Vote Market

[Tim Benham]

> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:43:57 -0700
> From: Ed Gerck <egerck at nma.com>
> 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