Coercion

Overview

When a transparent public voting system is implemented the danger or coercion is increased because the coercer can verify whether a vote was placed according to their demands.

An Izara Community can mitigate the danger of coercion by enforcing an any-coercion stance that can be enforced through the issue resolution process.

Clear cases of coercion should be easily defined and policed by the community, meaning the threat of coercion can be mitigated to the point it does not threaten the integrity of self governance, and the public vote needed to ensure the system is not compromised.

Mitigating coercion through punishment

The issue resolution process can be initiated by any person who feels themselves or somebody else is being unduly coerced, the community can then deal with this in the way they have decided it should be dealt with.

Defining coercion

Coercion is persuading someone to vote using force or threats. The community will decide what constitutes a threat, for example is an individual saying they will not talk to someone again if they vote a certain way a threat, or is it that individual's right to choose who they talk to?

These types of definitions will develop and evolve over time.

Related concepts

• Enforcement of rules
• Issue resolution

Related reasonings

• Manipulation