33 ms·

This is not as stupid an idea as I thought from the headline, but it still suffers from the problem that (for good reason), there is no way for a position to pr

by x1798DE 10y ago

This is not as stupid an idea as I thought from the headline, but it still suffers from the problem that (for good reason), there is no way for a position to prove who they voted for. As such, both parties are strictly better off cheating by saying they want to trade and voting for their own preferred candidate instead.

mannykannot 10y ago
Also, there is no way for you to verify how many trades the counter-party has entered into. It is exploitable as it stands, and more opportunities would arise if it became popular (for example, the 'safe state' assumption could be invalidated.)
moftz 10y ago
The article says they met up and mailed their absentee ballots together. Maybe the trading sites could use something like a video recording of someone checking a box on their ballot and sealing it up or do a recording of them in the booth casting their ballot (state law permitting). There is still some trust involved, both people can't really vote at the same time. You have to trust the other guy will go through with it after you cast your vote first but it's no different than buying and trading used goods on forums. Although on forums, people are usually making exchanges more often than once every 4 years so someone can build a trustworthy reputation.
- x1798DE 10y ago
  Yeah, mailing in your absentee ballots together could work - I assume that the people on apps aren't doing that because it would be difficult for most people to travel to another state. That said, anything that allows you to prove who you voted for is a flaw in the design of the voting system anyway, so to the extent that there are loopholes that allow this, one would hope that they will be fixed. As for reputation - reputation systems rely on the ability to verify that something has already been completed. If you order something online and never receive it, you are able to complain and cause reputational damage to the seller. In the case of vote-swapping, you shouldn't ever be able to know whether or not the other person voted the way they said they did, so you never actually know that the other person is untrustworthy.

by x1798DE 10y ago

mannykannot 10y ago

Also, there is no way for you to verify how many trades the counter-party has entered into. It is exploitable as it stands, and more opportunities would arise if it became popular (for example, the 'safe state' assumption could be invalidated.)

moftz 10y ago

The article says they met up and mailed their absentee ballots together. Maybe the trading sites could use something like a video recording of someone checking a box on their ballot and sealing it up or do a recording of them in the booth casting their ballot (state law permitting). There is still some trust involved, both people can't really vote at the same time. You have to trust the other guy will go through with it after you cast your vote first but it's no different than buying and trading used goods on forums. Although on forums, people are usually making exchanges more often than once every 4 years so someone can build a trustworthy reputation.

x1798DE 10y ago
Yeah, mailing in your absentee ballots together could work - I assume that the people on apps aren't doing that because it would be difficult for most people to travel to another state. That said, anything that allows you to prove who you voted for is a flaw in the design of the voting system anyway, so to the extent that there are loopholes that allow this, one would hope that they will be fixed. As for reputation - reputation systems rely on the ability to verify that something has already been completed. If you order something online and never receive it, you are able to complain and cause reputational damage to the seller. In the case of vote-swapping, you shouldn't ever be able to know whether or not the other person voted the way they said they did, so you never actually know that the other person is untrustworthy.