[pp.int.general] liquidfeedback myths? /was Re: LQFB: status quo in Germany // was: liquid feedback papers and/or data?

[carlo von lynX]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 05:46:24PM +0200, F?lix Robles wrote:
> > Name me an example where it is reasonable to have secret vote on a
> political
> > issue and not have a reason to question the outcome. Secret vote is a
> > vector for vote trading.corruption.
> 
> That's funny, because public vote enables vote trading, as the person who
> bought the vote can know for sure what you voted, and therefore he can pay
> you if you really voted what he wanted you to. On the other hand if the

Yes, in exchange everybody knows about it so they can question you for
that and decide to stop you from making a career in politics by not
electing you etc etc

> vote is secret, he cannot know for sure what you voted and therefore he
> could have paid you for voting X when you actually voted something
> different that you liked more.

Yes, but that is not how corruption works. If he is motivated to do you
a favor and nobody will hold him accountable for that, it may be a good
investment for you to just try to make him feel good about you. In real
parliaments corruption happens by secret vote.

> And, actually, it's even a little bit complex issue, because even with
> secret vote there can be vote trading if the one who buys the vote is
> present and watching over you and your computer screen when you vote. And
> that's why Agora Voting allows you to vote as many times as you want (of
> course only the last vote counts).

Ah, neat. I like that. If the Italian PP continues to elect people using
LQFB then I would rather introduce agora voting just to be able to have
cryptographic secret voting in that area. Still I'd prefer if electing
people was only happening at assemblies.

> But it is really funny to read that you think that public vote blocks vote
> trading, when it enables it.

It creates transparency about it, and that is either inhibiting or
has self-regulating consequences.