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

191–200 of 280 posts

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#191

Post by djrogers »

gregmac wrote: post #119
toast0 wrote: post #92

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…

> 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…

> Are you suggesting either something on the ballot is different, or that people would making a different vote if it was counted differently?

That's clearly true, in addition to the obvious fact that campaigning would change dramatically. The OP's point however was that we don't know the extent to which it's true.

An obvious example of people making a different vote would be in California - I know more than one Republican who either didn't vote or voted for a 3rd party 'statement' candidate for president because they knew that all of the electoral votes in CA were going to the Democrat anyway.

Undoubtedly the same thing happens with Democrats in TX or TN or wherever Republicans hold a huge majority and Electors are winner-take-all.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#192

Post by cosmojg »

toast0 wrote: post #172
dhzhzjsbevs wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Debian votes are ranked choice.

Specifically, they use the Schulze method[1] with ranked ballots, which is far better[2] than the IRV method popularized by FairVote[3] and currently making the rounds in the U.S.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method

[2] https://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/VSE/

[3] https://www.fairvote.org/

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#193

Post by LeifCarrotson »

treeman79 wrote: post #187
dagw wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or that people would making a different vote if it was counted differently? Two changes would happen. A lot of people who don't vote today because their state either heavily favours the 'wrong' candidate or the 'right' candidate will already win by a massive margin, would start voting, since all of sudden their vote matters a lot more. Secondly, and more importantly, candidates would campaign very differently. In tod…

This also makes many states cease to matter. Already a big issue that big cities vote one way while rural voters go another way.

Stated differently, this makes states matter and rural voters matter in direct proportion to the number of people living there, because all people are equal.

It's not right that a voter in Maine or New Hampshire, which have 1.3 million people and are roughly even between the two major parties, has a high probability of changing the outcome with their vote, while a voter in California or Texas - which have 30 times as many people - is essentially irrelevant to the outcome.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#194

Post by AcerbicZero »

blueflow wrote: post #130
sjmm1989 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stopped using Debian a long time ago, and this is just making me glad I did exactly that. What kind of hairbrained nimrod came up with that idea!? You can't have mixed voting methods and still call it fair in any respect. Any chance there could be tampering should be considered not just to be happening, but to be assured to happen. "Secret ballots" of any sort when everyone else is not partaking in said "Secret ballo…

I stand behind Debian to do votes in secrecy. During the RMS issue, I've seen many people who did not have their ferocity under control. This went as far as people wanting to have the "others" removed from the Debian project. People not being able to cast their vote without having to fear repercussions is justification enough for secret votes.

I agree with you in spirit, but I believe open voting is a better "ideal" system; Debian as a group just doesn't have the time/motivation to deal with the issues inherent in open voting, and I can't blame them for that.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#195

Post by cogman10 »

malthuswaswrong wrote: post #85
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…

>If those two were represented as a single "NOTA" option, that option would have won the ballot in terms of votes. Looks like Option 1 and 2 were similar enough to "split the vote" too. What would have happened if 1 and 2 were combined and 3 and 4 were combined?

Does debian not do some sort of RCV? Split ticket only matters if the voting system is FPTP.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#196

Post by gjulianm »

rosndo wrote: post #137
gjulianm wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how vote counting is done in other places, but I've seen it in my country and it's not vulnerable to basic sleight of hand, at least not for more than one or two votes. Poll workers are all citizens randomly selected, the president of each table takes envelopes from a transparent box, opens them, shows them to the other three or four workers of the table (plus any observers that want to be there) and dec…

> I don't think so. Think of all the people who have difficulty with basic computer/phone tasks, either because of knowledge or accessibility issues. Do you think all the steps to securely cast votes with an electronic system are going to be easier and more accessible for them? I don’t think an in-person electronic voting system needs to be any more difficult than current paper ballots.

Certificate management is more difficult than simply holding an ID card, going to a website/downloading a program is more difficult (and has more potential problems) than going to a polling station, and doing all the steps the program requires will hardly be as simple as "put paper in envelope".

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#197

Post by rurp »

treeman79 wrote: post #187
dagw wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or that people would making a different vote if it was counted differently? Two changes would happen. A lot of people who don't vote today because their state either heavily favours the 'wrong' candidate or the 'right' candidate will already win by a massive margin, would start voting, since all of sudden their vote matters a lot more. Secondly, and more importantly, candidates would campaign very differently. In tod…

This also makes many states cease to matter. Already a big issue that big cities vote one way while rural voters go another way.

No, it makes votes in all states count equally. The current system makes votes in certain states orders of magnitude more valuable than votes in others.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#198

Post by toyg »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #131
throwaway48375 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American here and I have had to wait >2 hours to vote multiple times. In the worst instance someone tried to illegally close the polling place even though people were still lined up outside. This is in clear violation of state law. So long as you are lined up to vote before the polling place closes they have to take your vote. To the sheriff's department credit (they are generally terrible) the deputy who responded r…

The American voting system seems broken in many ways that have not much to do using paper. Elections taking place on tuesdays instead of weekends for some reason, low polling-places-per-voters ratio (though numbers are hard to find), ballots with multiple non-trivial questions, etc. Before turning to voting machines, there's a lot that could be changed at every level. Moving Election Day to weekends would be a good s…

The American voting system is broken by design. There used to be reasons and conventions, and there is a somewhat excessive regard for states rights, but you could build a system that keeps that regard while being sane and fair. The fact that the US political classes would rather focus on gerrymandering instead, tells you all that you need to know about motives.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#199

Post by goodpoint »

incomingpain wrote: post #157
bayindirh wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's clear what has happened to Debian and why it's in death spiral. Citation needed. I don't see anything dying for the last 15 years.

Quoted post unavailable.

You are spreading FUD written by a notorious troll that has been expelled from FOSDEM, FSFE, Debian and other organizations as well.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#200

Post by goodpoint »

hutzlibu wrote: post #23
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, v…

> 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.

You are swapping cause and effect and are implying that making voting secret creates fear. This is plain wrong.

Post reply on HN