An Enhanced Voting System

Augmented Democracy Human oracles and dispute resolution Individuals with specialized knowledge/ skills in a particular field can also serve as oracles. They can research and verify the authenticity of the information from various sources and translate that information to blockchain rules. Since human oracles can verify their identity using cryptography, the possibility of a fraudster faking and providing corrupted data is relatively very low. Voting-based strategies raise issues for incentivized platforms. There is a term called ”lazy equilibrium,” a form of verifier’s dilemma where voters always return the same answer to questions to secure profits without performing works for correctness. This is one scenario that could be addressed by a mechanism that ensures the body of voters agrees on a set of facts before the vote, thus certifying that the problem does not reside in the vote but in the questionable will of some of the voters. The community could then propose to redo the vote or cast out bad actors. This concept is suggested as an enhancement to the voting process, not a solution. When combined with other methods, a cleaner vote could eventually be distilled. In the same way, that renewable clean energy has to be gathered from different sources.

Augmented Voting Augmented voting is a vote where the participants are required to take a test to enable their right to vote on a particular question/issue/dispute. This concept seeks to abstract the diverging beliefs in a group of voters in favor of outlining their overlapping credence.

  • Diminishes the amount of diverging knowledge

  • Educates voters

  • Promotes votes for the truth and common good

  • Helps determine if the outcome of a vote is emotional or irrational

  • Solidifies the value of the outcome of a vote

  • Promotes unity

How do we ensure the tests are accurate and based on facts? The solution lies in a modified application of token-curated registries. The Kilt Protocol (Polkadot-network) has built a successful approach that bonifies this method and brings it closer to our use case, token curated attesters. For this to work, the questions and information gathered have to abide by the following criteria:

  • There is an objective answer to the particular question.

  • The answer is publicly observable.

  • The answer is very cheap to observe.

From the kilt protocol white paper: The expert must be careful in her decisions since doing bad job results in being dismissed (expelled from the list by the curators), damaging her reputation, and finally losing her income. Therefore, this system disincentivizes bribes or bad decisions. In the same frame of mind, we want to adopt this method to validate the pertinence and authenticity of the questions for the test that will enable community members to vote.

Last updated