> Someone with power, like an employer, could pressure people into handing over their votes.
This is absolutely what's going to happen if such system is implemented.
Appearing to delegate one way, but having their votes counted another way? Seriously? It is way too complicated for an average voter. Even if you implement some sort of plausible deniability scheme (so that aforesaid someone can't just login with your credentials and set it up the way they want) - imagine explaining plausible deniability to a 90-years-old grandma or some uneducated farm worker, or a drug addict...
Elections are rigged this way even in countries with supposedly secret votes: bad guys might ask you to prove your vote by, say, snapping a picture of "correctly" filled ballot alongside your ID, but even that is not necessary - enough people will do what someone with power tells them to on a vague threat "if you try to fool us we will find out", or because it's a "patriotic" thing to do, or simply because they are told to and don't know better.
Not to mention that a huge number of people just couldn't care less. Half of population simply don't show up at the polls. How many of them will simply sell their right to vote for a token sum of money?
The current system is bad in many ways [1], but this proposal is even worse - way too much potential for abuse.
I couldn't agree more. In certain states in India, the so-called "buying" of votes is pretty rampant. Politicians offer food, alcohol, TV, money, you name it. Whatever is at their disposal is distributed to the community to instigate people to vote for them.
And of course, a lot of people are still falling for the "if you try to fool us we will find out" nonsense. The election commission has curbed it to a huge extent. Yet the scale at which such a scam is happening is simply mind boggling.
When I see "delegative democracy", all I see are holes.
Well said. One of the pitfalls that election-system designers forget about is that for a 'general public' system, it has to be easy to understand. Cryptographically signing something... is already too hard. Requiring a computer (or computer skills) to vote in the first place, that's a no-go. Those things work for particular groups, but not the general public. Particularly for the poor or people with certain disabilities.
How is the abuse potential substantially different than vote-by-mail? "Hi, like your job? Please bring your ballot in in and fill in the oval for the legislator that's gonna give my business a tax break. Thank you."
This is absolutely what's going to happen if such system is implemented.
Appearing to delegate one way, but having their votes counted another way? Seriously? It is way too complicated for an average voter. Even if you implement some sort of plausible deniability scheme (so that aforesaid someone can't just login with your credentials and set it up the way they want) - imagine explaining plausible deniability to a 90-years-old grandma or some uneducated farm worker, or a drug addict...
Elections are rigged this way even in countries with supposedly secret votes: bad guys might ask you to prove your vote by, say, snapping a picture of "correctly" filled ballot alongside your ID, but even that is not necessary - enough people will do what someone with power tells them to on a vague threat "if you try to fool us we will find out", or because it's a "patriotic" thing to do, or simply because they are told to and don't know better.
Not to mention that a huge number of people just couldn't care less. Half of population simply don't show up at the polls. How many of them will simply sell their right to vote for a token sum of money?
The current system is bad in many ways [1], but this proposal is even worse - way too much potential for abuse.
[1] Some reasons why - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting