Vote Market

Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:43:57 -0700 From: Ed Gerck Subject: Re: voting

David Jablon wrote:

...

I think Ed's criticism is off-target. Where is the "privacy problem" with Chaum receipts when Ed and others still have the freedom to refuse theirs or throw them away?

The privacy, coercion, intimidation, vote selling and election integrity problems begin with giving away a receipt that is linkable to a ballot.

It is not relevant to the security problem whether a voter may destroy his receipt, so that some receipts may disappear. What is relevant is that voters may HAVE to keep their receipt or... suffer retaliation... not get paid... lose their jobs... not get a promotion... etc. Also relevant is that voters may WANT to keep their receipts, for the same reasons.

I think all this concern about voter coercion is rather overblown. Maybe we should ban bank statements because people might be coerced into showing them to someone and punished for hiding their money. Receipts might open up opportunities for voter coercion but there are mechanisms for combatting coercion other than coercive anonymity. What is missing in this discussion is mention of the benefits which would flow from making voter anonymity optional. Non-anonymous voting is a necessary precondition for a vote market. As I'm sure everyone on this list appreciates, markets work better than elections, and indeed, under a vote market system the negative externalities imposed on other markets by the electoral process would be mitigated. This is because unlike under the current system, under the vote market system the outcome would often be certain well in advance, greatly reducing the impact of political risk on markets. The vote market system would also offer a means for mitigating political risk via transparent market processes rather than the through the current rather slezy practises. There would be social dividends too. The people most likely to sell their vote would be poor people who would benefit from a new and regular source of income. The existence of a vote market would encourage these people, who often feel disenfranchised, to participate in the electoral system, albeit in a venal way. It would also help increase the average intelligence of the vote, because rich people and corporations are generally smarter than poor people. I commend the vote market to the list. cheers, Tim