According to Robert, a futarchy is more rational than traditional democracy. Today, in democratic countries, the dominant principle is "1 person - 1 vote." Such a system does not take into account the degree of a citizen’s personal interest in a particular decision. If a person is completely incompetent, then that person may not come to the elections or a referendum. But many citizens of a low political cultural standing still go and vote on issues that almost do not affect have an effect on their interests. Often, they do so in protest or based on the knowledge that is a myth or a rumour. If one has to back up their vote with money, this will radically increase the voter responsibility regarding their decision. For example, if a certain country with a conservative population was to hold a referendum on the execution of all serial killers, then a significant part of its citizens are likely to vote in favour, even if their knowledge about these phenomena is based only on content derived from television programs.
But how will the outcome change if we apply Hansen’s futarchy instead of resorting to the traditional democracy? Will all the voters agree to back up their votes with money by taking quantitative responsibility for their decisions? What will the result of the referendum be if we decide the fate of people not by the number of votes, but by the amount of money collected in favour or against the motion? The outcome of such a vote is unlikely to be repressive. The highest rates will be offered by those for whom it is a matter of life and death. The smallest would be those whose knowledge is based on kitchen-level philosophising over a cup of tea.