I love the idea, but I don't think people should be allowed to have unlimited up or down votes. That would encourage whimsical opinions, and would make the site reflect the opinions of the most active and opinionated users instead of the average person. I think there needs to be a way to limit the voice of each user so each person has the same amount of influence.
One idea I like is to give each user 100 points to distribute among topics. Once the user has assigned a certain number of points for or against a position, they could then distribute those points amongst the comments that best represent their position. So if a user votes 20 points for gun control, gun control would get 20 points, and the user would have to choose which comments best support their position--5 points to this comment, 7 points for this comment, etc.
I think this would solve two problems: it would encourage thoughtful opinions to rise to the top, and it would give voice to the minority of voters that care passionately about a topic that the majority disagrees with or doesn't care about.
For example, if 50% of voters are "for" gun control, and 50% are "against" gun control, but there are 2 very popular, well-written posts supporting gun control, and only one very popular, well-written post opposing it, then the gun control supporters will "split the vote" and their best comments will only be ranked about half as highly as the opposition.
Which may or may not matter depending on how people interpret comment scores.
Interesting post on reweighted score voting. How would that work in practice for sorting comments? Would you have people rank the top-level comments in the order they agree with?
The strategy I had in mind for comments was to create a column of arguments for and against, and to only allow users to vote on comments in the column where they've placed their opinion. That way the strongest arguments from both sides would be shown.
I agree that there might be some issues with comment limits--you don't want to limit discussion too much.
On a different topic, why do you think this system should be anonymous? You can't limit votes unless you can authenticate someone's identity, and the best way to prove that users are real is to show who each user is.
Corruption is only possible when you know who to bribe. By making the system completely anonymous, bribery becomes extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible.
Further, all ideas should receive equal consideration. Attaching names allows for group-think and bribery. (Imagine if Neil deGrasse Tyson posted a policy, or Neil Patrick Harris, or Neil Young.) Ideas must stand on their own merit, not on the reputation or wealth of the person who conceived the idea.
I'm not sure I understand your point about bribery. Are you talking about bribing groups of people to vote a particular way, or about bribing coercing powerful individuals not to express their opinions?
I disagree in practice that all ideas should have equal consideration. If an economist or other professional has a proposal, I think its practical to recognize that that person has extra credibility on a topic, and I don't see why we shouldn't let the public see that person's reputation. Professionals have an incentive not to state false claims--if the do so, especially in an internet forum board, they would be called out and their reputations would suffer.
On the other hand, there needs to be some anonymity to protect people from real life abuse. Do you see any problem with the option of anonymity?
You have some interesting ideas, and it would be rather helpful if you would add them to the wiki.
Your question poses an interesting problem. How do you give accreditation while still retaining anonymity? At some point you have to associate an account with a person.
I think optional anonymity would allow corruption into the system. (Televangelists, for example, would opt-out from anonymity so that their proposals might pass through randomized moderation by votes from their fan base.)
Much of this is putting the cart before the horse, though, as the system is probably best tested, at first, with politicians. See also: http://openparliament.ca/
One idea I like is to give each user 100 points to distribute among topics. Once the user has assigned a certain number of points for or against a position, they could then distribute those points amongst the comments that best represent their position. So if a user votes 20 points for gun control, gun control would get 20 points, and the user would have to choose which comments best support their position--5 points to this comment, 7 points for this comment, etc.
I think this would solve two problems: it would encourage thoughtful opinions to rise to the top, and it would give voice to the minority of voters that care passionately about a topic that the majority disagrees with or doesn't care about.