There are two problems with this approach. One is the classic paradox of hiding something and revealing it at the same time: the vote must be secret to prevent

There are two problems with this approach. One is the classic paradox of hiding something and revealing it at the same time: the vote must be secret to prevent social chilling effects, but it must also be strongly authenticated to preserve the integrity of the process. This is essentially the same problem that renders DRM ultimately infeasible. The other problem -perhaps also a paradox- is that an abundance of information has not, in practice, resulted in a more informed populace. This is not to say that it has caused the populace to be less informed -that would be absurd- but it has not caused them to be particularly more informed either. 9/11 truthers and antivaxxers constitute some relatively non-controversial evidence for this claim; there are others that would invite non-productive flamewars if I listed them here.