From: Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>
As for representation - yes, it is hard. There is no pure conduit for public opinion short of a full direct vote on all things. That's not very efficient (although in these electronic days it may be easier than it has been in the past assuming that we can resolve the one-actual-person-one-vote problem.)
One person / one vote is easier these days, it's basically equivalent to the double-spend problem. In essence one sends anyone qualified (e.g., properly registered) to vote one zero-value bitcoin (doesn't have to be bitcoin, but analogous) which they must return ("spend") with their vote submission. Yes there are details with devils, I could list a few, but that's the gist of the idea and it's fairly simple in concept. Papers have been written on the use of blockchain for voting systems, just google "blockchain voting system". This could probably be as good an experimental platform for such a system as one could get since it's starting at zero voting now, no history to carry over such as a former voter feeling they were disenfranchised by the implementation since there are no former voters tho perhaps some new such complaints could arise. And could start with votes of little consequence (advisory, polling, etc) to test the concept. Again, there's no urgency to get to consequential votes since there's no history to drive any urgency. And of course who would be shocked or offended to hear that an arm of internet governance plans to use blockchain technology for an online, global, voting system? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*