Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (0) (9) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0)
Highest posts
- 08/12 18:32 +2 SIGNATURE_PASCAL_MARTIN.jpg
- 23/10 17:53 +2 Re: Leparlement and security
- 20/10 14:10 +2 Re: Leparlement and security
- 09/03 14:09 +1 Picture_8_square_200.jpg
- 06/03 00:53 +1 Re: comment on repond???
- 04/01 17:01 +1 mouaaa.png
- 19/11 16:50 +1 Re: Leparlement and security
- 16/11 14:37 +1 Discussion: citizens-initiative.eu from ECINITIATIVE-L@aegee.org
- 07/11 15:58 +1 Re: Bugs sur leparlement.org
- 07/11 14:35 +1 Bugs sur leparlement.org
Latest posts
- 09/03 14:09 +1 Picture_8_square_200.jpg
- 06/03 00:53 +1 Re: comment on repond???
- 06/03 00:23 +0 anon
- 04/01 17:01 +1 mouaaa.png
- 08/12 18:32 +2 SIGNATURE_PASCAL_MARTIN.jpg
- 19/11 16:50 +1 Re: Leparlement and security
- 16/11 14:37 +1 Discussion: citizens-initiative.eu from ECINITIATIVE-L@aegee.org
- 07/11 15:58 +1 Re: Bugs sur leparlement.org
- 07/11 14:35 +1 Bugs sur leparlement.org
- 01/11 19:23 +1 Re: Neutralité
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
-
22/01/06 18:53
mails
+0
-
12/03/06 18:39
lost+found
+0
-
06/03/07 00:23
anon
+0
-
06/10/06 09:06
Demexp-dev
+0
-
06/10/06 09:04
Re: TOP invitation to programmers.)
Hello Emmanuel,
2006/10/6, echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr>:
> I was the author of those comments, not too harsh hopefully.
Constructive criticism is one pillar of democracy. :-)
> The goal is a forum/mailingList/chat/news system, where every post is > also a poll and potentially a vote.
That’s an iteresting concept. But won’t you have too many votes that a user will have to track? ;-)
> There is one solution that could bring trust: total and complete > transparency. To the point of real time reproducibility. > > To the point where a P2P system of servers can be set up by any number > of willing individuals. Then PGP signatures to ensure the relationship > between a vote and a persona. Electoral lists (of PGP public keys) to > calculate results. > > http://leparlement.org/security
I see two weak points in your approach:
* the first one is obviously lack of anonymity. I think anonymousvote is an essential part of democracy: avoid social pressure for each individual’s decision. After that, you are arguing that anonymity is difficult to do on the Internet. You might be right but I hope one day we’ll have strong arguments to invalidate your hypothesis; ;-)
* the second one is that it is difficult to link a GPG public key (orany kind of authentication token) to an individual. How can you be sure that I’m not creating thousands of GPG keys, cast thousand votes to change the vote result? This is a tricky question and we’ll have to face the same issue in demexp. In demexp, we plan to rely on external proof, e.g. birth certificate, but we’ll have also to face fake ones.
Best wishes,
d._______________________________________________
Demexp-dev mailing list
Demexp-dev@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/demexp-dev
+1
-
06/10/06 10:28
Re: TOP invitation to programmers.)
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 09:04:06AM +0200, David MENTRE wrote:
> Hello Emmanuel, > > 2006/10/6, echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr>: > >I was the author of those comments, not too harsh hopefully. > > Constructive criticism is one pillar of democracy. :-)
Thank you for your understanding.
> >The goal is a forum/mailingList/chat/news system, where every post is > >also a poll and potentially a vote. > > That’s an iteresting concept. But won’t you have too many votes that a > user will have to track? ;-)
Many many many. But organized as a tree like any forum or mailing list. This will also be useful for delegable proxies.
Plus a moderation system alike SlashDot: where each user can define a filter to only view the elements above his threshold (on the right hand side of the page, heavy use of javascript). By default that filter is at 0 and will hide the simple votes.
> >There is one solution that could bring trust: total and complete > >transparency. To the point of real time reproducibility. > > > >To the point where a P2P system of servers can be set up by any number > >of willing individuals. Then PGP signatures to ensure the relationship > >between a vote and a persona. Electoral lists (of PGP public keys) to > >calculate results. > > > >http://leparlement.org/security > > I see two weak points in your approach: > > * the first one is obviously lack of anonymity. I think anonymous > vote is an essential part of democracy: avoid social pressure for each > individual’s decision. After that, you are arguing that anonymity is > difficult to do on the Internet. You might be right but I hope one day > we’ll have strong arguments to invalidate your hypothesis; ;-)
My approach is simple: how can we trust an internet democracy? One simple and basic way is total transparency. Yes, that implies no anonymity.
At first anyway, because I can envision a service, a third party trustee, that could vouch for a user’s re-inscription under another persona.
And/or, for the paranoid one, good old fashioned physical ballot boxes, where a vote is slipped in a machine and the link with the physical person is lost. To trace the vote in the system of P2P servers, a random pseudo would/could still be associated with the vote. Of course then, this person won’t be able to change her mind.
Vote buying is the only big problem I can envision with internet democracy. And it’s only a problem if people don’t value their voting power.
> * the second one is that it is difficult to link a GPG public key (or > any kind of authentication token) to an individual. How can you be > sure that I’m not creating thousands of GPG keys, cast thousand votes > to change the vote result? This is a tricky question and we’ll have to > face the same issue in demexp. In demexp, we plan to rely on external > proof, e.g. birth certificate, but we’ll have also to face fake ones.
Yes, it is very difficult. The best way is thus to go around the problem: let anybody setup any number of electoral lists following any procedure they want.
An association for example, would have its own procedure to manage the electoral list used to legitimately vote on decisions. This procedure can imply a physical ID card, or the trust of another member. Their choice.
An electoral list will be just another mail in the system, thus transparent to scrutiny (basically, everything is a mail/post).
echarp – http://leparlement.org/security
+1
-
07/10/06 22:26
Re: Leparlement and security
echarp wrote: >David MENTRE wrote: > > Hello Emmanuel, > > echarp: > > >I was the author of those comments, not too harsh hopefully.
> >DM: Constructive criticism is one pillar of democracy. :-)
>ec: Thank you for your understanding.
-M: :-)
> > >ec: The goal is a forum/mailingList/chat/news system, where every post is > > >also a poll and potentially a vote. > >dm: That’s an iteresting concept. But won’t you have too many votes that a > > user will have to track? ;-)
>ec: Many many many. But organized as a tree like any forum or mailing list. This will also be useful for delegable proxies. Plus a moderation system alike SlashDot: where each user can define a filter to only view the elements above his threshold (on the right hand side of the page, heavy use of javascript). By default that filter is at 0 and will hide the simple votes.
-M: Filtering? By what parameters? C-algorithm ranks?
> > >ec:There is one solution that could bring trust: total and complete > > >transparency. To the point of real time reproducibility. > > >To the point where a P2P system of servers can be set up by any number > > >of willing individuals. Then PGP signatures to ensure the relationship > > >between a vote and a persona. Electoral lists (of PGP public keys) to > > >calculate results. http://leparlement.org/security
> >DM: I see two weak points in your approach: > > * the first one is obviously lack of anonymity. I think anonymous > > vote is an essential part of democracy: avoid social pressure for each > > individual’s decision. After that, you are arguing that anonymity is > > difficult to do on the Internet. You might be right but I hope one day > > we’ll have strong arguments to invalidate your hypothesis; ;-)
-M: David, I agree with all your points. There is social pressure: “Why did you vote for that fuck-up?” “I gave you good money and business deals, and yet you voted for him?”
>ec: My approach is simple: how can we trust an internet democracy? One > simple and basic way is total transparency. Yes, that implies no > anonymity.
-M: Emmanuel, what I am envisioning for SD2-S is a system in which someone could display either their rank or their votes, or neither, but never both.
The idea here is to have a controlled amount of transparency, and the kind of transparency that would not encourage collusion. -Who cares who someone of an unknown rank votes for? -Or if they are high ranked, then their vote should be secret and even unverifyable to everyone except the voter. This is possible with Chaum’s system:
http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/voting/papers/Chaum-SecretBallotReceiptsTrueVoterVerifiableElections.pdf.>ec: At first anyway, because I can envision a service, a third party trustee, that could vouch for a user’s re-inscription under another persona. And/or, for the paranoid one, good old fashioned physical ballot boxes, where a vote is slipped in a machine and the link with the physical person is lost. To trace the vote in the system of P2P servers, a random pseudo would/could still be associated with the vote. Of course then, this person won’t be able to change her mind.
-M: Simple. Just have the polling booths always operational, and have the most current votes override the previous votes.
>ec: Vote buying is the only big problem I can envision with internet > democracy.
-M: Then have the system internet accessable but not internet based.
>ec: And it’s only a problem if people don’t value their voting power.
-M: Its a problem if votes are being bought. (I don’t see how people’s values change this.)
> > * the second one is that it is difficult to link a GPG public key (or > > any kind of authentication token) to an individual. How can you be > > sure that I’m not creating thousands of GPG keys, cast thousand votes > > to change the vote result? This is a tricky question and we’ll have to > > face the same issue in demexp. In demexp, we plan to rely on external > > proof, e.g. birth certificate, but we’ll have also to face fake ones.
>ec: Yes, it is very difficult. The best way is thus to go around the problem: let anybody setup any number of electoral lists following any procedure they want. An association for example, would have its own procedure to manage the electoral list used to legitimately vote on decisions. This procedure can imply a physical ID card, or the trust of another member. Their choice. An electoral list will be just another mail in the system, thus transparent to scrutiny (basically, everything is a mail/post). > echarp – http://leparlement.org/security
-M: So what if its transparent to scrutiny? The potential abusers still get the vote.
How is scrutiny going to stop them?shanti
Mark, Seattle
+1
-
> > Plus a moderation system alike SlashDot: where each user can define > > a filter to only view the elements above his threshold (on the right > > hand side of the page, heavy use of javascript) > > Filtering? By what parameters? C-algorithm ranks?
Let me rephrase for you. each user can define a filter to only view the elements above his threshold.
No algorithm there.
By the way, ever read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system ?
And particularly this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Criteria_in_evaluating_voting_systems ?
Voting system is a cool concept isn’t it? With some literature around it and almost comprehensible to everybody.
> > At first anyway, because I can envision a service, a third party > > trustee, that could vouch for a user’s re-inscription under another > > persona. And/or, for the paranoid one, good old fashioned physical > > ballot boxes, where a vote is slipped in a machine and the link with > > the physical person is lost. To trace the vote in the system of P2P > > servers, a random pseudo would/could still be associated with the > > vote. Of course then, this person won’t be able to change her mind. > > Simple. Just have the polling booths always operational, and have > the most current votes override the previous votes.
Yes.
> > Vote buying is the only big problem I can envision with internet > > democracy. > > Then have the system internet accessable but not internet based.
I’m building an internet democracy.
> > And it’s only a problem if people don’t value their voting power. > > Its a problem if votes are being bought. > (I don’t see how people’s values change this.)
Because if the value is high then nobody can buy it. Or if someone can buy large amount of votes on some issue, then it merely is a compensation.
Transparency does change everything around. If a big guy tries to buy many votes, it will get known, and it might just as well backfire.
Picture this:
A law to protect the city center from pollution. Big companies want to pay you 10$ to vote against it. Will you?
At what amount would you agree to this deal?
What if it’s 10k$ to each inhabitant?
> > > * the second one is that it is difficult to link a GPG public key (or > > > any kind of authentication token) to an individual. How can you be > > > sure that I’m not creating thousands of GPG keys, cast thousand votes > > > to change the vote result? This is a tricky question and we’ll have to > > > face the same issue in demexp. In demexp, we plan to rely on external > > > proof, e.g. birth certificate, but we’ll have also to face fake ones. > > > Yes, it is very difficult. The best way is thus to go around the > > problem: let anybody setup any number of electoral lists following > > any procedure they want. An association for example, would have its > > own procedure to manage the electoral list used to legitimately vote > > on decisions. This procedure can imply a physical ID card, or the > > trust of another member. Their choice. An electoral list will be > > just another mail in the system, thus transparent to scrutiny > > (basically, everything is a mail/post). > > So what if its transparent to scrutiny? The potential abusers still > get the vote. > How is scrutiny going to stop them?
Because it’s with scrutiny that you can spot frauds and correct them. Electoral lists have required this for as long as they have existed.
echarp – http://leparlement.org/fr
+1
-
Not sure if this is relevant, but what about openID as a mean of authentication?
Could we envision a process by which one’s ID could be checked physically, a login/pseudonym created and access given to that person, while ensuring things such as registration date can’t be known and one’s real identity not be traced. This may allow avoiding the social pressures mentionned while maintaining transparence and accountability.
+1
-
Me personally have nothing against virtualy entities/ anonyimus users of top interface. If they can gain credibility while hiding their true identity, then I am all set.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
At 08:08 PM 10/13/2006, illegale wrote:
>Me personally have nothing against virtualy entities/ anonyimus users >of top interface. If they can gain credibility while hiding their true >identity, then I am all set.
Anonymity is not compatible with open and transparent….
As a suggested response to difficult situations, where anonymity is essential, it has been proposed that Delegable Proxy function anonymously at the lowest level, such that, essentially, sufficient anonymous votes are concentrated in a proxy as to make it practical to defend that person.
There may be technological solutions which would allow such anonymity, while preserving the ability of proxies and voters to communicate directly (through an encrypted system).
It’s tricky, though. Certain safeguards that should protect FA/DP from corruption are not expected to work as well under anonymity and secrecy. Essentially, secret ballot makes corruption (of one kind) possible, that is, corruption of the representative selection process. Secret communication makes other kinds possible (such as bribery and payoffs).
+1
-
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 08:08 PM 10/13/2006, illegale wrote: > > >Me personally have nothing against virtualy entities/ anonyimus users > >of top interface. If they can gain credibility while hiding their true > >identity, then I am all set. > > Anonymity is not compatible with open and transparent….
It might sound strange, but I am not sure of it. Concretely, what we do loose with anonymity? We loose direct attachemnt to flash that holds part of the societal power. That part of attachment loose is part I can notice be lack of transparency.
I do agree that TOP organisation has to be completely TOP. But whats up with the public? Parts that are not precisely articulated as part of TOP organisation in any definition? Can some anonymus comment anything? Do we loose principles of TOP organisation, if we enable anonymus be consultary part of the process?
This is rather practical question, I asume.
I do believe that for TOP organisation it is important that in a context of Integral decision making process, that all exact links be part of TOP. But, why forbid anything beside it?
Why forbid John Doe possiblity to share information due to lack of courage, or due to his exact situation that does not allow him to be public character? What can TOP organisation gain and what can TOP organisation loose by letting John Doe does his informational work?
> As a suggested response to difficult situations, where anonymity is > essential, it has been proposed that Delegable Proxy function > anonymously at the lowest level, such that, essentially, sufficient > anonymous votes are concentrated in a proxy as to make it practical > to defend that person.
:-) Seems as we do share simmilar concerns. So, yes. If somebody want to be anonymus, than he can not be part of TOP organisation as decision making element. Consultary, yes, as anyone else, even those who are directly oposed to goals of such TOP organisation. In general FA, as long as FA is not defined in a manner of TOP, that is not a problem.
> There may be technological solutions which would allow such > anonymity, while preserving the ability of proxies and voters to > communicate directly (through an encrypted system).
In general political organisation, TOP is much easier to get legitimated, as long as it stands together with knowledge and free info (things compatible to IT era), than a process that does not share these qualities. Being non transparent makes public have not necessary questions that loose political strenght of such organisation.
Concretely, I can really hardly imagine deliberative political proces based on anonymus voters gets legimit. Why would anyone that looks for authority of truth in order of realising his political intentions be anonymus? Such decision goes strongly against his basic tool of gaining political influence through deliberation process.
I am also afraid that one has to come out of the closet if he wants to be influentive part of public politics. This moment gets makes him legitimaiton on the principles of TOP.
Of course, you might look for legitimation through todays political process that is everything but TOP. Yet, I have to notice that institutions based on high level hypocricy legitimated by todays system do not hold authority, not trustworthiness that is absolutly needed for successfulll obtaining of its political goal.
Here we talk about current non-TOP political institutions that are based on lack of knowledge that is buffered by assumptions and dogma, things that are higly non-compatible to informatisation of the political process that Internet brings to its core.
> It’s tricky, though. Certain safeguards that should protect FA/DP > from corruption are not expected to work as well under anonymity and > secrecy. Essentially, secret ballot makes corruption (of one kind) > possible, that is, corruption of the representative selection > process. Secret communication makes other kinds possible (such as > bribery and payoffs).
I can not imagine idea of disabling of secret communication among the members of TOP organisation. Yet, what does such thing means if everything needs to pass TOP in order of gaining its legitimation? Thanks to O in TOP the process can not be kiddnaped, so it does not really matter too much.
If one is corrupted in its process, its actually only openness (posiblity of being replaced by better, more optimum towards society) and transparence (posibilitiy of having fully informed public that makes such decision) that removes such thing. Its not much, but I find it be essential thing.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
Sorry to say but all these discussions about TOP and if there should be possibility to have anonimity or not can’t be discussed before there is a decision wether there should be DD, RD or both.
You seem be discussing in circles due to this.
Impossible almost to follow you arguments since they are mixed up with personal issues as well as principles of TOP etc etc. I make it very simple again (some weeks ago we all seemed to be agreeing on this):- Anonymous votes should be allowed both for voting on reps (delegates) and for voting on issues. This due to the fact the the world isn’t perfect and you might have a problem with your neihgbour if he knew that you where voting in certain way for an issue or a representative. This is a well accepted principle.
- In the case of representataives, it is as well accepted principle that all reps. have to vote openly for everythin (with very few exceptions) in order for their voters to follow their work.
Are you saying that you don’t find these two principles good enough? Are they really incompatible with TOP?
I still don’t find it so.
+1
-
MG wrote:
> Sorry to say but all these discussions about TOP and if there should be > possibility to have anonimity or not can’t be discussed before there is > a decision wether there should be DD, RD or both. > You seem be discussing in circles due to this. > Impossible almost to follow you arguments since they are mixed up with > personal issues as well as principles of TOP etc etc. > I make it very simple again (some weeks ago we all seemed to be > agreeing on this): > 1. Anonymous votes should be allowed both for voting on reps > (delegates) and for voting on issues.
As Lomax did notice, secrecy is oposed to TOP. TOP means no secrecy within organisation. Hiding someones identity means secrecy.
What I want to notice here is that you can not be partially TOP. You are TOP, or you are not TOP. That is the strenght of TOP. No place for misunderstaings.
> This due to the fact the the world isn’t perfect and you might have a > problem with your neihgbour if he knew that you where voting in certain > way for an issue or a representative. This is a well accepted > principle.
Yes. It is accepted in a World that we want to change towards better place. In that process it is rather expected that we can not offer flowers, honey and good faith in order of getting there.
> Are you saying that you don’t find these two principles good enough? > Are they really incompatible with TOP?
Yes. Though, as Katty noticed, IMO you can deal with virtual entities that are not so credible sources as RL entites, as long as you can not make them be responsible on a level of reward and sanction. To be more clear, I can be a charmic whore who will tell you only things you want to hear and gain me popularity that will make me politically relevant and than when you delegate me, I can become completely different and prostitute your votes.
Or. I can belong to oportunistic part of society as long a society is strangely f***** up in its decadency (regular thing today when people get alienated), where 40% of the people look for short solutions, with no wandering about conseqences of these solutions. By secret voting, I say that these 40% of people who made BAD decision for the society be equal to those who stood against their oportunism, being exposed to attacks of greedy ones and you are saying these two are the same?
Why do you want to make people irresponsible for their own actions? Why are you pormoting irresponsiblity of the people in general? Just to protect them of the bullies? Isnt it an esay way, Magnus? The way of running away from problems that are existing in society?
Or you thing that people are stupid herd who is not respnsible nor capable for such thing? I do not think so. I think people have to learn being responsibly. And by TOP we enable it. And it is not just that we enable it, but we promote positive behaviour.
Yes. It is not an easy way, as long as there is not easy way if you want to be good, but that is a thing we have to deal with. There is no way for running from it.
> I still don’t find it so.
I repeat. Secrecy is not compatible to TOP.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
>As Lomax did notice, secrecy is oposed to TOP. TOP means no secrecy within organisation. Hiding someones identity means secrecy.
What I want to notice here is that you can not be partially TOP. You are TOP, or you are not TOP. That is the strenght of TOP. No place for misunderstaings.
-Well we are here to discuss what TOP is and should be, correct? Ofcourse TOP should mean as TOP as possible. In the case of secret votes I think that there is a need for it but you on your side can’t accept it for TOP reasons. This is not productive.
>> Are you saying that you don’t find these two principles good enough? Are they really incompatible with TOP?
>Yes. Though, as Katty noticed, IMO you can deal with virtual entities that are not so credible sources as RL entites, as long as you can not make them be responsible on a level of reward and sanction. To be more clear, I can be a charmic whore who will tell you only things you want to hear and gain me popularity that will make me politically relevant and than when you delegate me, I can become completely different and prostitute your votes.
Or. I can belong to oportunistic part of society as long a society is strangely f***** up in its decadency (regular thing today when people get alienated), where 40% of the people look for short solutions, with no wandering about conseqences of these solutions. By secret voting, I say that these 40% of people who made BAD decision for the society be equal to those who stood against their oportunism, being exposed to attacks of greedy ones and you are saying these two are the same?
-What you are suggesting is actually to take away secret votes of any kind.
This will still not work for the reasons I have explanied. Once we have solved teh problem of violence and all kinds of pressure that can be put on a single voter, I will agree on taking away the secret votes.By saying that you want to keep individual voters responsable for stupid voting, you also say that you want them to pay when it is shown that they made a stupid decision.
What is the reason for this and how should people pay except for suffering under bad and corrupt leaders or bad direct democratic decisions?I’m totally with you when we are speaking of delegates/reps/proxies in whom voters have put faith and trust.
These are coosen and have to proove their capabilities continuosly since they can be corrupted or just lazy.The people is different I might say, the people can only be held responsable in front of it self.
Just like you and me, buying the wrong car or camera. There is none else who can judge you for this and no punishment to be taken out on you except that you will have to cope with a bad car or camera for a while.
So I certainly don’t want to make the people irresponsible for it’s actions but you wan’t to have trials in addition? What would be the punishment
You can’t even force someone to tell you why he votes as he does. You can’t force responsible decisions but you can point in a better direction, this is the key issue here.>Or you thing that people are stupid herd who is not respnsible nor capable for such thing? I do not think so. I think people have to learn
being responsibly. And by TOP we enable it. And it is not just that we enable it, but we promote positive behaviour.
-I agree! And soemday maybe all have the bravery to tell publicly what they wan’t. Today you would only silence too many if only public votes where allowed.
That would not be democratic either.>Yes. It is not an easy way, as long as there is not easy way if you want to be good, but that is a thing we have to deal with. There is no way for running from it.
I repeat. Secrecy is not compatible to TOP.
-TOP is not a religion… It is a way of getting a better world isn’t it?
The biggest advantage compared to todays corrupt system is the removal is secrecy in top-politics, not in the little mans voting.I could ask you the same question: why are you affraid of having the judge by the anonymous voters?
As long as best argument and/or delegate wins I see no problem with that.
It is proven in many referendas from Switzerland and otherplace that the individual voter takes his responsability very seriously when he feels that he can make a real difference with his vote. This is seldom the case today since referendas and other choises you have to pick are merely instruments for the traditional politicians to keep power, not to invite to participation. Whatever you pick, the end result will anyway be about what a high elite want it to.And TOP will most certainly bring a platform for making true participation possible, even with secret personal votes.
+1
-
MG wrote:
> >As Lomax did notice, secrecy is oposed to TOP. TOP means no secrecy > within organisation. Hiding someones identity means secrecy. > > What I want to notice here is that you can not be partially TOP. You > are TOP, or you are not TOP. That is the strenght of TOP. No place for > misunderstaings. > > -Well we are here to discuss what TOP is and should be, correct? > Ofcourse TOP should mean as TOP as possible. In the case of secret > votes I think that there is a need for it but you on your side can’t > accept it for TOP reasons. This is not productive.
TOP is TOP. No TOP as possible. Though, I have to notice the same thing I mentioned to Emmanuel. If you want to have some commonly trusted body that validates someones secret identity in order of having him voting, that is not a question of TOP system.
Nevertheless, the first step as I can see it is that TOP structure goes to todays elections that are far from transparent. Yet, that is not a problem of TOP structure. In the same time, if you create a system where people will be in position to hide and legitimate their decision, I suppose new balance of power will come out as long as it is rather far from fair to be done otherwise.
Where one person, deleagate is responsible and his background can do whatever it wants to. In this way, you create two classes of people. Politicians and their political base. Responsible ones and irresponsible ones. If you find it be good, I have nothing against it.
Yet, as I did notice, if there is no public link between virtual ID and real ID, than that link does not exist in TOP system. You can not call for it or anything. And people will be in position to oppose such decision making process in a part that is not transparent with no possibilty of having any arguments against it, as long as you choosed secrecy to be your weapon. OK.
> >Yes. Though, as Katty noticed, IMO you can deal with virtual entities > that are not so credible sources as RL entites, as long as you can not > make them be responsible on a level of reward and sanction. To be more > clear, I can be a charmic whore who will tell you only things you want > to hear and gain me popularity that will make me politically relevant > and than when you delegate me, I can become completely different and > prostitute your votes. > > Or. I can belong to oportunistic part of society as long a society is > strangely f***** up in its decadency (regular thing today when people > get alienated), where 40% of the people look for short solutions, with > no wandering about conseqences of these solutions. By secret voting, I > say that these 40% of people who made BAD decision for the society be > equal to those who stood against their oportunism, being exposed to > attacks of greedy ones and you are saying these two are the same? > > > -What you are suggesting is actually to take away secret votes of any > kind.
If you are not readyto be responsible, why should you be in position to take decision for me? I find it be far from fair.
> This will still not work for the reasons I have explanied. > Once we have solved teh problem of violence and all kinds of pressure > that can be put on a single voter, I will agree on taking away the > secret votes.
OK. The process before us will show us is there any space for secret votes. Maybe you are right.
> By saying that you want to keep individual voters responsable for > stupid voting, you also say that you want them to pay when it is shown > that they made a stupid decision.
Of course. You can not vote for going into war and support mass masacre and than play fool. You are responsible for that decision. Playing fool or not playing fool.
> What is the reason for this and how should people pay except for > suffering under bad and corrupt leaders or bad direct democratic > decisions?
In TOP system, leaders are obviously in much more painfull position than other people. At least in a model you are proposing. Yet, I do agree with it, even I do not see the space or need for separating right/principles for two classes of people. If I vote good, because I am smart and good guy and if people delegate me for my qualities, if I get new extra burden. I need to get compensation for it. Right?
> I’m totally with you when we are speaking of delegates/reps/proxies in > whom voters have put faith and trust. > These are coosen and have to proove their capabilities continuosly > since they can be corrupted or just lazy.
As anyone else, I have to add.
> The people is different I might say, the people can only be held > responsable in front of it self.
If they enforce decisions that hurt third party, then they are responsible in front of that third party also.
> Just like you and me, buying the wrong car or camera. > There is none else who can judge you for this and no punishment to be > taken out on you except that you will have to cope with a bad car or > camera for a while.
In that case it is only you who get hurt. In politics, it is quite different.
> So I certainly don’t want to make the people irresponsible for it’s > actions but you wan’t to have trials in addition?
Yes. I do want to see politics based on responsibility. If we are talking about democracy, than it is the people who have to take it on their shoulders.
> What would be the > punishment > You can’t even force someone to tell you why he votes as he does. > You can’t force responsible decisions but you can point in a better > direction, this is the key issue here.
I suppose this public aproach makes people think 10x more about serious matters such as going to war is, but if there was no public aproach. I find this be extremely positive thing. Responsiblity is positive thing in politics.
> >Or you thing that people are stupid herd who is not respnsible nor > capable for such thing? I do not think so. I think people have to learn > being responsibly. And by TOP we enable it. And it is not just that we > enable it, but we promote positive behaviour. > > > -I agree! And soemday maybe all have the bravery to tell publicly what > they wan’t. Today you would only silence too many if only public votes > where allowed.
What I can notice is that you can not put under the same shelf the one who is ready to take responsibiltiy for his own action from the one who is not ready to take responsibility of his own action. The difference is too big not to be noticed as important one.
> That would not be democratic either.
Actually, if such system gets wast legitimation, as people regularly see the point of taking care of responsible politics, that would be actual will of the people. Of course, if they choose this option. So, it is up to people who are the ones who legitimate the system afterall.
> >Yes. It is not an easy way, as long as there is not easy way if you > want to be good, but that is a thing we have to deal with. There is no > way for running from it. > > > I repeat. Secrecy is not compatible to TOP. > > -TOP is not a religion… > It is a way of getting a better world isn’t it? > The biggest advantage compared to todays corrupt system is the removal > is secrecy in top-politics, not in the little mans voting.
Little man when does voting is politically acting. In that moment, that little man is politics.
> I could ask you the same question: why are you affraid of having the > judge by the anonymous voters?
I am affraid of regular stuff that happens n todays politics. Curtain makes our politicians be irresponsible, oriented to their small personal interests instead of looking for a good of society. I see no point of using curtains as long as I can notice this pattern be not exclusive thing of politicians, but of people as whole.
> As long as best argument and/or delegate wins I see no problem with > that.
As long. But who says it will win? And who will enforce it if there is scared majority voting for it only? Todays politics is rather schisofrenic thanks to the fact that only extremists can be heard and in the same time silent majority makes decision. So, politicians have to make balance of true power that includes extremist, not silent majority and other power centers, apologising their interests in front of declarative decisions that are supportet by those who are actually not supporters. Rather big political schisophrenia that will hardly be legitimated in TOP system. In TOP system declarative and true become one. No space for two.
> It is proven in many referendas from Switzerland and otherplace that > the individual voter takes his responsability very seriously when he > feels that he can make a real difference with his vote.
It is proven? Cmon. Can you show me a study?
> This is seldom the case today since referendas and other choises you > have to pick are merely instruments for the traditional politicians to > keep power, not to invite to participation. Whatever you pick, the end > result will anyway be about what a high elite want it to.
And high elite will exist as long as there is shape between declarative and true power relations where they can manipulate with that space.
> And TOP will most certainly bring a platform for making true > participation possible, even with secret personal votes.
OK. Yet, you have to understand that secret voting is not part of TOP system. You can use TOP system in combination to secret voting, but it is rather clear separation where it is TOP and where it is not TOP.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
-
OK Gale,
Why do you say the organization or the vote/debate is not transparent if someone is authenticated as being eligible and has a virtual identity for which everything is transparent (record of votes, posts, etc)?
More importantly, what does knowing one’s actual ID allow you to do as opposed to just knowing their unique online ID? Does it really bring anything to the transparency except that instead of being forced to interact at the level of ideas and deliberation/voting, you have the option to go meet the person physically?
You talk about responsability etc, representatives turning their coats, but this ignores one central element, which is that everyone will probably end up both delegating a lot and being a delegate on a couple topics.
In the logic of a distributed system, most people may only get invovled in a few topics and delegate their vote for the rest. Which means that if A probably receives delegation of votes on the few topics of interest to him, it can be expected that part of the people B,C,D,E delegating their vote to A also receive A’s vote delegation for topics in which A is not active but B, C, D, E are. proxy delegation relies on trust – if you’ve established some other users agree with you and you represent them in some areas while they represent you in others, so the responsability is shared. This can work just fine with authenticated unique online identities. Furthermore, you can check your delegate’s record at any time and remove the delegation if you wish to (especially interesting when considered in relations with AD’s continuous voting system).
Except for people to suffer the material consequences of what others deem irresponsible voting (but why should vigilantes be allowed to judge and punish or reward/corrupt), I really don’t see how having real IDs or one authenticated online IDs per eligible member ma
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
07/10/06 22:26
-
06/10/06 10:28
-
06/10/06 09:04
-
12/03/06 18:39