1. With your ballot: very small chance of changing policies (1 vote)

2. With your wallet: small chance of changing policies (n votes through political donations)

3. With your feet: guaranteed chance of changing policies

The internet facilities 100% democracy as it simplifies voting with your feet (remote work, social networks), allowing likeminded individuals to congregate and influence policy. Blockchain furthers this, unlocking the ability to have a referendum on every issue, which maximises consent.

I'm not sure how blockchains makes more frequent referendums easier. Maybe harder to game the system? Apart from that it seems like a platform for regular referendums could be built without blockchains. It's still relative early days on that tech though, and amidst "Blockchain" being attached to anything anyone wants to hype, I have ended up being a bit skeptical of claims they can fit a given purpose until it goes beyond the conceptual stage.

Political representation becomes obsolete with blockchains that can facilitate a referendum on every issue without the need for centralised trust.

> Political representation becomes obsolete with blockchains that can facilitate a referendum on every issue without the need for centralised trust

The choice of representative democracy was not because of the difficulty of counting votes. The founding fathers very clearly rejected what you're proposing. It's because most people are grossly ignorant about most things, and their opinion shouldn't be counted. If you can't pass a high school math class, I honestly don't care about your opinion on climate change.

The blockchain solves none of that.

1. Vote machines change votes - Great, the blockchain would allow people to verify their vote! Well, the software that sums up all blockchain votes could still miscount them, regardless of what the blockchain contains. Ok! So we can audit the results! Great, we can already do that with paper ballots.

2. Dead people voting - Again, same as the audit before. We see a John Smith voted on the blockchain. We can look up John Smith based on a paper ballot, just as we can with the blockchain.

3. Illegals voting - The same process used for identifying voters and giving out private keys can be used for verifying voters

But what about risks you have introduced?

1. By making everything electronic, you've shifted the risk from local elections, to state actors.

Signing keys are not magic. If a country found a solution to the factorization problem, or solving discrete logarithms, the scheme would collapse and they could forge massive amounts of votes.

2. Getting 300m people to manage cryptographic keys is impossible. Keys will be stolen, just as bitcoin wallets are. Now you need to deal with revocation of votes, and other controls that nobody has yet invented.

tldr: blockchains are dumb

If you mean an open ballot: hard no! It’s much too easy to coerce, bribe or intimidate voters.