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

151–160 of 280 posts

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#151

Post by mjw1007 »

malthuswaswrong wrote: post #89
avianlyric wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this is a constitution change, which requires a 3:1 super majority to change, a concept the Schulze method doesn’t really provide for. The issues arises from how the 3:1 ratio is calculated. Which is by comparing the number of “change it” votes to the number of the “None of the above (NOTA)” votes (this is my understanding of from the email thread). As a result the number of NOTA directly impacts the number t…

But NOTA and Affirm the Public Vote are not the same. Choosing ATPV would have changed the constitution. NOTA would not have changed the constitution. If this were an American election full of idiots and people who have no idea what they are voting for, then the argument would have weight. These are people who follow the Debian source code debate close enough to give a shit and vote. They knew what they were doing.

ATPV would not have changed the constitution (and did not require a supermajority).

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#152

Post by chomp »

mjw1007 wrote: post #145
incomingpain wrote: post #132

Quoted post unavailable.

I don't think it's about infighting. Debian's constitution says the Debian Developers may vote to publish "position statements about issues of the day", and some developers want to use those for the sort of political statement that might make people angry with them.

It’s not, GP seems to have a Debian axe to grind. The secret voting came from the Stallman vote issue, not from infighting. People wanted a way to vote non-publically in certain circumstances, but the constitution did not allow for this.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#153

Post by couchand »

contravariant wrote: post #143
sjmm1989 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this is that it is thinking in absolutes during a situation where people are often very willing to compromise their own beliefs just to be able to provide an answer. In normal elections we see this with people who don't like any choice, but don't want to spoil their ballot. So they pick their next best favorite. This means that if A is removed, people might pick B or C instead just because A isn't th…

As long as you assume people aren't suddenly going to prefer A to B when C is there and prefer B to A when C isn't then you can safely recalculate the result. Of course people might not necessarily act rationally but you've got to draw a line somewhere, otherwise elections are simply undefined behaviour and talking about properties of elections becomes meaningless.

The behavior you describe isn't at all irrational: in a nutshell that's the effect that propelled Biden to the White House.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#154

Post by SpodGaju »

bayindirh wrote: post #149
svnpenn wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. No healthy group would have even considered this awful idea. Hopefully people many people can "vote" to never use Debian again.

> No healthy group would have even considered this awful idea. HN can be considered a healthy group, but most of the people here are anonymous already. What gives?

This deserves a "Ask HN" thread of its own. I will even as why up and down vote user names are hidden from me?

I look a this behavior in myself and wonder why I use all these acronyms. I feel sometimes that if others are not anonymous the extreme responses when you have a new idea or say something wrong are part of the problem. Why expose myself when the people criticizing me do not? So it is kind of a race to the bottom.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#155

Post by jlokier »

iso1210 wrote: post #116
jlokier wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also I doubt this type of buying votes with verification is that big of an actual thing. You can trivially do it with paper voting to by just asking them to stream themself voting or by taking a picture of their ballot. It's not so much selling votes, as to discourage voter intimidation: The husband forces his wife, the boss forces his subordinates, the local mafia forces their victims to vote a particular way. I d…

> I don't know the rules in the USA, but in the UK it is generally forbidden to stream yourself voting or take a photo in the polling station. Maintaining the secrecy of ballots is high priority. Except we allow postal voting pretty much willy nilly, especailly in areas where intimidation can happen

That's due to a trade-off of requirements, to maximise free and fair representation.

Lack of postal votes makes the ballot less fair and representative, because it affects people with systematic bias in relevant sub-populations (wealth, working conditions, age, health, etc) and areas.

In areas where intimidation can happen... for going to the polling station. (All the intimidator has to do is post menacing guards, soldiers, etc. outside the station or on the routes to it. There are plenty of news reports of this happening in some countries. I'm not aware of this in the UK though.)

So the question is whether you get a more fair and representative vote outcome by allowing postal voting, or by disallowing it.

The balance of trade-offs has led to UK policy allowing postal votes, encouraging each individual to fill out and seal their vote in private, and use statistical and other investigation methods to look for signs of fraud, while maintaining a high standard of secret ballots when voting in person.

That might not be the balance that works best in other countries. In the UK it is said by the Electoral Commission that there is no evidence that postal voting has changed electoral outcomes to date, but some attempts at large scale fraud were discovered and prevented.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#156

Post by antihero »

incomingpain wrote: post #132

Quoted post unavailable.

> They have so much infighting at debian that people are afraid to vote publicly and transparently?

Doesn't pretty much every western democracy have anonymous voting so people can pick what they actually want to without without fear of reprisal?

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#158

Post by cosmiccatnap »

I think this is a great idea. Can't tell you how many times a very poor solution was implemented because a single person would flip out if you tried to ask them about alternatives because it was "their baby"

This at least let's those people know they are in the minority without people feeling like they might get blacklash.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#159

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN