Home Elections, Civic Trust, and Digital Literacy: The Promise of Blockchain as a Basis for Common Knowledge
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Elections, Civic Trust, and Digital Literacy: The Promise of Blockchain as a Basis for Common Knowledge

  • Mark Alfano ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: July 8, 2021

Abstract

Few recent developments in information technology have been as hyped as blockchain, the first implementation of which was the cryptocurrency Bitcoin. Such hype furnishes ample reason to be skeptical about the promise of blockchain implementations, but I contend that there’s something to the hype. In particular, I think that certain blockchain implementations, in the right material, social, and political conditions, constitute excellent bases for common knowledge. As a case study, I focus on trust in election outcomes, where the ledger records not financial transactions but vote tallies. I argue that blockchain implementations could foster warranted trust in vote tallies and thereby trust in the democratic process. Finally, I argue that if the promise of blockchain implementations as democratic infrastructure is to be realized, then democracies first need to ensure that these material, social, and political conditions obtain.


Corresponding author: Mark Alfano, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia, E-mail:

References

Alfano, M., and N. Huijts. 2020. “Trust and Distrust in Institutions and Governance.” In Handbook of Trust and Philosophy, edited by J. Simon, 256–70. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315542294-20Search in Google Scholar

Appel, A., R. De Millo, and P. Stark. 2020. “Ballot-Marking Devices (BMDs) Cannot Assure the Will of the Voters.” Election Law Journal: Rules Politics, and Policy 19 (3): 289–320.10.2139/ssrn.3375755Search in Google Scholar

Chwe, M. 2001. Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination, and Common Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

De Filippi, P., M. Mannan, and W. Reijers. 2020. “Blockchain as a Confidence Machine: The Problem of Trust & Challenges of Governance.” Technology in Society 62: 101284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101284.Search in Google Scholar

Dupont, Q. 2017a. “Blockchain Identities: Notational Technologies for Control and Management of Abstracted Entities.” Metaphilosophy 58 (5): 634–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12267.Search in Google Scholar

Dupont, Q. 2017b. “Experiments in Algorithmic Governance: A History and Ethnography of ‘The DAO,’ A Failed Decentralized Autonomous Organization.” Bitcoin and Beyond: 157–77. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315211909-8.Search in Google Scholar

Ishmaev, G. 2017. “Blockchain Technology as an Institution of Property.” Metaphilosophy 48 (5): 666–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12277.Search in Google Scholar

Jones, K. 2012. “Trustworthiness.” Ethics 123 (1): 61–85. https://doi.org/10.1086/667838.Search in Google Scholar

Kroll, J., I. Davey, and E. Felten. 2013. “The Economics of Bitcoin Mining, or Bitcoin in the Presence of Adversaries.” In Proceedings of WEIS, Washington, DC, Vol. 2013, 1–21.Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, D. 1969/2002. Convention. Hoboken: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470693711Search in Google Scholar

Magnuson, W. 2020. Blockchain Democracy: Technology, Law and the Rule of the Crowd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108687294Search in Google Scholar

Nakamoto, S. 2008. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.Search in Google Scholar

Pettit, P. 2015. The Robust Demands of the Good: Ethics with Attachment, Virtue, and Respect. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732600.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Purwanto, A., A. Zuiderwijk-van Eijk, and M. Janssen. 2018. “Group Development Stages in Open Government Data Engagement Initiatives: A Comparative Case Studies Analysis.” In Proceedings of 17th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2018, edited by E. Kalampokis, S. Virkar, P. Parycek, O. Glassey, M. Janssen, H. J. Scholl, and E. Tambouris, 48–59. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-98690-6_5Search in Google Scholar

Rivest, R. 2008. “On the Notion of ‘Software Independence’ in Voting Systems.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 366 (1881): 3759–67. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0149.Search in Google Scholar

Stark, P. B. 2008. “Conservative Statistical Post-election Audits.” Annals of Applied Statistics 2: 550–81. https://doi.org/10.1214/08-aoas161.Search in Google Scholar

Stark, P. B. 2009. “Risk-Limiting Post-Election Audits: P-Values from Common Probability Inequalities.” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 4: 1005–19. https://doi.org/10.1109/tifs.2009.2034190.Search in Google Scholar

Venkatasubramanian, S., and M. Alfano. 2020. “The Philosophical Basis for Algorithmic Recourse.” In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (ACM FAT*), 284–93. Barcelona.10.1145/3351095.3372876Search in Google Scholar

Vidan, G., and V. Lehdonvirta. 2018. “Mine the Gap: Bitcoin and the Maintenance of Trustlessness.” New Media & Society 21 (1): 42–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818786220.Search in Google Scholar

Wiessner, P. 2014. “Embers of Society: Firelight Talk Among the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (39): 14027–35. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404212111.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2021-07-08
Published in Print: 2021-07-27

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 5.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/sats-2020-0016/html
Scroll to top button