Quote Originally Posted by Mobius Twist View Post
I'm curious why power distribution is something the people in power would want. This isn't broadly a system for public good - it's an opportunistic system of self-interest that happens to provide services for the broader population only as a side effect of doing well for themselves. I would expect having fewer other equals to influence (or bribe) would make it easier.
Power distribution would be what prevents the plutocracy from turning into a dictatorship or anarchy. It's the hedge against power accumulating at either extreme, not an investment in the public good.

Quote Originally Posted by Mobius Twist View Post
You also bring up an interesting concern - musical chairs. I buy my place in the council, pass some beneficial rulings for me and my funders, and then ditch before the next round of bills comes due. There may have to be constraints in place on how you can leave - such that even holding the seat for a short time causes you to forfeit funds or assets to cover a full year of responsibilities.
I would imagine that the council seat comes with an annual fee and then the seat holders are responsible for covering operating expenses for actions and that some seat members might resign, rather than cover expenses for a proposed action. I imagine this would be fairly rare and probably come with penalties (can't occupy a seat for a year afterwards?).