Bernie Sanders betrayed all his supporters by endorsing HRC.
Notice that if it were true that Sanders "betrayed" his supporters, he could have done this with even more impact if he had been elected President.
This is not a concern about Asset Voting, it is a general mistrust of politicians, probably accompanied by a belief in direct democracy, where politicians are supposed to be rubber stamps for the voters. The kind of thinking that produced that marvel of modern democracy, the rubber-stamp Electoral College. The original College concept was close to Asset Voting, but without the full freedom to choose that would be present in a decent formal Asset system.
I have proposed that Asset be first adopted in NGOs, where
members still retain more rights of direct participation and
problems can be fixed, if they appear.
One of the features of a full Asset system would be open ballots (i.e., a return to original ballot systems where the ballot did not have any printed names on it.) (But those willing to serve as electors -- not necessarily in the office, because they could choose to elect someone else, would need to register. They become "public voters." That is essential to the system.
Asset is best for electing a proportional representation Assembly where representatives are freely and cooperatively chosen, not "elected by contests," which disenfranchises minorities. Thinking of it in single-winner elections, though it is theoretically possible, is probably greatly inferior where officer elections are handled by the representative assembly, not directly by the voters.
(And then the officer can easily be replaced. The American system
elects a King for 4 years, effectively. That's the problem!)
In a real Asset system with open ballots, betrayal by a single elector, if it happens, would only affect that elector's primary votes. Because of how humans think and act, there would still be some electors with substantial primary voting power, but in an Asset assembly, nobody would be likely to have majority control. And minorities would still be represented.
This idea that Sanders betrayed his followers is pernicious, though. It's based on narrow ideological attachment, and not practical, real-world politics
I have no doubt that Sanders would have been better for the US than Trump! But the real question, in that election, would have been who could better win against the Republican candidate. While Clinton had her enemies, for sure, she was also more obviously centrist and thus more likely to win, given the election system as it is. She lost, in part because some Sanders followers did not take his advice. (And, in addition, the Electoral College!)
One of my kids claimed that he would never vote for Clinton. I understand his arguments, but, look at the result! Some have thought that this would demonstrate how corrupt the system is and this would lead to reform. But that same argument was made by Nader supporters in 2000.
As a result of this kind of thinking, we have long-term damage to the Supreme Court, a breakdown of Senate collegiality, and more, much more. The refusal of liberals and progressives to unite against the fascists in Germany led to what? Improvements? Maybe, but millions died before that effect took hold.
And this time global warming is involved. Maybe we need to be realistic! And making compromises, if it's to be intelligent, must be handled by those with high levels of information and attention. That, in fact, is why we have political parties, and, indeed a primitive form of representative democracy, there not being much practical, tested alternative.
We can do it all far better. But first, there are, in the way, entrenched ideas about democracy and how it works. Those were, themselves, advances over what came before, but they are not enough.
This is well-understood in political science, but almost totally absent from voting systems activism: deliberative democracy is what is superior to autocracy and direct democracy.
If those who deliberate are voluntarily chosen.
It's even superior with district representation, but vulnerable to the vagaries of district definitions. Asset can create a nearly-ideal Assembly. Districts aren't needed if all voters are represented, and voters can choose to support someone local, or someone organization-wide.
Historically, systems that approached that were attacked precisely because they were truly representative, i.e., proportional representation in New York, because it elected some socialists and African-descent representatives. These were Dog-whistles to racists, knee-jerk voters, and politicians. Obviously BAD.