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

271–280 of 280 posts

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#271

Post by kodah »

411111111111111 wrote: post #264
kodah wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your evidence behind the statement that "the minority" is assured a majority of votes? Both Democrats and Republicans have won the electoral college and each of them throw a big rhetorical fit any time the other wins with it. At some point you have to accept that being equal doesn't always look fair in a micro vs macro sense of time. In the moment it doesn't look fair, when you look at the longer timeline they…

This comment is confusing to read. It doesn't matter which party wins the election because the voting system itself is flawed. It's also not a particularly new thesis but an often acknowledged problem. It might be that this was the intent of the system, that doesn't change the fact that nowadays significant portions of the population have gravitated towards a few very large metropolis, effectively giving disproportio…

The electoral college was set up to protect less densely populated areas from more densely populated areas, so the situation was always that way; it didn't "gravitate". It's not like "rural issues" are the ones dominating legislation or national conversation either.

To take a step back, I've lived in both rural areas and major cities (I currently live in one). Rural folks being represented in government is not an issue and I find it kind of odd that people try to make it an issue like this. I'm fine having my agenda compete with theirs.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#272

Post by hutzlibu »

goodpoint wrote: post #268
hutzlibu wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you misread something there? I merely stated, that there is no need for complex secret voting mechanisms - when the group is small and trusting. Or do you practice secret voting in decision making among your friends?

> Maybe you misread something there? I didn't. > Or do you practice secret voting in decision making among your friends? Now you are making a strawman. But I'll answer anyways. If I had a simple way to do anonymous polls with friends (e.g. an app) I would certainly use it because it would be a fun experiment. But this is besides the point. Social pressure exists amongst coworkers, volunteers, friends, families and ev…

"I didn't."

So can you explain then, where I implyed "that making voting secret creates fear"?

By stating, that there is no need for secret voting, when people are not afraid?

If so, you might want to study basic logic (again). You cannot just reverse statements and implications and jump to conclusions

There can be secret voting, with people scared to speak their minds and secret voting with people not afraid to speak their minds.

And there can be open voting with people scared to speak their minds and open voting with people not afraid to speak their mind.

I think secret voting is only useful, for situations with fear involved. No more, no less.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#273

Post by INTPenis »

0des wrote: post #184
INTPenis wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand you, but you picked a strange hill to fight on. Lwn is such a simple website, and the article is just one paragraph. Also what is reader mode to you? Because in Firefox I clicked the little reader view icon in the url bar and it showed me a reader view with just the main content.

Reader mode is an accessibility feature. Please do not question someone for needing help.

Oh you mean screen reader? That's confusing, but yeah screen reader is absolutely a vital accessibility feature. I have no idea how lwn handles that.

Back when I was still writing HTML I was actually very keen on making accessible websites. But the last 10 years I've used frameworks and sadly have no idea how accessible the output is.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#274

Post by 411111111111111 »

kodah wrote: post #271
411111111111111 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is confusing to read. It doesn't matter which party wins the election because the voting system itself is flawed. It's also not a particularly new thesis but an often acknowledged problem. It might be that this was the intent of the system, that doesn't change the fact that nowadays significant portions of the population have gravitated towards a few very large metropolis, effectively giving disproportio…

The electoral college was set up to protect less densely populated areas from more densely populated areas, so the situation was always that way; it didn't "gravitate". It's not like "rural issues" are the ones dominating legislation or national conversation either. To take a step back, I've lived in both rural areas and major cities (I currently live in one). Rural folks being represented in government is not an iss…

I don't live in the USA, so i'm just repeating whats literally taught in school where i'm from.

there were no metropolis like we have them today back then. City were considered gigantic with with only a few hundred thousand people -- which is maybe a largish town nowadays

Nobody said that rural people being represented is an issue, its nonetheless a fact that they're overrepresented, as they have disproportionate voting power. That term doesn't mean that they shouldn't be represented, it means that they have proportionally more voting power then a person living in a city does.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#275

Post by kodah »

411111111111111 wrote: post #274
kodah wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The electoral college was set up to protect less densely populated areas from more densely populated areas, so the situation was always that way; it didn't "gravitate". It's not like "rural issues" are the ones dominating legislation or national conversation either. To take a step back, I've lived in both rural areas and major cities (I currently live in one). Rural folks being represented in government is not an iss…

I don't live in the USA, so i'm just repeating whats literally taught in school where i'm from. there were no metropolis like we have them today back then. City were considered gigantic with with only a few hundred thousand people -- which is maybe a largish town nowadays Nobody said that rural people being represented is an issue, its nonetheless a fact that they're overrepresented, as they have disproportionate vot…

> I don't live in the USA, so i'm just repeating whats literally taught in school where i'm from

You spoke so certainly about the subject that that was not apparent. Maybe it should have been a question instead?

> there were no metropolis like we have them today back then

In the US there were, and the early development of the US is the reason for the electoral college. You had sprawling cities like NYC having to vote next to people who took months to get to the East coast for voting. Their problems were very different and the electoral college helped balance the concerns of cities that have easy access to imports and labor with areas that had no such things. On the larger scale it helped protect smaller states and territories from the policy and influence of larger states and territories. Again, their problems are very different, and in current day translate to what we end up referring to as urban, suburban, and rural.

> Nobody said that rural people being represented is an issue, its nonetheless a fact that they're overrepresented,

In the US they're not and you still haven't answered my original question, which is how are they overrepresented. You're just stating that's a fact, but it's really not.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#276

Post by 411111111111111 »

kodah wrote: post #275
411111111111111 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't live in the USA, so i'm just repeating whats literally taught in school where i'm from. there were no metropolis like we have them today back then. City were considered gigantic with with only a few hundred thousand people -- which is maybe a largish town nowadays Nobody said that rural people being represented is an issue, its nonetheless a fact that they're overrepresented, as they have disproportionate vot…

> I don't live in the USA, so i'm just repeating whats literally taught in school where i'm from You spoke so certainly about the subject that that was not apparent. Maybe it should have been a question instead? > there were no metropolis like we have them today back then In the US there were, and the early development of the US is the reason for the electoral college. You had sprawling cities like NYC having to vote…

Isn't "overrepresented" another way of saying that each individual voter living in a rural area has effectively more voting power then it's counterpart living in a metropolis?

Thats why I'm stating it as a fact,as it sounds like very simple logical connection. It could be a misunderstanding on my part, but it always sounded like a very straightforward situation to me.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#277

Post by kodah »

411111111111111 wrote: post #276
kodah wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't live in the USA, so i'm just repeating whats literally taught in school where i'm from You spoke so certainly about the subject that that was not apparent. Maybe it should have been a question instead? > there were no metropolis like we have them today back then In the US there were, and the early development of the US is the reason for the electoral college. You had sprawling cities like NYC having to vote…

Isn't "overrepresented" another way of saying that each individual voter living in a rural area has effectively more voting power then it's counterpart living in a metropolis? Thats why I'm stating it as a fact,as it sounds like very simple logical connection. It could be a misunderstanding on my part, but it always sounded like a very straightforward situation to me.

No, voting is much more complicated than that and the history of our voting system speaks to that. Purely popular voting, as in a pure democracy, is demonstrably flawed - that's why representative democracy came about. The foundation of your argument is also flawed; if rural areas are so overrepresented then we'd be seeing a lot more emphasis on the funding of rural schools, hospital systems, clean drinking water, and broadband. Instead, these issues are regularly underfunded and are even joked about on forums like this.

There's lots of issues in the US to solve. Voting, imo, is just the pet issue of the losing party.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#278

Post by MinorTom »

asiachick wrote: post #216
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This isn't so different in the EU is it? Smaller countries don't want their needs ignored by the bigger countries so they get more seats relative to their population than big countries. Maybe it's hard to imagine the United States of American to become 50 independent countries but isn't the way you keep them united is by promising the smaller ones that they won't be trampled on by the big ones?

The EU isn't exactly a model democracy, with its three levels of indirection.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#279

Post by 411111111111111 »

kodah wrote: post #277
411111111111111 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't "overrepresented" another way of saying that each individual voter living in a rural area has effectively more voting power then it's counterpart living in a metropolis? Thats why I'm stating it as a fact,as it sounds like very simple logical connection. It could be a misunderstanding on my part, but it always sounded like a very straightforward situation to me.

No, voting is much more complicated than that and the history of our voting system speaks to that. Purely popular voting, as in a pure democracy, is demonstrably flawed - that's why representative democracy came about. The foundation of your argument is also flawed; if rural areas are so overrepresented then we'd be seeing a lot more emphasis on the funding of rural schools, hospital systems, clean drinking water, an…

> Purely popular voting, as in a pure democracy, is demonstrably flawed - that's why representative democracy came about

Every form of democracy is flawed, and it's important to be aware of them. Otherwise things tend to kinda spiral out of control, which they arguably already have in a lot of western nations with wanton corruption and completely insane people getting elected.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#280

Post by mw888 »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #111
mw888 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, ZKProofs present the possibility for everyone to do better than that with much less work.

Less work isn't the optimisation goal, though. Reliability, trust, verifiability, secret ballot, etc. is what it is about. If things can be made more efficient without sacrificing the primary goals ok, but if I as a citizen can't verify the results anymore (by watching the count etc.) the purpose isn't met.

It seems like you don’t and don’t care to, understand.
Post reply on HN