DOCSLIB.ORG

E-Democracy a Discussion of the Possibility of Supplanting Traditional Representative Democracy with E-Democracy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
E-Democracy a Discussion of the Possibility of Supplanting Traditional Representative Democracy with E-Democracy viewpoints VDOI:10.1145/3213766; 10.1145/3231050 Ehud Shapiro/Douglas Schuler Point/Counterpoint Democracy and E-Democracy A discussion of the possibility of supplanting traditional representative democracy with e-democracy. DOI: 10.1145/3213766 Point: Foundations of E-Democracy Considering the possibility of achieving an e-democracy based on long-established foundations that strengthen both real- world democracies and virtual Internet communities. Ehud Shapiro HE INTERNET REVOLUTION of democracy, which will trans- form earthly representative democracies by employing the communication and col- Tlaboration capabilities of the Internet, has yet to come. For this Communica- tions Point/Counterpoint discussion, I enlist the wisdom of our forefathers to lead the way. By consulting the 1789 calamities and of the corruption of E-democracy has at least two mean- Declaration of the Rights of Man and of governments.”4 ings: Using the Internet to strengthen the Citizen,4 I distill core values of de- The Internet, on the other hand, is real-world democracies,1,14 and demo- mocracy and derive from them require- revolutionizing industry after industry, cratic conduct of virtual Internet com- ments for the foundations of e-democ- leaving older ways of human conduct munities.3 When viewed as objectives racy. Building on these foundations can in the dustbin of history. Yet, it has not they coalesce, as one entails or requires usher in the urgently needed revolution changed the basic workings of democ- the other. of democracy. racy: Representative democracy today Amalgamating “Internet” and “De- Representative democracy is in re- functions essentially as it did 200 years mocracy” presupposes universal Inter- treat worldwide,1,5,6 as many democ- ago (Internet-enabled disruptions of net access as well as Net neutrality and racies transform into oligarchies, elections notwithstanding). freedom; their absence undermines plutocracies, or even kleptocracies. How could this be? Why has an Inter- the legitimacy of e-democracy, as a A key reason is lack of respect of de- net revolution of democracy not yet oc- regime can exclude an oppressed mi- mocracy’s basic tenet—equality of curred, despite the pressing need for it nority, or a service provider can make rights—as the rich, the powerful, and and the apparent clear ability of the In- e-democracy a super-premium service, the connected increasingly dominate ternet to deliver it? I believe a key reason excluding the poor. who gets nominated, who gets elect- is that amalgamating “Internet” and Even if the Internet infrastructure is ed, and what the elected do. The fore- “Democracy” into an Internet democ- universally accessible, neutral, and fair, fathers of democracy have identified racy, or e-democracy, is more difficult utilizing an existing Internet applica- IMAGE BASED ON PAINTING BY JEAN-JACQUES-FRANÇOIS LE BARBIER, 1789 (PUBLIC DOMAIN) (PUBLIC DOMAIN) 1789 LE BARBIER, JEAN-JACQUES-FRANÇOIS BY ON PAINTING BASED IMAGE this to be “... the sole cause of public than it seems. tion such as Facebook and its siblings AUGUST 2018 | VOL. 61 | NO. 8 | COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM 31 viewpoints as a foundation for e-democracy is a of the natural and imprescriptible non-starter: They are prone to dupli- rights of man: liberty, property, safety cate and fake accounts and, crucially, to The prospective and resistance against oppression. nondemocratic oversight, control, and “customer” for This can be ascertained in an ecosys- arbitrary intervention by their owners. tem of e-democracies only if the deci- Even Wikipedia, a hallmark of Internet e-democracy is sions of each are transparent to the participation, is governed neither by its humanity at large. others. readers nor by its editors, but by an ap- 5. Property and Privacy: A17 recog- pointed board that has full legal author- nizes the right for property and its pri- ity to shut it down, for example, to avert vate use, which, extended to our times, bankruptcy. sovereignty resides essentially in the incorporates the right for the ownership Hence, new foundations for e-democ- Nation. No body, no individual can ex- and privacy of information. The right to racy are needed. I envision these foun- ert authority that does not emanate ex- safety and resistance against oppres- dations to simultaneously support the pressly from it.” We interpret this prin- sion (A2) entails voter privacy to resist democratic conduct of all types of com- ciple to mean that the members of an coercion. munities: Associations, clubs, unions, e-democracy are its sovereign. 6. Justice: Revolt against unjust rul- cooperatives, organizations, move- 2. Equality: A1 states that “Men are ers was crucial to the emergence of de- ments, and political parties; and at all born and remain free and equal in mocracy, and justice is the focus of early levels—local, national, transnational, rights. …”. Together with A3 they imply charters of democracy such as the Eng- and international; eventually including that sovereignly must be equally shared, lish Magna Carta12 and the French Dec- cities, states, and federations; and, ulti- often stated as one person-one vote. But laration. Indeed, A1 and A4–13 address mately, uniting the entire humanity in a there is more to equality than the right the equal and just conception, applica- global e-democracy. to vote. A4 states that the law is the ex- tion, and enforcement of the law. Fur- Among these communities, the pivot pression of the general will and that all thermore, A16 states that a constitution for revolutionizing earthly democracies people have the right to contribute to is needed to guarantee the rights of citi- may be Internet-resident democratic its formation; and equally so, according zens and the separation of the powers of political parties, or e-parties. Only by to A1. A6 further states that all people, government. winning real-world elections, e-parties being equal in the eyes of the law, are can export the participatory practices equally admissible to all public posts. Requirements of Foundations of e-democracy from their inner work- Equality extends not only to rights but of E-Democracy ings to real-world governments, enact- also to obligations: A12–14 ascertain I now aim to derive from these core ing legislation that gradually supplants the need for public services and for democratic values requirements for the traditional representative democracy by equally sharing their financing among foundations of e-democracy. e-democracy. members, but progressively, according 1. Sovereignty: Internet communi- But what are these foundations? to their ability to pay. ties today, from the local bulletin board Who could guide us in their construc- To summarize, all members of a de- to almighty Facebook, are dictatorial, tion? A standard method in require- mocracy must have equal capacity to act with an omnipotent administrator who ments engineering is to interview the as voters, discussants, proposers and determines who gets in, who is thrown prospective customer. The prospective public delegates, as well as share pro- out, and what actions each member may “customer” for e-democracy is human- gressively the burden of public expen- take. The administrator also has the ca- ity at large. Hence, in lieu of an inter- ditures. pacity to shut down the community and view, I enlist one of humanity’s most 3. Freedom: A1 states that “men are annihilate its recorded history at will. inspiring documents: The 1789 French born and remain free.” The nature of Furthermore, communities like Face- Declaration of the Rights of Man and of this freedom is further elaborated in book employ rule-by-decree like bygone the Citizen4 (henceforth: Declaration), other articles: A10–11 espouse the free- Middle Ages fiefdoms. The owner, like a which offers a concise, clear, and bold dom of expression within the limits if feudal lord, sets the rules (sometimes in expression of the essence of democracy. the law. A5 proclaims the freedom to secrecy), tries members for breaching I study its Articles, extract from them take any action that is not harmful to them, and executes the punishment. core democratic values, and derive from others. Among those implied freedoms The members, like serfs, toil for the fi- these values requirements for the foun- I note the freedom of assembly3 grant- nancial benefit of the lord while having dations of e-democracy. ing any group of people the freedom to no (intellectual) property, civil rights, or assemble, and the subsidiary principle, voting rights. They have no say on their Core Values of Democracy granting such a group the freedom to remuneration or tax, on community Here, I list the core democratic values make decisions that pertain to them. rules of conduct or their enforcement, extracted from the Articles (marked 4. Transparency: A14–15 require or on the election of community lead- by A) of the Declaration (Interpreting that the conduct of public agents and ership. In the event of a bankruptcy or Man→Person, Citizen→Member, and the collection and expenditure of pub- hostile takeover, the entire community Nation→Community): lic funds be transparent. Furthermore, and its recorded history may be anni- 1. Sovereignty: The Declaration’s Ar- A2 states that the goal of any political hilated, with community members be- ticle III (A3) states “The principle of any association must be the conservation ing helpless bystanders. All this clearly 32 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM | AUGUST 2018 | VOL. 61 | NO. 8 viewpoints violates all of democracy’s core values: with democratically instituted taxes and number of fake national identities and sovereignty, equality, freedom, trans- budgets9,15 to operate the e-democracy. use them (in a Sybil attack6) to sway the parency, property, privacy, and justice. In summary, a distributed public vote of a global e-democracy in favor of First, I consider the question of ledger employing a democratic crypto- their national interest.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Democracy in the United States
    Democracy in the United States The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. Voting is one way to participate in our democracy. Citizens can also contact their officials when they want to support or change a law. Voting in an election and contacting our elected officials are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy. Voting booth in Atascadero, California, in 2008. Photo by Ace Armstrong. Courtesy of the Polling Place Photo Project. Your Government and You H www.uscis.gov/citizenship 1 Becoming a U.S. Citizen Taking the Oath of Allegiance at a naturalization ceremony in Washington, D.C. Courtesy of USCIS. The process required to become a citizen is called naturalization. To become a U.S. citizen, you must meet legal requirements. You must complete an interview with a USCIS officer. You must also pass an English and Civics test. Then, you take the Oath of Allegiance. This means that you promise loyalty to the United States. When you become a U.S. citizen, you also make these promises: ★ give up loyalty to other countries ★ defend the Constitution and laws of the United States ★ obey the laws of the United States ★ serve in the U.S. military (if needed) ★ do important work for the nation (if needed) After you take the Oath of Allegiance, you are a U.S. citizen. 2 Your Government and You H www.uscis.gov/citizenship Rights and Responsibilities of Citizens Voting is one important right and responsibility of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Democracy the Democratic Form of Government Is An
    Types of Democracy The democratic form of government is an institutional configuration that allows for popular participation through the electoral process. According to political scientist Robert Dahl, the democratic ideal is based on two principles: political participation and political contestation. Political participation requires that all the people who are eligible to vote can vote. Elections must be free, fair, and competitive. Once the votes have been cast and the winner announced, power must be peacefully transferred from one individual to another. These criteria are to be replicated on a local, state, and national level. A more robust conceptualization of democracy emphasizes what Dahl refers to as political contestation. Contestation refers to the ability of people to express their discontent through freedom of the speech and press. People should have the ability to meet and discuss their views on political issues without fear of persecution from the state. Democratic regimes that guarantee both electoral freedoms and civil rights are referred to as liberal democracies. In the subfield of Comparative Politics, there is a rich body of literature dealing specifically with the intricacies of the democratic form of government. These scholarly works draw distinctions between democratic regimes based on representative government, the institutional balance of power, and the electoral procedure. There are many shades of democracy, each of which has its own benefits and disadvantages. Types of Democracy The broadest differentiation that scholars make between democracies is based on the nature of representative government. There are two categories: direct democracy and representative democracy. We can identify examples of both in the world today.
    [Show full text]
  • Argentina's Delegative Democracy: a Case Study
    ARGENTINA’S DELEGATIVE DEMOCRACY: A CASE STUDY A dissertation presented by Florencia Inés Gabriele to The Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of Political Science Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts December 2013 1 ARGENTINA’S DELEGATIVE DEMOCRACY: A CASE STUDY by Florencia Ines Gabriele ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the College of Social Sciences and Humanities of Northeastern University December, 2013 2 ABSTRACT This study analyses why Argentina remained an immature and underdeveloped delegative democracy rather than a fully-liberal democratic polity. Following the work of Guillermo O’Donnell this work explores the quality of, and serious deficiencies in, Argentina’s democracy. This work pays special attention to presidential use and misuse of Decrees of Necessity and Urgency by as a means to govern alone, thus bypassing Congress and how there is no existing check and balances in the government in this regard. Observing delegative democracies, this work also examines the following: the use of economic restrictions, use of policies such as nationalizations, privatizations, management of the federal budget, international relations of the country, restriction on the media, behavior of the judiciary branch, changes in the national constitution, and decreasing role of the Vice President. This work analyzes the relationship between democracy, decrees of necessity and urgency, laws sanctioned by Congress and inflation using transfer function models. Democracy is measured using the Polity IV dataset. There is a causal relationship among the explanatory variables (inputs) —the numbers of laws passed by Congress, inflation, and number of DNU — and Democracy (output).
    [Show full text]
  • Electronic Democracy the World of Political Science— the Development of the Discipline
    Electronic Democracy The World of Political Science— The development of the discipline Book series edited by Michael Stein and John Trent Professors Michael B. Stein and John E. Trent are the co-editors of the book series “The World of Political Science”. The former is visiting professor of Political Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada and Emeritus Professor, McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The latter is a Fellow in the Center of Governance of the University of Ottawa, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and a former professor in its Department of Political Science. Norbert Kersting (ed.) Electronic Democracy Barbara Budrich Publishers Opladen • Berlin • Toronto 2012 An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libraries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access for the public good. The Open Access ISBN for this book is 978-3-86649-546-3. More information about the initiative and links to the Open Access version can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org © 2012 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0. (CC- BY-SA 4.0) It permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you share under the same license, give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ © 2012 Dieses Werk ist beim Verlag Barbara Budrich GmbH erschienen und steht unter der Creative Commons Lizenz Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Diese Lizenz erlaubt die Verbreitung, Speicherung, Vervielfältigung und Bearbeitung bei Verwendung der gleichen CC-BY-SA 4.0-Lizenz und unter Angabe der UrheberInnen, Rechte, Änderungen und verwendeten Lizenz.
    [Show full text]
  • American Government Framework
    American Government Framework The High School Assessment (HSA) in American government provides Maryland students with the opportunity to learn the Constitutional framework and democratic process that structure the State and national political system. American Government establishes a knowledge base which supports the development of skills needed for citizens in a participatory democracy. Effective citizens possess a clear understanding of government: its structure, its purposes, and its processes. They gather, communicate, and utilize information in order to evaluate the competing goals and varying points of view related to public issues. Utilizing their knowledge and skills, effective citizens purposely choose to be involved in their political system and exert influence in a participatory democracy. To assist students in acquiring these skills, the content of the course is arranged around five of the six state social studies standards: Standard 1.0 Civics Students will understand the historical development and current status of the fundamental concepts and processes of authority, power, and influence, with particular emphasis on the democratic skills and attitudes necessary to become responsible citizens. Standard 2.0 Peoples of Students will understand the diversity and commonality, human interdependence, and global cooperation of the people of Maryland, the the Nations and World United States, and the World through both a multicultural and historic perspective. Standard 3.0 Geography Students will use geographic concepts and processes to examine the role of culture, technology, and the environment in the location and distribution of human activities and spatial connections throughout time. Standard 4.0 Economic Students will develop economic reasoning to understand the historical development and current status of economic principles, institutions, and processes needed to be effective citizens, consumers, and workers participating in local communities, the nation, and the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Stock of Democracy – Still a Success Story Or Not Competitive Anymore?
    Page 6 | Trilogue Salzburg 2018 Background Paper Taking Stock of Democracy – Still a Success Story or not Competitive Anymore? Jörg Habich | Verena Nowotny | Christina Tillmann Introduction Taking stock of democracy seems to be easy. Democracy doubtlessly was the most successful idea of the 20th century, in spite of its flaws and problems. Democracy is able to adapt to changing environments and has been able to cope with challenges and problems in most cases. As a consequence, the number of democracies has increased and many countries have moved from a non-democratic government to a democratic one over the years. The number has risen from 69 in 1989/1990 to 125 electoral democracies in 2016.1 Nowadays, the majority of countries are governed by democratic regimes. Democratic systems are characterized by a variety of criteria, such as an electoral process and pluralism, political participation, civil liberties, the functioning of government, constraints on the power of the executive, and political culture with a guarantee of civil liberties. The victory of the liberal democracies as the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the final form of human government as predicted by Fukuyama seemed theirs for the taking.2 1 Freedom House. Freedom in the World 2018 – Democracy in Crisis; https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom- world/freedom-world-2018, retrieved July 16, 2018. 2 Francis Fukuyama. The end of history?. In: The National Interest. Summer 1989. Background Paper Trilogue Salzburg 2018 | Page 7 But the right to vote, political participation, freedom of press and media, and the rule of law are under pressure and in retreat globally.
    [Show full text]
  • Governance, Democracy Peace
    AND GOVERNANCE, DEMOCRACY PEACE HOW STATE CAPACITY AND REGIME TYPE INFLUENCE THE PROSPECTS FOR WAR AND PEACE David Cortright with Conor Seyle and Kristen Wall © 2013 One Earth Future Foundation The One Earth Future Foundation was founded in 2007 with the goal of supporting research and practice in the area of peace and governance. OEF believes that a world beyond war can be achieved by the development of new and effective systems of cooperation, coordination, and decision making. We believe that business and civil society have important roles to play in filling governance gaps in partnership with states. When states, business, and civil society coordinate their efforts, they can achieve effective, equitable solutions to global problems. As an operating foundation, we engage in research and practice that supports our overall mission. Research materials from OEF envision improved governance structures and policy options, analyze and document the performance of existing governance institutions, and provide intellectual support to the field operations of our implementation projects. Our active field projects apply our research outputs to existing governance challenges, particularly those causing threats to peace and security. ONE EARTH FUTURE FOUNDATION 525 Zang Street | Suite C Broomfield, CO 80021 USA Ph. +1.303.533.1715 | Fax +1 303.309.0386 ABOUT THE AUTHORS David Cortright is the director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame and chair of the board of directors of the Fourth Freedom Forum. He is the author of seventeen books, including the Adelphi volume Towards Nuclear Zero, with Raimo Vayrynen (Routledge, 2010) and Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas (Cambridge University Press, 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy and Autocracy Readings
    Autocracy (Dictatorship) A dictatorship is a government headed by a dictator. Originally a legitimate military office in the Roman Republic, the dictator was given his powers by the Senate. The dictator had absolute power, but for a limited time. In the twentieth century, the term dictatorship has come to mean a government in which absolute power is concentrated in the hands of a dictator and sometimes his cronies. Many dictators have held the formal title of "President", but wield extraordinary, often non- constitutional or de facto powers. Dictators can come to power in a variety of different ways. They can be elected (see below), be appointed by the resident ruling party or Communist hierarchy, or inherit their position from a deceased relative. Still other modern dictators seize power in a military coup d’tat, and are supported by the military. The dictator generally controls the three state powers: legislative, executive and judicial. In a dictatorship, there is not periodical universal, free, direct and secret polling of the citizens to elect the leaders. Sometimes dictators can initially obtain power from democratic elections (like Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany), but shortly after being elected the dictator will ban all opposing parties and cancel all future elections (see human rights). Though free elections will never occur under a dictatorship, sometimes dictators orchestrate phony elections in an attempt to grant themselves some illusion of democratic legitimacy and public support. Usually, the dictator runs for "re-election" unopposed, with voters being asked to answer a simple "yes or no" ballot on the leader's continued rule.
    [Show full text]
  • Flexible Representative Democracy: an Introduction with Binary Issues
    Flexible Representative Democracy: An Introduction with Binary Issues Ben Abramowitz and Nick Mattei April 3, 2019 Abstract We introduce Flexible Representative Democracy (FRD), a novel hybrid of Representative Democracy (RD) and direct democracy (DD), in which voters can alter the issue-dependent weights of a set of elected representatives. In line with the literature on Interactive Democracy, our model allows the voters to actively determine the degree to which the system is direct versus representative. However, unlike Liquid Democracy, FRD uses strictly non-transitive delegations, making delegation cycles impossible, and maintains a fixed set of accountable elected representatives. We present FRD and analyze it using a computational approach with issues that are binary and symmetric; we compare the outcomes of various democratic systems using Direct Democracy with majority voting as an ideal baseline. First, we demonstrate the shortcomings of Representative Democracy in our model. We provide NP-Hardness results for electing an ideal set of representatives, discuss pathologies, and demonstrate empirically that common multi-winner election rules for selecting representatives do not perform well in expectation. To analyze the behavior of FRD, we begin by providing theoretical results on how issue-specific delegations determine outcomes. Finally, we provide empirical results comparing the outcomes of RD with fixed sets of proxies across issues versus FRD with issue- specific delegations. Our results show that variants of Proxy Voting yield no discernible benefit over RD and reveal the potential for FRD to improve outcomes as voter participation increases, further motivating the use of issue-specific delegations. arXiv:1811.02921v2 [cs.MA] 1 Apr 2019 1 Introduction Since the Athenian Ecclesia in 595 BCE Direct Democracy (DD) as an ideal collective decision making scheme has loomed large in the western imagination [18].
    [Show full text]
  • The Idea of European Demoicracy
    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/9/2012, SPi 10 The Idea of European Demoicracy Kalypso Nicolaïdis* Introduction How can an ‘ever-closer union’ between distinct democratic peoples be democratically legitimate? The idea of European ‘demoicracy’ provides a deceptively simple answer: one is not to cross the Rubicon which separates a European Union ruled by and for multiple demoi from a Europe ruled by and for one single demos.1 By crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC, a shallow and red river in northern Italy, Caesar violated the old constitutional rules concerning his own ‘imperium’ and dramatically changed Rome and his own place within it. There has been a strong temptation for Europe to cross its own Rubicon, the point of no return on the road to integration, in search of its own glorious destiny. But this temptation should be resisted. To be sure, the idea of a notional barrier between a Europe of demoi and that grounded on the assumption of a single European demos should not be seen as the familiar story about sovereignty and its denial. Instead, there is enough space to enter * For comments on a previous version of this paper I would like to thank Francis Cheneval, Pavlos Eleftheriadis, Frank Schimmelfennig, Tristan Storme, and Rebecca Welge. I would also like to thank partici- pants in the workshop on ‘Demoicracy: Government of the Peoples’, 22–23 March 2012, University of Zurich. 1 The term ‘demoicracy’ is derived from demoi (äÞìïØ in ancient Greek is the plural form of äÞìïò), meaning peoples, and kratos (ŒæÜôïò), meaning power—or to govern oneself with strength.
    [Show full text]
  • Representative Government and Popular Sovereignty
    Representative Government and Popular Sovereignty For the Political Philosophy Workshop at Brown University April 19, 2007 Bryan Garsten Assistant Professor of Political Science Yale University This is a work in progress – please do not cite without permission. Comments welcome: [email protected] Are representative governments working well? The answer to that question depends on what we think the purpose of representative government is. Most research in political science presumes that the purpose of representative government is to represent the will of the people in some way – by translating popular sentiment or public interest into policy. It therefore presumes that a good measure of the performance of representative democracy, at least in its representative capacity, involves comparing policy results with public opinion as it is or as it should be. The classic study of constituency influence in the House of Representatives by Miller and Stokes, for example, focused on "the extent of policy agreement between legislator and district" (Miller and Stokes 1963). More recent work continues to investigate similar relations: Page and Shapiro look for “congruence between changes in policy and changes in opinion” and assume that “normative concepts of democracy” would mandate something close to “direct democracy” (Page and Shapiro 1983). Stimson, Mackuen and Erikson ask “whether the national system is efficient in turning popular sentiment into policy" (Stimson, Mackuen, and Erikson 1995). These studies, and many more like them, presume a principle close to the one that Bartels articulates clearly: “The appeal of representative democracy hinges on the responsiveness of elected politicians to the preferences and interests of their constituents” (Bartels 1991).
    [Show full text]
  • Introducing Proxy Voting to Helios
    Introducing Proxy Voting to Helios Oksana Kulyk∗, Karola Marky∗, Stephan Neumann∗, Melanie Volkamer∗y ∗Technische Universitat¨ Darmstadt, Germany Email: [email protected] zKarlstad University, Sweden verify the correctness of the election result, while ensuring Abstract—Proxy voting is a form of voting, where the voters vote secrecy at the same time. The system has been used can either vote on an issue directly, or delegate their voting in several real-world elections, e.g. the elections of the In- right to a proxy. This proxy might for instance be a trusted expert on the particular issue. In this work, we extend the ternational Association for Cryptologic Research [5] or the widely studied end-to-end verifiable Helios Internet voting system University president election at UC Louvain [6]. towards the proxy voting approach. Therefore, we introduce a In this work we set as our goal to extend the protocol new type of credentials, so-called delegation credentials. The main underlying the Helios voting system with a proxy voting purpose of these credentials is to ensure that the proxy has functionality. To achieve this goal, we face several challenges: been authorised by an eligible voter to cast a delegated vote. If voters, after delegating, change their mind and want to vote First, due to the potentially increased frequency of elections, directly, cancelling a delegation is possible throughout the entire voters should not be required to register for each individual voting phase. We show that the proposed extension preserves the election. The second challenge refers to a proxy who accumu- security requirements of the original Helios system for the votes lated a lot of delegation power – that is, received a significant that are cast directly, as well as security requirements tailored number of delegations.
    [Show full text]