I'm wanting to develop a world with direct or delagative democracy in which people can earn extra voting power, but which does not unfavorably benefit the rich exclusively. The basic idea is that every person receives 100 'vote credits' for each vote, but can earn extra credits, increasing his voting power slightly but rarely does anyone manage to earn enough credits to counts as more then a few extra votes, and most earn no or few extra credits; basically these credits generally are a minor affect on voting.
The general idea is to have a system to encourage civicaly minded individuals to do things that benefit the government (and reward them for doing so), that doesn't actually cost the government anything. The government is okay with allowing those that are more involved in government activities to have a slightly larger say in votes, but the entire system should be structured in such a way that civic credits always end up being a small amount of the total votes and no one person or small group can ever earn so large a number of credits as to unfairly control government policy, it is avoiding this latter that I want to address.
The mechanics of such a system are described in the second half of this question: Result of a goverment where extra votes can be bought, earned, or lost?, though I'm only considering civic credits not ability to buy votes in this question. To copy the most relevant paragraph:
The government sets up a system where any 'civic duty' can earn someone 'civic credits' that can be cashed in for votes. For instance, in addition to the usual financial rewards for civic duties one may receive 1 civic credit for jury duty. Anyone whose property is seized for eminent domain may receive some credits depending on the size/expense of property. People working for certain recognized charitable non-profits may earn credits per hours worked. Foster parents earn credits for fostering children. Perhaps much like how tax refunds are attached to various activities to encourage behaviors vote incentives will be attached. Charitable donations of money to nonprofits credits based off of money spent, but amount earned is relative to percent of your income being donated and with diminishing returns for larger donations. The government may come up with other activities they want to encourage and offer similar 'civic credits' for those who perform these credits, maybe to help protect the environment congress passes a law that rewards some credits to anyone that purchases a vehicle with better than X MPG fuel efficiency (with assorted rules to prevent rich from buying a dozen efficient cars for credits) The point being that the government sets up ways to reward citizens for other 'civic duties' with extra points.
I know any such credits earned will suffer diminishing returns, the more credits one earns a year the harder it is to earn more credits; capping the maximum votes anyone is going to earn. Civic credits can be carried over across years, but some credits degrade if not spent, the more credits carried over the larger the percent of credits that degrade.
I'm looking to address obvious loophole abuse, such as rich spending money on something just to 'buy' votes through civic credits. Or, more accurately, I don't want the rich to have any increased voting power, so rich being able to loophole their way into earning some civic credits with money is okay so long as the other 90% of the non-filthy-rich are earning enough credits through regular civic actions to outweigh the rich limited ability to 'buy' civic credits.
I would also like to avoid any loopholes in which someone may do something that meets the letter of law to earn credits but would not benefit the country, or even harm it, as civic credits are suppose to.
I will ask a separate question about which groups may disproportionately benefit from this system in a bit, so I don't want to focus too much on that so long as credits are being earned in a manner that actually is helping the government.