[SM-Discuss] voting process
Jeremy Blosser (emrys)
jblosser-smgl at firinn.org
Fri Feb 10 14:19:41 EST 2006
On Feb 10, Sergey A. Lipnevich [sergey at sourcemage.org] wrote:
> Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> > It's not this absolute, and it can be dealt with via policy. An example
> > policy would be:
> > - voters cast votes
> > - counter publishes the vote
> > - someone says "I contest these results"
> > - a larger group, perhaps a defined group of a few leads or something,
> > looks at the votes and confirms them
> How can you confirm them? The audit trust is broken already. Moreover,
> the correct results don't exist in the worst case, because they've been
> destroyed by now or mangled with.
The audit trust can never be broken, because the votes are signed. When
that group audits the vote, the counter will have to present the votes with
the signatures. If the vote was tampered with, the signatures will show
> > - if this group finds an issue, it is dealt with
> The only way to confirm something by this time is to ask everyone to
> vote again.
> So the vote now is know to this group. What if this same group is what
> regular developers are intimidated by?
It's a valid point, but if it's an issue we can make that group separate
from those otherwise in authority, etc. Regardless, these things are a
matter of degree. People being intimidated by an open vote is different
from someone actively trying to intimidate them which is different from
someone actively fixing the vote. Obviously we can't have a completely
anonymous come-hell-or-highwater vote that never has a scenario where the
vote results have to be examined. But we can get rid of 90% of the concern
around casual "political" peer-pressure voting by keeping the initial vote
> > - if this group doesn't find an issue, they say so
> > - if the contesting person still contests, *then* we move to a stage where
> > people confirm their specific votes, and those who claim a disparity
> > would produce their signed receipt of their vote from the counter to
> > prove the listed vote isn't theirs
> > Yes, at some point we perhaps have to publish the vote to resolve a
> > contest, but it would be an extreme case. We don't need it for regular
> > elections or even basic types of contested votes.
> ...or we avoid will these wiggly dances altogether and open votes at the
> end of voting period.
> You see, the paradox is that if you're intimidated you're even more so
> required to vote openly, in order to stop such intimidation.
You're not accounting for the point of signing the votes and receipts as a
method for proving the vote results were not tampered with.
> Anonymizing votes doesn't eliminate the key issue it's supposed to work
> against. If people want to vote against something but are afraid to stand
> up for it, we might as well give it all to decide to this elite group of
> elders without any vote whatsoever (which are not supposed to be afraid
> to vote openly; it's not such a bad idea BTW).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-discuss/attachments/20060210/a29be22b/attachment.bin
More information about the SM-Discuss