I think all this concern about voter coercion is rather overblown. Maybe we should ban bank statements because people might be coerced into showing
At 09:25 AM 4/17/04 +1000, Tim Benham wrote: 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
And that is why this list is still worth reading. Innovative socio-crypto speculation free of inhibition. Its interesting to consider what the economic benefits would be to individual voters, and the buyers. The bizmodel. How it varies with 'obedience' to one's vote-employer. Receipts give 100% obedience. No receipts could range from 0% to 100% depending on the population's behavior. In some races, buying 10% obedience in 30% of the population can swing a race. How many issues could a voter play, what kind of money are we talking about? The inertia (as in Men w/ Guns, besides insufficient anonymity / anoncash infrastructure) in getting such a market set up is large :-) Though in one sense, are the price of stock-shares the price of control-votes in guiding a private entity? Except confused by the value of the stock as an asset. PS: the Mw/G who want to see your ATM receipts already see them :-)