[logfromblammo]

Selling votes is not a problem. Secretly selling votes is the problem.

Perhaps it would be better to turn the vote-selling market into a publicly verifiable open market?

If I say that it would cost a buyer $10k more for me to vote yes than the highest open bid for me to vote no, that is a strong quantifiable indication of the magnitude of my opposition. I'm sure the vote-pricing data would be a gold mine for statisticians.

Of course, this would make the plutocratic oligarchy operate out in the open, officially, rather than behind the scenes with lobbying, campaign contributions, and speaking fees. Some people might find that objectionable: both those who do not want a plutocracy and those who do not want their money influence on politics to be openly known.

[nightcracker]

No, even public vote-selling is a problem, because it muddles incentives. No one should have to vote against their best interests in the long term for short-term financial gain. This leads to exploitative behavior of vulnerable population groups.

If you can not possibly reveal your vote (like with the ballot box) you can not sell your vote.

[notahacker]

If I say you can forget the $10k for your vote and accept that you either vote for my preferred candidate or you're fired/beaten, suddenly the secret ballot starts looking like a good idea again.

And that's even before we conclude the preferred candidate of the plutocratic oligraphy would actually be massively aided by being able efficiently purchase the votes of the indifferent rather than having to inefficiently purchase airtime to convince people their candidate actually has merit. (And of course they'll still be able to continue to organise their vote-buying operations through shadowy umbrella organizations to the extent they can be bothered to disguise who they want to win)

[burkaman]

Selling votes is obviously a problem, but more practically, is it even possible to make something possible to sell publicly, but impossible to sell secretly?