Nostr Web Client

I’m not actually sure it has a solution that isn’t centralised - where you have some kind of pre-registration (maybe KYC, but blinded after) - and then maybe vote anonymisation (if blind voting).

Keep in mind double voting isn’t technically just the same identity voting twice (we could detect duplicate reactions from the same pubkey for example), but also someone creating two+ identities and voting a second time.

If you have a closed community of voters, you could perhaps manually share a secret or something - and a double vote would be obvious when you count the people who can vote is less than total votes - at least one fraud vote.

I’m kind of glad anyway, as paper ballots are significantly harder to commit fraud with. Any digital government electronic voting is extremely dangerous and should be rejected as an option.

I could be missing something that may exist.

Blake 2y ago

And your next problem kind of becomes buying voters. Find people who value a money over voting and will sell you their vote.

Australian politicians who speak languages other than English literally target community voters who cannot speak English and give them pre-signed ballots to sign. (To clarify, this is branch stacking and less so normal elections). Illegal - but no one caught has had anything happen.

Democracy is largely an illusion today. It’s not fair. It’s not the voice of people. It’s a game that people exploit - the same people who have power, to give themselves new laws, and to keep the game going.

Slight tangent… however voting is very hard to solve fairly and reliably.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

powrespecter 2y ago

I think that voting is only hard if you keep wanting one vote to mean one person.

I think this dogma doesn't make sense. Some people are "better" than others (on whatever metric you think is important: wisdom, foresight, whatever) and it makes sense for these people to have more of a say in a vote.

PoW is good when all we care about is what we should pay attention to, since it forces anyone that wants your attention to make a provable sacrifice. This means that people that care about their messages will have more "vote power", but that's good.

Prediction markets are good when we want to answer empirical questions about the future. The confident and wealthy will have more "vote power", but confidence is good, and the wealthy part is guaranteed for confident predictors that have good foresight.

Blake 2y ago

Yep. It depends entirely on what the underlying rules and transparency of votes captured are. Formal, informal, for fun, quick poll to help guide a decision.

It’s possible for a poll’s results to be

filtered by votes only from your following/social group. This happens today anyway, as if your poll your discord, the participants can only include those who know about the poll to begin with.

All in all, I don’t really have much trust in polls as a method for capturing meaningful results.