Asset, though conceptually simple, is truly revolutionary. Direct democracy is great with small groups and highly interested, informed participants. It breaks down when the scale is large, and the effect of media, which can be bought, looms large. Populist “democracy,” tends, in practice, to devolve into fascism, because of the Iron Law of Oligarchy.
We do not actually know how Asset will function on a large scale, hence my suggestion that the way forward is to create Asset implementations in nonprofits, and to make the structures advisory rather than controlling. The actual control mechanisms would remain the same, perhaps an elected board, with Asset advising members how to vote, and serving as a communications medium between the formal control structure and the members. Asset will create a bidirectional communications hierarchy.
It is a hybrid between direct democracy and representative democracy, and should be fully scalable. As I would have it, all representatives who obtain seats on an Assembly or Advisory Board will be unanimously chosen by the voters or those chosen by the voters. Thus they would truly represent the voters, by choice, not through “winning” over others.
Like delegable proxy, ideally trustworthiness will increase with depth of delegation. In a mature Asset system, voters will know exactly how the seat that represents them was elected, know whom to talk to, to communicate with the seat. (The original election would be secret ballot, but everything beyond that would be public record.) People who vote for electors on a large scale will be opting not to enjoy that communication with someone more local (this is the classic "problem of scale in democracy,: those who represent a hundred thousand voters or more cannot possibly maintain communication with all or even most of them.) Thinking of Asset as merely yet another voting method misses the point.
Let this sink in: representatives should be elected by unanimous consent of those they represent. Otherwise, “my representative” was elected by someone else.
Asset can be used “single winner,” but that will work best in a parliamentary system, where there is no fixed term of office and the electors can recall the officer. That could even be used to elect a temporary representative for the “dregs,” the votes left over that don’t find agreement, but that’s a detail best left to the electoral college itself. Creating a body that fully represents the voters is what Asset would do, and it should be maintained, not dissolved, until the next Asset election, to advise the Assembly and to inform the voters in the other direction.
Asset can bypass the existing power structures, including the media. For that reason, don’t expect it to be welcomed by the status quo! To overcome that bias, people will need experience with it, hence the NGO recommendation. If Asset works, these organizations will become more powerful and effective.