The problem I see with voting witnesses is, that it is transparent to all.

Keeping elections secret has a good reason, I think. The secret ballot protects the voter from possible negative consequences. After all, it is not his voting behaviour that should count, but the content of what an author or blogger decides to publish. To the extent that I, as an individual blogger, am scanned by the parties themselves (called witnesses here) for who I vote for and who I don't, it may be that my content is seen as politically coloured, even though my own claim is that it is motivated by neither supporting nor disagreeing with one policy or the other. I am basically against my political opinion becoming part of a judgement that could even be understood as permanent, even though I change my mind various times, take different perspectives, etc..

Since I cannot keep my vote secret here, I am more inclined to reset all my witness votes and not vote for anyone. The purely theoretical question this raises for me would be, what if no one voted for a witness? In fact, these witnesses would not stop working and would not shut down their servers. Basically, I think that in the beginning, at the emergence of the blockchain, there were self-appointing witnesses and they have existed ever since.

The elections here are basically none, because no one can really check what the quality of the witness work is, there is no time limit associated with it, because no one seems to give up being a witness after a certain period of time. There is also no obvious opposition, at least not visible to me, which is similar in strength to the established and therefore forms a relevant counterweight.

In fact, I have only a limited interest in politics and all attempts to have a say in it have resulted in me having to make my own financial effort to be a (political) voice with weight. I might even do that if I knew about trading and technology, but then I'd probably be a different person. LOL - to the extent that I have sought to read up and understand the activities of some witnesses here on the blogs, I have found that I lack understanding. The many technical terms and details elude me and ultimately bore me.

In the grand scheme of things, while the power holders are obviously the stronger ones and the participants who think they are dependent on the payouts or the attention that comes solely from the established interest group activities will continue to think so. At the edge of the mainstream, there always remain the less conformist and the odd ones out, who, though unseen, unaccepted by most, make do with what they encounter. In the end, I have little to gain from a post of mine being answered with the usual phrases. I am always looking for an inspiring exchange, which I achieve with very few here. Which is not a complaint, merely a fact. I also wouldn't have time to have such conversations with very many people, as they cost time and energy.

Participating in interest-groups is nevertheless needed if one wants at least have some attention. I am a bit tired of the thought, that if one participates here and there, and this "here" and "there" are totally different in their images, you may lose both: support from the one and the other interest group.

From another angle, you could say that one has to take the risk that your votings influence how you are treated here. ... I have not made my mind up, ultimately, and I probably won't.

I decide by individual encounters, individual situations. This is probably not everyones notion and how one acts in this sphere but I am one amongst the many and different behaviors is what I call "variety".

If my vote would be secret, I would probably be more involved or would cast my votes a lot more easily and relaxed.