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: David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org>
  • To: sm-discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] voting process
  • Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:24:42 -0600

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Sergey A. Lipnevich 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 mails are kept and digitally signed, so the original votes can be
re-verified. Again, if the collector is corrupt as you've stated in your
previous example, we'll likely have to do a revote, because our central
point was broken.

>
>> - 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?

That's only in extreme circumstances, as mentioned with the collector
becoming corrupted.

>
>> - 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. 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).
>

I do see your point here. However, people desire that the votes are
closed. So we're working up a system to allow that closed-ness and still
have accountability.


- --
David Kowis

ISO Team Lead - www.sourcemage.org
Source Mage GNU/Linux

Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to
find easier ways to do something.
- Robert Heinlein

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Arthur C. Clarke

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
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=df++
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page