Blockchain technology has the possibility to secure information, to create transparent government, and to reduce bureaucratic overhead. One of the ways this can happen is by assigning blockchain identities to citizens, giving them a unique fingerprint, like a social security number, but more secure. This would act somewhat like a cryptowallet, specifically one with tokenization capabilities. This would allow for tokens to be created for a large variety of different kinds of projects. It could be used to distribute specific categories of welfare that could only be used for those goods or services, such as a housing token that could only be used for paying rents, or a food stamp-like token that could only be used for the purchase of food goods, etc.
It could also though, be used for voting.
There are a number of ways that you could design the system, depending on how transparent or secretive the ballot process is decided to be. Of course, the more secretive methods could be used by authoritarian states to theoretically rig elections, though that level of control could be made difficult.
One way that such a voting system could work would be that citizens were given “vote tokens”, an amount of tokens representing the number of categories to vote for, or could be used in a ranked-choice voting system. The citizens would then vote for their desired choices of candidates or policy decisions, and those tokens would be transferred to the appropriate “vote wallet”. Simply, between the vote wallets, the options with the most tokens win.
Now, how the votes are verified could be done a number of ways, and on different levels, depending on the level of ballot secrecy required. The transaction records could be encrypted, but the token totals available for view, with the system itself verifying the transactions on the network behind the scenes, which has the benefit of an attacker required to hijack the whole network to make any changes to the transaction records, though if this did occur, there would be no way to verify it until after the fact. Another way this could be done is by allowing the transaction records to be seen, which would allow individuals to verify their own vote records on the blockchain, though this has the drawback of making it possible for other people to potentially see another person’s voting record given the right set of information. Lastly, you could just open up the whole system, so that you can see the ID numbers of every person who voted for what category and at what rank. This has the advantage of total vote transparency. A discrepancy between someone’s vote and their record of that vote would be readily available, though this does provide lists of people who might have voted for the wrong person in the case of a more oppressive regime.
So it matters how these technologies are implemented greatly, if we want to leverage the power of technology in government, but this one example shows the ways that such a technology could be used to both make democracy transparent, or to create an all-knowing techno-fascist state.
/rant 