Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] voting process

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
  • To: sm-discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] voting process
  • Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:40:56 -0600

On Feb 10, Sergey A. Lipnevich [sergey AT sourcemage.org] wrote:
> David Kowis wrote:
> > The vote collector is trusted to fix the vote, and then republish the
> > results. The results are a list
> > 1: y
> > 2: n
> > 3: y
> > etc...
> >
> > 3 emails the collector, with, "Hey, I voted n!"
> >
> > collector fixes 3 and republishes the list.
> >
> Well, if I'm the collector and I decide to rig the vote, I will simply
> disregard private mail like this and fix nothing. You *must* go public
> if your vote is wrong. I don't think anonymity works without public
> confirmation of correctly published votes.

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
- if this group finds an issue, it is dealt with
- 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.

Attachment: pgp9tgkV46GQv.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page