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

21–30 of 280 posts

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#21

Post by zucker42 »

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…

As far as I can tell, Option B won over Option C by 35 votes (there were 142 people who preferred B over C and 107 who preferred C over B).

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#22

Post by pydry »

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…

Which countries hide the votes their representatives make in parliament?

What would you think about the ones that did?

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#23

Post by hutzlibu »

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…

"Do not most free democratic countries practice 'secret ballot' voting specifically because not doing so caused all kinds of problems like voter intimidation?"

I would argue a software project and a nation state is not the same kind of organisation.

I am not involved in debian, so I would not judge what is the best system for them, but for example a group of friends making a decision on where to party, make sports, vacation, etc. - would secret voting here make sense? I don't think so. When people are not afraid to speak their mind - then a real consensus can be faster found. So I do not really think "secret voting" must be a standard. It depends on the organisation (and the size, people involved, etc).

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#24

Post by charcircuit »

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…

By definition "none of the above" can't be the same as any of the above options.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#25

Post by pydry »

For anybody wondering why you might want some sunlight to disinfect the voting process a look at how the NSA has previously managed to corrupt internet standards:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/...

I'd be shocked if they didnt also have their claws into debian's operations for similar reasons.

I'd not be very surprised if they were indirectly behind this push either. The fact that this seems to be inspired by the people backing the very obvious hatchet job done on Richard Stallman only makes me more suspicious that its motives are anything but pure.

The biggest threat model here is probably the NSA using its assets to sway votes (probably unknowingly for most if not all, if they are influenced by a third party they dont know is fronting the NSA). Secrecy will make it that much easier to corrupt votes.

Tolerating a bit of personal abuse and cracking down on it separately is probably preferable to the existential threat to free software this presents.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#26

Post by beaconstudios »

charcircuit wrote: post #24
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…

By definition "none of the above" can't be the same as any of the above options.

But then the question becomes, "if you don't want private votes and you don't want public votes, what do you want?"

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#27

Post by charcircuit »

danuker wrote: post #18
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 supe…

Electronic voting systems using zero knowledge proofs are superior to paper votes because it's possible to check for yourself that your vote was actually counted and not ignored.

Paper voting is extremely expensive to scale compared to a website that lets you vote. Everyone could get a notification on their phone when they are asked to vote on something as opposed to having to fill out paper and send it somewhere to be counted.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#28

Post by throwmeariver1 »

pydry wrote: post #22
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…

Which countries hide the votes their representatives make in parliament? What would you think about the ones that did?

Germany does on some votes.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#29

Post by Sesse__ »

dtech wrote: post #19
spondyl wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Debian's vote system does not use instant runoff voting (which is eliminating the lowest options one by one). Instead, it uses Condorcet voting, which picks the options defeating all the others in pairwise competition. (If no such option exists, it gets more complicated. Also, the NOTA option is special and is used to check majority or supermajority requirements before the actual Condorcet process starts.)

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#30

Post by qsort »

charcircuit wrote: post #27
danuker wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 supe…

Electronic voting systems using zero knowledge proofs are superior to paper votes because it's possible to check for yourself that your vote was actually counted and not ignored. Paper voting is extremely expensive to scale compared to a website that lets you vote. Everyone could get a notification on their phone when they are asked to vote on something as opposed to having to fill out paper and send it somewhere to…

Paper voting ensures privacy and voter verification, something even the best electronic solutions can't properly handle. No thanks, I can actually show up and vote once every few years.
Post reply on HN