If you think about it a system that openly allows you to sell your vote is not as terrible idea as it may sound at first glance. It let's market forces make decisions.
1.The money spent on (mostly negative) political campaigns will find a better use in the pocket of a voter.
2.Voter participation will start approaching 100%
and many other benefits.
It also creates a whole host of problems. The purpose of voting is, in theory, to allow the candidate which would benefit the largest proportion of voters to be elected to an office (assuming winner take all system like the US). The problem with introducing money into the equation is that most people fail to account for the diminishing marginal value of money. For people who have very little money, the marginal value of money is very high, so you can "buy" their votes for comparatively less than people who are better off. This leads to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes whereby even rational actors will vote against their own interests. The reality is far worse, since most people don't understand how to value political platforms, and uninformed voters will follow the red herring of money offered for their votes.
Presumably votes like that will be anonymous and so there will be no way of proving who you voted for. So the political party A can pay Bob, 'X' and he can take it but vote for party B instead.
If it is a problem, a DAC also has delegates who can act as gate-keepers. They can refuse to process requests that involve soliciting electoral votes perhaps.
A system where Bob can verify his vote was counted properly is a system where Bob can prove his vote.
A system where Bob cannot verify his vote was counted is a system where Bob does not count the votes.... thus the votes are meaningless and unverifiable.
The only things the voting system does is make it such that if Bob *wants privacy* he can vote and destroy his private key. No one will know who Bob voted for unless he reveals it.
Then it seems to me a DAC couldn't replace current voting systems as despite their counting flaws, current systems at least provide anonymity.
Without involuntary anonymity your vote would be dictated by violence not money.
Gangsters will simply demand proof of vote.
Violence is even more expensive than vote buying and if you are being threatened with violence then that is grounds for a law suite and other remedies. This would be like someone using violence to force you to buy a certain product... ie: protection money. A government willing to use violence to cause people to vote is PROVABLY corrupt... which is far better than a government that uses deception to claim consent in an UNPROVABLE black box voting.
Wow... it is really amazing how thick the government propaganda is around voting.
Lets look at how a voting system would be designed for maximum tyranny and see if we can improve upon it:
1) Open the voting to everyone and don't check IDs.
2) Use a digital black box that counts the vote and reports the results.
3) Have no way to prove the button you pushed resulted in the vote you entered.
4) Have the media post manipulated public opinion polls
5) Make voter turn out low by having long lines and occur on a single day during the work week.
Under this system the public believes their vote counts, believes they can change things, and believes everyone else is STUPID based upon what they see in the media, polls, and elections. The government has consent and can do what it pleases.
The only way to get as anonymous and "non-provable" as possible is:
1) eliminate absentee ballots... someone using force could compel you to vote absentee so they could see it.
2) use paper ballots with physical holes
3) count all ballots on video and with representatives from all candidates in physical presence.
4) keep all ballots and count all ballots....
5) require all candidates to maintain a voter registration list
6) require all voters to get their blank ballot stamped by all candidates prior to voting (candidates verify uniqueness)
7) only count ballots stamped by all candidates.
As you can see the process is much more difficult and expensive... and difficult to verify. How hard is it to forge your opponents stamps?
At the end of the day if you can coerce a statistically meaningful number of people and get away with it, the corruption is in the government and no voting system will matter.