that, which discourages the split people down the middle mess the US is in. You'd probably accept that a small portion of people are nutcases so the salary would approach the max at around 85-90% support.
There are some potential exploits that you'd have to try to address but it's a thought.
What we need is checks and balances, not an even more volatile method.
And at that point it's easily gamed, and leads to ineffective short termist planning by the public servant.
This is a terrible idea that would be hugely damaging to the public.
his take is that public servants actually don't make enough money, when compared to their peers in the public sector, and that an important step to preventing regulatory capture is to pay them better. that way, people don't spend their careers in public service trying to avoid pissing off lobbyists they're hoping to work for later.
not sure if it'd work or not, or if making moves like this illegal is better, but it's definitely an interesting idea.