2011/11/30 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_el...@lavabit.com> > > Proxy democracy then implicitly values transparency at the high end over > privacy at the low end (because it can't be otherwise, unless I'm missing > something).
1. SODA (and other systems like it) is a different way of resolving this contradiction. It allows both high-end transparency and low-end privacy, but the cost is that it's just a two-level, irrevocable delegation. 2. Even if you wanted multi-level, revocable delegation which is private at the low levels and transparent at the upper ones, there may be a way to do it using cryptographic protocols such as those in the Helios voting software. To start out with, I can think of a way to get the first level to be private; and I suspect that the algorithm could be extended to at least the bottom 2 levels of delegation. Obviously, if a single person controlled a large number of votes, and revoked those votes, that would stand out from the noise of other proxy changes in a way that compromised their privacy. But essentially, that technical possibility is irrelevant, because I don't think that the real-world implementation would ever be as secure as the cryptographic algorithms. Jameson > I don't know if that will be a problem in practice, because nothing like > proxy democracy has actually been tried, but this priority in itself might > be enough to get some people to think twice before supporting it. > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info