171–180 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?"
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If those two were represented as a single "NOTA" option, that option would have won the ballot in terms of votes. If the ballot were different, the results would be too. You can't take the results of one ballot and mush them around to support a hypothetical result; see also counting of the 'popular vote' for US president, a ballot which has never been tried, and whose results are unknowable. A vote for 4 says (to m…
It's a binary decision. The only way to properly poll that is either rank choice voting or a second vote after voting to change or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It came about due to https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002 leading to DDs fearing being individually targeted due to how they did or did not vote. This is but 1 example; but this alone literally is called infighting. Your example proves me right. Let's not forget how debian also went after Linus. How they have gone after how many other developers? >On matters like this vote (please read it!), not so much. Maybe…
I'm not sure that the threats of harassment actually came from Debian. Remember: Debian does (nearly) everything in public. People participating on the mailing lists aren't necessarily members of the Debian project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Stopped using Debian a long time ago >I'll be using a different version of Linux. I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your reply, but these are nonsensical statements in context. It's presenting an assumption that the governance systems in other versions are better. I've seen a lot of projects with BDFL leaders and no voting whatsoever. Linux itself is famous for permanently keeping a BDFL in charge and not really…
With secret voting you can deflect responsibility and not really hold anybody accountable, with a benevolent dictator... er, well it can't be anybody but Linus' fault as all decisions flow through him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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, so…
It's quite easy to see how a secret ballot can be not secret if the (typically patriarch) says "lets fill the forms out together and I'll take them all in"
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
So in Germany postal voting is secured against selling votes.
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…
This isn’t a rocket science problem. Best bet is to set mandatory requirements that machines must meet to get federal funding, let companies compete.
Security people tend to hand wave about election tally machines because it gets eyeballs. The reality is they work mostly fine, and the risks associated with them are usually more about process than nerd stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> see also counting of the 'popular vote' for US president, a ballot which has never been tried, and whose results are unknowable. I don't follow this point. I'm not an American, but my understanding is counting via simple popular vote vs "electoral college" doesn't change the ballot itself, you still vote for the president directly; it just changes the way the ballots are counted. Are you suggesting either something…
The point about the American election is that if people knew going into the vote that it was a popular vote across the country, voting behavior would change. Many people don’t vote at all because their preferred president has a 0% chance of winning their state and the vast majority of states are winner-take all with the electoral votes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's possible to check for yourself that your vote was actually counted and not ignored. That's a bug, not a feature. The point of not doing that with paper voting is that it makes selling your vote difficult, as nobody else can verify what you voted for. You on the other side know that you put the ballot in the box and can stay around to see if the votes in the box get accurately counted. With electronic voting yo…
>That's a bug, not a feature It's a trade off. I want to be able to prove that my vote was counted. How can I trust that my voice was actually heard by the system? >as nobody else can verify what you voted for. You can mitigate this problem by giving people a way to fake any vote outcome. The voter knows how to verify their actual vote, but someone else would not be sure if what they verified was real or fake. Also I…
Political machines exploiting nursing homes, pushing absentee ballots on the elderly, etc are already problematic, and allowing field GOTV teams to collect this type of data in mass is would make expanding these operations in size and scope.
You’d also create the new problem of hyper-partisan people crying about voter fraud. You’ll have a bunch of lunatics running around with fake ballot receipts to push whatever narrative they are trying to push.
In my state, it’s illegal to take pictures of ballots at the poll, and there are bipartisan poll inspectors that will shut that down if it happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Stopped using Debian a long time ago >I'll be using a different version of Linux. I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your reply, but these are nonsensical statements in context. It's presenting an assumption that the governance systems in other versions are better. I've seen a lot of projects with BDFL leaders and no voting whatsoever. Linux itself is famous for permanently keeping a BDFL in charge and not really…
With secret voting you can deflect responsibility and not really hold anybody accountable, with a benevolent dictator... er, well it can't be anybody but Linus' fault as all decisions flow through him.