Author Topic: VOTE DAC Just Got More Interesting  (Read 30296 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bytemaster

What if some poor people actually cared about who they would vote for but just couldn't resist the money that could buy extra bottle of milk for their children?

And they thought one vote less for the right people wouldn't hurt the big picture,so they vote for the evil ones who pays much better.

What if more and more people feel the same way?

What if the poor person is the only one qualified to judge which is worth more  "how much they cared" or "a bottle of milk for their children". 
What if some good guy actually cared about the poor and offered to buy there vote and vote in a compatible "good way"? 
What if good guys could buy votes from bad guys?   
What if good pays better than bad?
What if a poor person doesn't care about voting but needs a bottle of milk for their children.
What if we just stopped trying to control other people and what they can or cannot do peacefully?
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
In my opinion... votes shouldn't be anonymous for a very simple reason:

1) let tyranny be transparent.
2) hold voters socially accountable for who they vote for. 

Transparency is the best for everyone... give someone a mask and they will commit many crimes.   Remove a mask and they must take responsibility for their actions.

I think governments made voting private for the sole reason of being able to control the votes since there is no verifiable method to ensure the vote was valid(there was no blockchain so how would people verify anyway?).. and it stuck around as a custom. The way it works however is that people would have to vote this change in, in that a person in power of being elected would stand up and say il make voting public and he will be voted for in that context.. and as time goes more pressure will be to make it public because that is what people want. However people are not even requesting it maybe because they believe their vote counts properly.. so to tell them it may not be, means you would probably have to prove it, and at that point I would be worried about watching my back. Anything else and the loss in privacy will be turned around against you instead of for you as propaganda will make sure to let people know of the cons without the pros..
« Last Edit: October 16, 2014, 02:54:30 am by jsidhu »
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline bytemaster

The problem with voting that is divorced from property rights is that people will vote themselves other peoples money via theft.   

You know I should probably avoid further derailing this topic into a political/philosophical discussion, but I just can't help myself sometimes and right now it seems like a perfect opportunity. I'm particularly curious because I remember you saying in an interview somewhere how you worked hard to try to remove any internal contradictions from your beliefs which eventually lead you to your specific values and philosophy that you hold today (a wonderful strategy that everyone should adopt by the way). So, I have the following five questions for you if you are up for it.

  • Do you believe that objective morality exists?
  • If the answer to the first question is yes, then who/what determines these objective morals and how are humans supposed to discover them and prove their veracity?
  • If the answer to the first question is yes, then do you believe that "respecting property rights" and "not harming others" belong in the aforementioned set of objective morals?
  • How do you define property and property rights? What is and is not considered property? What rights do they give to the owners? How are the owners even determined? What does it mean to not harm others? Is this physical harm, emotional harm, or both? Who even gets to determine whether harm occurred or whether it was "sufficient" harm? (I realize these are actually way more than one question)
  • If the answer to the first question is yes, then are your answers to the previous question, which describe what "property rights" and "harm" should be, also defined objectively along with the set of objective morals? If not, through which mechanisms do you believe human societies should come to a consensus on the answer to those questions?

1) All reality is subjective...thus morality is subjective.
2) Don't do unto others what you don't want others doing to you:
    - rationale:  logically consistent with the premise that all are created equal
                   :  to think otherwise I would have no grounds to complain about others actions against me.

Consequences:
1) I don't want to be harmed even if I harm someone else....
2) Even if there was a trial and unanimous agreement with live video evidence... I don't want to end up framed and in jail
3) If I don't want to risk my own wrongful imprisonment because others subjective view of reality find me guilty... then I don't put someone in jail
4) Never turn anyone into the government for any crime...

Practical Reality:
1) I have a right to defend myself against aggression initiated by others.
2) Depending upon the form of aggression using government because using private (non-violent) means has been denied us by the government may be acceptable.

From a philosophical perspective I have no proof you exist outside my mind, as such the "greater good of mankind" is not a judgement that can be evaluated by me... especially because I don't want someone else to use "the greater good" as justification for harming me if I disagree with them.

So at the end of the day it comes down to property rights and non violence.   Property rights are obvious even to children.  Only as adults do we lose sight of it.   In cases where it has become ambiguous it is only because of the government.... but ultimately it is global consensus on who owns what that defines what you own.   But once there is a consensus then it is easy to know the rules on how it should be allocated.  Ambiguity should be resolved at every possible step. 

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline jbutta2k13

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile

Everyone has their price.

This seems to be admitting the corporations run everything and throwing in the towel. A bit dystopian.

At some point having a vote won't be required. Just have a meeting of the CEOs to decide public policy. Though that's not far from what we have now I'd like to believe we can do better.

BitSharesX is recreating the economic world to be more fair and less centralized. This would do just the opposite to politics.

I am all about a good fight but technology is only a tool for us to use and expand our ideas. While the people here believe in smaller distributed everything we are the minority. It take changes in beliefs systems to change the way things are done. Technology is only a tool in which those belief systems are extended and hopefully amplified.

Offline cube

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Bit by bit, we will get there!
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcube

..
Votes are bought all the time... only they are bought with campaign promises to steal other peoples money to pay welfare and special interests.   At least buying votes up front is being done with the vote buyers money rather than the money of the people who voted against the welfare. 

So you see.. vote buying has been made into an irrational politically correct opinion rather than a rational realization that for the average person selling their vote to the highest bidder is much better for them.

For example: in my opinion there is no difference between the two major parties in the US and I know the process is rigged.  Knowing that my vote is not even worth the time to cast it, I would gladly sell my vote because my life would be better by selling my vote than by not selling it.   

If we wanted to have a rational political system it should require 95% voter approval and that approval would have to be BOUGHT.   5% error to prevent deadlock for those unwilling to sell at any price...

You may be able to buy up 90% of the vote cheaply... but to get the approval of those who would be harmed the most by a bill 5% minority... would be a lot more expensive.    You would have a government with 95% consensus based upon property rights.   
..

Hmm.. I see a vote-auction system is on the cards.  This is exciting!
ID: bitcube
bitcube is a dedicated witness and committe member. Please vote for bitcube.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
The problem with voting that is divorced from property rights is that people will vote themselves other peoples money via theft.   

I should probably avoid further derailing this topic into a political/philosophical discussion, but I just can't help myself sometimes and right now it seems like a perfect opportunity. I'm particularly curious because I remember you saying in an interview somewhere how you worked hard to try to remove any internal contradictions from your beliefs which eventually led you to your specific values and philosophy that you hold today (a wonderful strategy that everyone should adopt by the way). So, I have the following five questions for you if you are up for it.

  • Do you believe that objective morality exists?
  • If the answer to the first question is yes, then who/what determines these objective morals and how are humans supposed to discover them and prove their veracity?
  • If the answer to the first question is yes, then do you believe that "respecting property rights" and "not harming others" belong in the aforementioned set of objective morals?
  • How do you define property and property rights? What is and is not considered property? What rights do they give to the owners? How are the owners even determined? What does it mean to not harm others? Is this physical harm, emotional harm, or both? Who even gets to determine whether harm occurred or whether it was "sufficient" harm? (I realize these are actually way more than one question)
  • If the answer to the first question is yes, then are your answers to the previous question, which describe what "property rights" and "harm" should be, also defined objectively along with the set of objective morals? If not, through which mechanisms do you believe human societies should come to a consensus on the answers to those questions?
« Last Edit: October 16, 2014, 01:36:16 am by arhag »

Offline bytemaster

In my opinion... votes shouldn't be anonymous for a very simple reason:

1) let tyranny be transparent.
2) hold voters socially accountable for who they vote for. 

Transparency is the best for everyone... give someone a mask and they will commit many crimes.   Remove a mask and they must take responsibility for their actions.

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline bytemaster

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. 
 



For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Riverhead

Everyone has their price.

This seems to be admitting the corporations run everything and throwing in the towel. A bit dystopian.

At some point having a vote won't be required. Just have a meeting of the CEOs to decide public policy. Though that's not far from what we have now I'd like to believe we can do better.

BitSharesX is recreating the economic world to be more fair and less centralized. This would do just the opposite to politics.


Offline jbutta2k13

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
The other thing is your underestimating the amount of money others have and have the ability to spend.   Our system currently is operated through lobbyist and corporations with virtual unlimited global multinational funding. Never Underestimate the amount others are willing/capable of spending especially when other are operating on longer/extended timeframes.

Offline theoretical

I don't think the corruption of money in politics can be solved through technical means or policy changes. I think the solution is through education. Educating people to be less susceptible to manipulation by propaganda. Educating people to do their own research and think critically.

They actually did this when I was in middle school (US public school system).  I still remember the names for different forms of advertising / propaganda -- "bandwagon" (telling someone to use your product because it's popular), "testimonial" (celebrity endorsements), "transfer" (implying something with images without stating it in words).
BTS- theoretical / PTS- PZxpdC8RqWsdU3pVJeobZY7JFKVPfNpy5z / BTC- 1NfGejohzoVGffAD1CnCRgo9vApjCU2viY / the delegate formerly known as drltc / Nothing said on these forums is intended to be legally binding / All opinions are my own unless otherwise noted / Take action due to my posts at your own risk

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
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.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
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.

People can already buy votes, just indirectly. The difference is who gets the money. In the current system, it is the TV networks (since the vote buyers pay for political ads to manipulate the public to vote against their interests). In a system where the votes could be sold directly, at least the person giving up their vote is the one to get the financial compensation. Actually, I bet that even with such a system, the vote buyers wouldn't even bother doing it. Not for any moral reasons, but for economic reasons. It would probably be less expensive to manipulate the public to vote against their interests through paying for propaganda (TV ads) as they currently do, rather than through mass direct purchasing of votes of individuals.

I don't think the corruption of money in politics can be solved through technical means or policy changes. I think the solution is through education. Educating people to be less susceptible to manipulation by propaganda. Educating people to do their own research and think critically. In such a world, corporations and special interests can buy up as many ads as they want but it won't change the views of people who have an opinion on a topic (which would ideally be for most topics). And for issues that people are genuinely apathetic (or ambivalent) about even after doing their research and thinking about it carefully, they are better off selling their vote for money rather than voting randomly.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2014, 12:47:00 am by arhag »

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
For example: in my opinion there is no difference between the two major parties in the US and I know the process is rigged.  Knowing that my vote is not even worth the time to cast it, I would gladly sell my vote because my life would be better by selling my vote than by not selling it.

but how ethical is this?

Coercion. How do you create a voting protocol which resists coercion?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

zerosum

  • Guest
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.

Unfortunately, I do not subscribe to theories, that state or believe  that people make irrational decisions and choices.


For example: in my opinion there is no difference between the two major parties in the US and I know the process is rigged.  Knowing that my vote is not even worth the time to cast it, I would gladly sell my vote because my life would be better by selling my vote than by not selling it.

but how ethical is this?

Much more ethical and fair than the current system.