<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+TuoW2WgRd5DkiWMP5cDmzQ90ocFTqoLdvYBQVjqJPeSYt7Qg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The actual method of
voting isn't the only aspect of Canadian democracy that can
be criticized or that could be improved. Just ask Fair Vote
Canada for their opinions about this. From my perspective,
the best democratic system I've seen is the Swiss model.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I wonder, if direct democracy, with more of internal sense of
influence on things around you inoculates against coercion, builds
up coercion resistance.</p>
<p>Also, the more important decisions in hands of people, the less
god-like chairs are in the government, the less desire to occur
said chairs.<br>
</p>
<p>On another hand, who needs to spend millions on bribing peasants,
when first-past-the-post and gerrymandering give the result. No
need for coercion.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+TuoW2WgRd5DkiWMP5cDmzQ90ocFTqoLdvYBQVjqJPeSYt7Qg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">Foreign actors, which have been more
active lately (e.g. US presidentials in 2016, and Brexit) are
indeed an additional threat. <br>
<div>The main threat I see is politicians with despotic
tendencies. We see that lately in the US (complains that the
system is rigged but does not complain when he wins,
attacking mail in ballots but not in states that he may win,
may refuse to concede if defeated in November, ...), Russia
(who just reset his term counter to stay on til the mid
2030s), Hungary (froze parliament and ruling by decree),
Italy, ...etc. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>End-to-end verifiable process is what you want to protect against
despots in power and external actors.</p>
<p>Paper, by the way, is not end-to-end verifiable. That is why we
have USSR, Belarus, and today's Bolivia.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The tension is between having either an end-to-end verification
or coercion resistance. Can have either one, but not both.<br>
</p>
<p>1) Ease of computer tech allows ease of manipulation. Thus,
online voting can't be without end-to-end verification to uncover
manipulation. Coercion resistance is not provided, similarly to
mail vote.</p>
<p>2) Without ability to uncover precise manipulations, the best way
is to make it difficult, i.e. going to paper. Observers and some
trust in process is required.</p>
<p><list note> Just want to note that this clean articulation
is possible thanks to longer than tweets conversation. </list
note><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Looking at stories about vote buying in western countries, I
wonder if we are fighting the last war. Estonia's design against
coercion ensures that there is no end-to-end verification, cause
server counts in secret, opening itself to either permanent rule
of existing party, or hacks from the outside.<br>
</p>
<p>Does size of population matter in coercion stories? And if it
does, may be there can be a prescription for choosing and mixing
voting methods.<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>