I don't think secret voting is as much of an issue as people make it out to be. Vote buying would in theory be a problem with today's usual voting systems, but in practice doesn't seem to be an issue. If we're voting on Proposition 1234 and I really really care but you don't, I should be willing to pay you to vote my way. But we don't see that happening.
You don't see it happening (much) because we have a secret ballot. If I really care about Proposition 1234 I can sell my vote to you, collect the fees, and still vote however I want. There have been cases where someone felt compelled to vote for something they didn't want because they didn't want to be seen voting the other way [their boss would fire them, or such situations], thus we no longer allow anyone to find out how an individual voted.
Ah, I thought this was about another kind of secrecy emphasized in the article:
>We don't just need votes to be anonymous and private (while still making the final result provable and public); we need votes to be so private that even the person who made the vote can't prove to anyone else what they voted for. [emphasis theirs]
This is the part I was saying doesn't seem so necessary.
I think that goes along with what the parent mentioned. If someone can prove how they voted, then Person A can buy Person B's vote and request proof that Person B voted that way. However, if Person B can't prove which way they voted and it is just based off trust then Person B can lie and still vote however they'd like.
It's a really nice property to have, though-- often on the path of authoritarianism is being threatened and having to pass various kinds of loyalty/political tests... if you could prove your vote this would just help that along.
Not really. If the vote was against you the entire community knows the majority are united against you and that power in numbers limits what punishment you can do. If the vote was for you then you are punishing your supporters more than your detractors.
Of course size and scale matter. China can still oppress Hong Kong even with a secret ballot because Hong Kong isn't large enough even united. (or are they?). However most cases are at least covered by secret ballots.
Like a vote-trading scheme where I can give you my vote on this issue I don't care about, to buy your support on some other issue you don't care about?
I've contemplated that too, but I'm not sure it leads to better results. I think good results come from amassing voters who are genuinely engaged on an issue, and entrenching a means for them to become well-informed before casting their ballot.
A system to deliver that, blocks the noise of political issues I don't care about (I simply don't participate, which is a good outcome since my participation adds little-to-negative value) and surfaces those I do. It provides me with expert analysis, arguments and counterarguments (something like StackOverflow to bubble the best content to the top?). And it makes more economical and efficient use of my attention.
I'm not advocating for any vote trading or vote buying. I think both would be terrible. I'm saying that both are incentivized in a traditional voting system but we just don't see it happening. Therefore, the fact that they're incentivized in a quadratic system doesn't mean it would actually be a problem. I'd rather be able to verify that I voted yes on prop 1234.
It's not just whether or not vote-trading schemes are a good thing or not, but the unfortunate issue that if voter secrecy is weakened to allow for vote trading, then abuses such as forced voting, blackmail or coercion also become viable.
