Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Debian decides to allow secret votes

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 280 posts

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#11

Post by spondyl »

kaba0 wrote: post #10
spondyl wrote: post #9

A brief summary because I had to re-read this a few times to figure out what was going on. Debian had a vote with 4 options: Option 1 "Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote" Option 2 "Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote and allow verification" Option 3 "Reaffirm public voting" Option 4 "None of the above" (NOTA) The objection raised here is that Option 3 and Option 4 can be consi…

I haven’t read the article, but isn’t debian’s voting orders the options? In which case 3 > 4 vs 4 > 3 wouldn’t really change the outcome.

Well, the claim here is that Option 3 and Option 4 are the same in essence so if they had been reflected on the ballot as a single option, then that option would have won out over Option 2, changing the outcome.

Assuming I understand this anyway. The way the votes are reflected is confusing to me

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#12

Post by ckastner »

kaba0 wrote: post #10
spondyl wrote: post #9

A brief summary because I had to re-read this a few times to figure out what was going on. Debian had a vote with 4 options: Option 1 "Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote" Option 2 "Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote and allow verification" Option 3 "Reaffirm public voting" Option 4 "None of the above" (NOTA) The objection raised here is that Option 3 and Option 4 can be consi…

I haven’t read the article, but isn’t debian’s voting orders the options? In which case 3 > 4 vs 4 > 3 wouldn’t really change the outcome.

It would change the long-term outcome.

If you wanted voting secrecy but were unhappy with the proposed implementations of option 1 and 2, you'd vote 4 > 3, leaving room for future alternative proposals.

If you were against any form of voting secrecy, you'd vote 3 > 4, shutting the door on future proposals.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#13

Post by clippablematt »

the_lonely_road wrote: post #4

Apparently by a single vote and the legitimacy of the vote is in question due to some technicality I didn't care to reread until I understood. What I don't understand is why the project is NOT already secret voting? Do not most free democratic countries practice 'secret ballot' voting specifically because not doing so caused all kinds of problems like voter intimidation? I googled the first three that came to mind (f…

I was surprised too. You have to have secret votes to stop intimidation, and also collusion. If people can prove they voted a certain way then they can be bribed.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#14

Post by [deleted] »

bitcharmer wrote: post #6
hans1729 wrote: post #3

Quoted post unavailable.

Reader mode on mobile Firefox works fine for me on LWN. From my experience LWN has always been a very readable website that works pretty well on mobile too. Do you mind sharing what exactly you disapprove about how the content is structured without reader mode?

[deleted]

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#17

Post by zucker42 »

spondyl wrote: post #9

A brief summary because I had to re-read this a few times to figure out what was going on. Debian had a vote with 4 options: Option 1 "Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote" Option 2 "Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote and allow verification" Option 3 "Reaffirm public voting" Option 4 "None of the above" (NOTA) The objection raised here is that Option 3 and Option 4 can be consi…

Debian uses the Schulze method (if things haven't changed recently), so I do not see how that would have an impact on the result.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#18

Post by danuker »

the_lonely_road wrote: post #4

Apparently by a single vote and the legitimacy of the vote is in question due to some technicality I didn't care to reread until I understood. What I don't understand is why the project is NOT already secret voting? Do not most free democratic countries practice 'secret ballot' voting specifically because not doing so caused all kinds of problems like voter intimidation? I googled the first three that came to mind (f…

I am not familiar with Debian's practices, but electronic voting can't work for a nation because:

- centralization (there must be a central, corruptible place where the voters are authenticated or the votes are counted)

- software is untrustable: https://www.win.tue.nl/%7Eaeb/linux/hh/thompson/trust.html

The USA has had a Diebold voting scandal. Other countries are using a paper-based voting process which can be supervised by third parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions#Sec...

Relevant watching: Tom Scott: Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Idea

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs

One possible solution could be ZCash ( https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/585.pdf ) but it has had its own problems ( https://www.coindesk.com/zcash-team-reveals-it-fixed-a-catas... ).

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#19

Post by dtech »

spondyl wrote: post #11
kaba0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t read the article, but isn’t debian’s voting orders the options? In which case 3 > 4 vs 4 > 3 wouldn’t really change the outcome.

Well, the claim here is that Option 3 and Option 4 are the same in essence so if they had been reflected on the ballot as a single option, then that option would have won out over Option 2, changing the outcome. Assuming I understand this anyway. The way the votes are reflected is confusing to me

They use ranked choice voting so this shouldn't matter, as far as I understand RCV eliminates the lowest option one-by-one, passing the votes to the next option on each ballot as if the eliminated option never existed.

The discussion seems to be about ballots with 3 > 2 > 4, and when 3 was eliminated the votes went to 2, allowing it to pass. That's a bit strange because you'd expect a ballot to always have 3 next to 4 since they are so similar.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#20

Post by dmurray »

the_lonely_road wrote: post #4

Apparently by a single vote and the legitimacy of the vote is in question due to some technicality I didn't care to reread until I understood. What I don't understand is why the project is NOT already secret voting? Do not most free democratic countries practice 'secret ballot' voting specifically because not doing so caused all kinds of problems like voter intimidation? I googled the first three that came to mind (f…

Most software projects don't have the same threat models as "most free democratic countries". In fact, while we've settled on some level of democracy being a good thing in running our countries, we're very much open to other approaches in software development, often using methods closer to monarchy or centrally planned communism, and not ruling out complete anarchy.

With that in mind, it's not clear that just because Debian embraces some of the trappings of democracy, it should also insist on the secrecy of the ballot. Non-secret ballots have their advantages too - even your cited "free democratic countries" use them at the parliamentary level.

Post reply on HN