Robin, some years ago we corresponded about an idea and paper of
yours, "futarchy".  

One of the points we seemed to disagree on was this: In the course of
addressing possible problems, you predicted (1) that unclear proposals
would be thinly traded, and you also predicted (2) that side interests
could not prevail because interested parties could not budge the
price.  I felt this was a contradiction, and that an opaque proposal
could be used to suppress general trading (by 1) and thereby allow
side interests to escape the consequences of (2).

Having given the matter some further thought in the meantime, I
believe the problem might be tamed by requiring that proposals be
expressed in controlled language and by making the threshhold of
enactment a function of a proposal's complexity.  

That fact that a proposal is expressed in controlled language makes
measuring its complexity more reasonable.  That said, I don't think it
will be simple because vocabulary is an issue.  I have some further
thoughts on that, but they can wait.

For reference, ACE (Attempto Controlled English) is an example of a
controlled language.  I'm not neccessarily proposing using ACE.