Based on reading one of the answers to this question Effects of "know before you vote" political system I started wondering if a system openly based on money could work and also be acceptable to the voters. The system would work like this:
For each piece of legislation / appointment to political office / referendum there would be an announcement of the date to vote by. Anyone not casting their vote in time results in that vote being lost.
All adults are eligible to vote and each vote holds equal power. (consideration of what defines an adult are not part of the scope of the question)
You may cast your vote at any time between the initial announcement and the closing of the vote. Counts of votes already cast become public knowledge so people can see what is 'winning'.
At any time you may sell your unused vote to another person for a value agreed between the two of you. Total free market here, it's worth exactly what someone will give you for it. That person then either sells it on or uses it to vote with in the way they want. Essentially you have a free market in votes much like shares in a company today. The government takes 10% of the money you get for your vote in tax to help fund itself.
Under this set of rules you would either vote the way you wanted to vote or sell off that right for whatever price you could get.
Under this system I see the poorest parts of society selling their votes on matters they didn't deem directly affected them quite quickly so it would be possible for people with deep pockets to get the result they wanted.
On issues that were close I see people holding onto their vote for longer as the value potentially rises the closer it got to the deadline.
Quickly people will understand that it's stupid to personally vote unless you have to be 100% certain your vote goes the way you want. For example on Important-Issue-12345 I may personally want the vote to be 'yes' and so would other people. If I can find a person or organisation that also wants the outcome to be 'yes' and I can reasonably trust them to vote the way they are publicly campaigning then I can sell them my vote, get the result I would have voted for and some cash!
On a personal level people would be playing the market to get either the most money or the most money they can with the outcome they wanted.
We can ignore any problems in the machinery needed for this system to happen (no worries about getting your money or being forced to hand over your vote under threat of violence etc) but consider problems inherent in the system (just because the person buying your vote says they will use it one way doesn't mean they have to).
companies could exist to simply trade on votes to make a profit. You would be allowed to sell your vote in the 'future' or for a period of time? Someone in need of money for say a debt or a deposit may deem it necessary to sell their voting rights for a year without knowing what issue would be voted for in that time.
Given the framework (lets call it the true-capitalist-democracy) would the system work? Is there too much of a concentration of money already in the hands of a tiny minority to mean that is becomes a total dictatorship? Is it really that different than the huge 'campaign funds' and lobbying gathered by existing political parties during properly 'democratic' voting that we have in the western world today?