[top-politics] Re: Secret votes

Magnus — 2006-11-23 10:49:58+0100

>secrecy is fatal to deliberation, in my opinion.

-Yes but you agree on that it might be necessary to use for the individual voter. But why do you envison non-TOP FA:s besides the open ones?

>further, the problem with “continuous voting,” that I see, is that it encourages people to vote before the deliberative process has proceeded.
What has not been considered is that it is a fair amount of trouble to vote. It is also work to follow debate. Someone who has already voted is quite likely to drop the topic.
So the opportunity to convince such a person through cogent debate or bargaining is lost…..

-Please adress this issue in a proper string where I will respond, this one is about secret votes. (I have the same problem myself, leaving the subject every now and then…)

Read more… / Lire plus…

—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

[top-politics] Re: Secret votes

AbdLomax — 2006-11-22 20:23:41+0100

secrecy is fatal to deliberation, in my opinion.

further, the problem with “continuous voting,” that I see, is that it encourages people to vote before the deliberative process has proceeded.

What has not been considered is that it is a fair amount of trouble to vote. It is also work to follow debate. Someone who has already voted is quite likely to drop the topic.

So the opportunity to convince such a person through cogent debate or bargaining is lost.

Read more… / Lire plus…

Rather, don’t reinvent the wheel. Standard democratic process (such as Robert’s Rules) works quite well; voting happens often under RR, but most votes are procedural, and don’t fix an outcome. It is only at the end of the deliberative process that a question is finally presented, and most people could simply wait for that point.

It is entirely possible to run polls that are non-binding as part of the process. But I would rather rely on the proxy system to approximate general opinion after deliberation, because even if the proxy does not represent present public opinion, he or she is in a prime position to influence such opinion. So the proxy will, in a healthy system, tell you what the public would say if a vote were held immediately, but after the proxy has the opportunity to explain the situation to his or her clients. Approximately.

In democratic process, proposals are constantly shifting, being amended, studied, tabled, picked up from the table, referred to committee for study and revision, etc. How do you fit this with “continuous voting?”

How do you amend a proposal that people have already voted for or against? Obviously, you present a new one. So votes multiply and the whole thing becomes too tedious for people.

In a standard system, you can be asleep most of the time, you will be awakened when someone rises and says “I call the question” If you are ready to vote, you vote for the call. If not, you don’t, you abstain or you vote against it. Under Robert’s Rules, it takes a two-thirds vote to stop debate and proceed to a vote.

Hence the filibuster, by the way. Hence the outrage when a majority tries to effectively outlaw it. Outlawing it is striking at a key protection that stops an ill-considered majority from steamrollering a minority.

[top-politics] Re: Secret votes

Magnus — 2006-11-22 17:32:25+0100

>Personally I plan to use PGP signatures to ensure that votes are attached to an identity. The link between that identity and a real person being up to the electoral list manager (and possibly to third party trustees).

-This way seems to be the best today, yes.

>> So you never know exatly when the vote is over.

>Strange. Are you sure nobody knows when a vote is over? You sure people would trust such a system?

Read more… / Lire plus…

-Sorry, I meant: You will never be able to tell when the vote WILL be over in advance.
Once the accumulated support has reached 1 or -1 the vote is over and thsi will ofcourse be public..

>> Maybe a solution would be that the ballot is not possible to retrieve > once the vote is over.

>No more traceability and reproducibility then :(

-I agree and I would like to be able to check afterwards..

>And who will pay anyone for his vote if not > sure of delivery?

>Many! One only needs enough to have a proposition accepted.

-I’m not so sure, there will be many proposals and not all may be found relevant enough to start to gain interest. For instance, a company wants a new “better” law for their messy chemical business, Today, the company has to lobby in the proposal to some politicians and hopefully they might find a majority in the countrys parliament. With the AD-system in place, the company would also have to convince a lot of men of the street, otherwise the proposal could be lying there for years and no lobbyist is paid for an unlimited time since they are bought by businesses who want’s relativley quick results. So the slowing-down effect of AD is a new hinder by itself.

>In many democratic countries, effort to buy votes is legally forbidden, not just the act itself.

-Yes, and so it has to remain. And it will probably not be possible to go out and buy large amounts of votes for a specific issue since the risk of beeing caught increases exponentially with the number of people involved.
And if it’s possible, the efforts needed to succed in one single issue is probably not worth it, compared to if you where buing votes for a complete mandate peiod for a president or governement.

>Of course we could also imagine a totally opaque system where no data but the result can get out. But I’m not sure I would trust it.

-Neither do I, blackbox systems are useless.

[top-politics] Re: Secret votes

echarp — 2006-11-22 17:08:31+0100

> If there is a account wich only is accessible by one voter, his votes > are secret to everybody else. > But if he want, he can check that his crypted ballots are existing in > all vote counting servers used. > This is a must.

Personally I plan to use PGP signatures to ensure that votes are attached to an identity. The link between that identity and a real person being up to the electoral list manager (and possibly to third party trustees).

> About the issue of vote bying. > Maybe you mean that if I’m to sell my vote, I only have to show the > vote byer when I log in my encrypted votes in clear in order to proof > to him that I have delivered according the deal?

This is one possibility, yes.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> But with the AD system in place, you never know exatly when the > accumulated support reaches 1 or -1. > > So you never know exatly when the vote is over.

Strange. Are you sure nobody knows when a vote is over? You sure people would trust such a system?

> And then there is no exact time slot when a vote byer could ask for a > check of the voters last ballots. > He could check afterwords though. > Maybe a solution would be that the ballot is not possible to retrieve > once the vote is over.

No more traceability and reproducibility then :(

> So then it is too late…And who will pay anyone for his vote if not > sure of delivery?

Many! One only needs enough to have a proposition accepted.

In many democratic countries, effort to buy votes is legally forbidden, not just the act itself.

> But if we need possibility to check all ballots also afterwards, the > possibility of votebuying is there in theory, I guess.

Yeap, this is what I have in mind.

Of course we could also imagine a totally opaque system where no data but the result can get out. But I’m not sure I would trust it.

echarp – http://leparlement.org