5 ms·

How is that a lesser concern? How can the public have any influence over their politicians this way? You're saying corporations can choose who gets into power b

How is that a lesser concern? How can the public have any influence over their politicians this way? You're saying corporations can choose who gets into power becasuse they finance them, and the public cant even tell what they're voting for to punish them. It seems all around worse.

ryandvm 4y ago
Because the corporations would no longer have a record that a politician actually voted in their favor. They would be donating to campaigns based on rhetoric alone. Therefor the representatives would have no incentive for voting anything but their conscience. (Obviously disclosing your cryptographic vote receipt to a donor would be forbidden.)
- nicoburns 4y ago
  Yes, but this would also apply to the electorate. Voters would have no record around what a politician actually voted for either. Which would seem to be hugely problematic for a system of representative democracy.
horsawlarway 4y ago
I'm not sure - I think there's certainly an interesting truth that people act differently when you remove the pressures of public scrutiny. In particular - they are much less likely to always blindly follow party lines, or corporate wishes, and I think there's value there. How would you feel about a tweaked system? All votes are recorded, but the voting record is entirely withheld until 3 months before the next election for that seat. The public is made aware of the voting record when it matters: During the next election. But during the term, they are much less susceptible to corporate donors and lobbyists, or pressure from members of their own party.
- cool_dude85 4y ago
  >In particular - they are much less likely to always blindly follow party lines, or corporate wishes, and I think there's value there. I want the politician I vote for to more or less follow the party line on important votes. That's why I voted for her.
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    Personally - I think that's a shortsighted and naive approach. The "party" is not your friend. Politics are not team sports, and they shouldn't be treated that way. I also think this leads to a preponderance of "division" politics - where the goal is to find a wedge issue that forces people to pick a side. It's poor governance all around.

ryandvm 4y ago

Because the corporations would no longer have a record that a politician actually voted in their favor. They would be donating to campaigns based on rhetoric alone. Therefor the representatives would have no incentive for voting anything but their conscience. (Obviously disclosing your cryptographic vote receipt to a donor would be forbidden.)

nicoburns 4y ago
Yes, but this would also apply to the electorate. Voters would have no record around what a politician actually voted for either. Which would seem to be hugely problematic for a system of representative democracy.

horsawlarway 4y ago

I'm not sure - I think there's certainly an interesting truth that people act differently when you remove the pressures of public scrutiny. In particular - they are much less likely to always blindly follow party lines, or corporate wishes, and I think there's value there. How would you feel about a tweaked system? All votes are recorded, but the voting record is entirely withheld until 3 months before the next election for that seat. The public is made aware of the voting record when it matters: During the next election. But during the term, they are much less susceptible to corporate donors and lobbyists, or pressure from members of their own party.

cool_dude85 4y ago
>In particular - they are much less likely to always blindly follow party lines, or corporate wishes, and I think there's value there. I want the politician I vote for to more or less follow the party line on important votes. That's why I voted for her.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  Personally - I think that's a shortsighted and naive approach. The "party" is not your friend. Politics are not team sports, and they shouldn't be treated that way. I also think this leads to a preponderance of "division" politics - where the goal is to find a wedge issue that forces people to pick a side. It's poor governance all around.