41–50 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't understand the argument of reducing cost of elections and scaling. The current paper system in place in most works (at least in European countries where I've witnessed the process) and doesn't need to scale more. If actors in a democracy can't afford such a system, and the occasional (once, twice a year) walk to the voting place, 15 minutes wait and fellow-citizen interaction, can't we accept they don't care for voting and participating and stop listening?
I'm all for accommodation of special cases (people with reduced mobility or unability to be in contact with other people) but we already have the necessary systems in place (mail-in or vote delegation).
Literally one of the last places I'd check for change or optimization. It works, leave it alone, I'll happily pay the 3 or 10eur a year.
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…
Maybe because only Debian Developers can vote; the rest of us have no vote, so effectively the DDs are a sort of "college of electors", and it seems reasonable to me that users should at least have visibility into how the electors are voting. I mean, I think it's OK that only DDs get to vote; but the Debian Project is supposed to be transparent, so I'd like to be able to find out how people voted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which countries hide the votes their representatives make in parliament? What would you think about the ones that did?
This is sometimes the case here in Germany, and one reason we do it is because our representatives are explicitly, by the basic law bound only to their own conscience . Representatives toeing party lines is seen as an impoverishment to democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> zero knowledge proofs are [...] possible to check for yourself Only if you're an expert cryptographer, else you're deferring to the authority. > Paper voting is extremely expensive to scale That's a feature.
At least it’s still provable, a plenty of people can afford to hire their own cryptographers to do verification. Foreign observers can also do the same.
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 se…
You're phrasing of "sunlight to disinfect the voting process" is rather disgusting personally... You try to twist something that's quite horrible, namely voter corruption through public opinion as if it is somehow "disinfecting" anything. The mob mentality of the internet is best kept away from any voting base.
It is not "disgusting" that we be allowed to question their decisions.
Every introduction of democracy or futherance of democracy has been castigated by autocrats as rule by mob.
The sickening irony here is that it looks like this was done to try and protect the identities of members of the mob who tried and failed to cancel Stallman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So do ZKP based voting systems.
>voter verification
What do you mean by this? If you mean signatures you can have people sign their signature on their phone or desktop.
>I can actually show up and vote once every few years
This is a lot of friction which prevents many people from voting.
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 se…
You're phrasing of "sunlight to disinfect the voting process" is rather disgusting personally... You try to twist something that's quite horrible, namely voter corruption through public opinion as if it is somehow "disinfecting" anything. The mob mentality of the internet is best kept away from any voting base.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe because only Debian Developers can vote; the rest of us have no vote, so effectively the DDs are a sort of "college of electors", and it seems reasonable to me that users should at least have visibility into how the electors are voting. I mean, I think it's OK that only DDs get to vote; but the Debian Project is supposed to be transparent, so I'd like to be able to find out how people voted.
Consider that elected representatives' votes are also, as a rule, not secret.