stricter lobbying rules - the voice of companies with tons of money has to be balanced against those of your constituents - perhaps to the level where the company has no voice but employees/owners can speak in support if they wish and are citizens
you have to listen and vote the way your constituents want. That is, if someone is concerned enough to reach out to their representative, it has to be respected. If everyone who reaches out to you has the same concerns, you really have to listen. If there are conflicting opinions, you have to balance them.
Unfortunately our system is largely driven by lobbyists and party platforms. Those two things allow a lot of corruption.
I don't know anything about blockchain, so I would have zero trust in an election conducted with it. And public trust is everything in elections. It doesn't matter how secure bock chain really is, it only matter how much confidence the public have in it. And non-computer nerdy people have zero reason to trust some esoteric computer nerdy thing like blockchain.
Besides that, what about people who don't use the internet? What about the guy who lives in a cabin in the woods, and who only comes down from the hills once every four years to vote? Requiring internet access would create a barrier to people who don't use the internet. You don't lose your right to vote when choose not have the internet.
What we SHOULD be doing is what they do in third world countries where the international community administers their elections - everyone votes in person, and once you vote you're made to dip your finger in indelible ink, and nobody with purple ink on their finger is allowed back into a polling place.
I really can't see the public getting behind a vote collecting method they can't understand, much less on the say-so of some nerdy blockchain enthusiasts who just want to use their blockchain for something.
It would be like 3d printing nerds saying:
"Hey, let's make the airplane wings on 3d printers!"
Ok, is that really a good idea? Or do you just want to 3d print something?
I'd rather not entrust our elections to a bunch of aspergers-riddled bitcoin nerds and their super-secret computer program. I'm sticking with in-person, ID required voting, dip the finger in ink, now get the fuck out and don't come back.
Blockchain guarantees unforgeable results. It isn't about privacy or anything. After some information gets appended it is given an ID based on all previous information, so secretly modifying existing data or secretly inserting new data is impossible.
My guess about the US's use of it is that they only used it to ID real ballots. Ballots produced without the IDs would be identifiable as forged, the IDs could store their geographic area so ballots outside their appropriate area would be identifiable as stolen. Even if they managed to replicate the isotope watermark, if the IDs encoded are duplicate or wrong they'd be identifiable as forged.
If tech were used correctly we could track where every penny of those billions in foreign aid go.
Turns out the corrupt politicians don’t want to track every penny...
Boaty mc boatface
Some electoral reform I'd like to see:
Unfortunately our system is largely driven by lobbyists and party platforms. Those two things allow a lot of corruption.
I don't know anything about blockchain, so I would have zero trust in an election conducted with it. And public trust is everything in elections. It doesn't matter how secure bock chain really is, it only matter how much confidence the public have in it. And non-computer nerdy people have zero reason to trust some esoteric computer nerdy thing like blockchain.
Besides that, what about people who don't use the internet? What about the guy who lives in a cabin in the woods, and who only comes down from the hills once every four years to vote? Requiring internet access would create a barrier to people who don't use the internet. You don't lose your right to vote when choose not have the internet.
What we SHOULD be doing is what they do in third world countries where the international community administers their elections - everyone votes in person, and once you vote you're made to dip your finger in indelible ink, and nobody with purple ink on their finger is allowed back into a polling place.
I really can't see the public getting behind a vote collecting method they can't understand, much less on the say-so of some nerdy blockchain enthusiasts who just want to use their blockchain for something.
It would be like 3d printing nerds saying:
Ok, is that really a good idea? Or do you just want to 3d print something?
I'd rather not entrust our elections to a bunch of aspergers-riddled bitcoin nerds and their super-secret computer program. I'm sticking with in-person, ID required voting, dip the finger in ink, now get the fuck out and don't come back.
Blockchain guarantees unforgeable results. It isn't about privacy or anything. After some information gets appended it is given an ID based on all previous information, so secretly modifying existing data or secretly inserting new data is impossible.
My guess about the US's use of it is that they only used it to ID real ballots. Ballots produced without the IDs would be identifiable as forged, the IDs could store their geographic area so ballots outside their appropriate area would be identifiable as stolen. Even if they managed to replicate the isotope watermark, if the IDs encoded are duplicate or wrong they'd be identifiable as forged.