[MG] Introducing PdI (Partido de Internet)
david.ruescas at partidodeinternet.es
Wed Jun 2 14:34:54 EDT 2010
On 2 June 2010 19:16, Kris Dev <krisdev at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> In my opinion, the following statement "But still, for better or worse,
> people have come to expect privacy in voting. They have come to believe
> that the secret ballot is a basic right (as though it were a hard won
> victory over the
> authorities, as opposed to an imposition by them!). This is the sense in
> which I concede to David, for sake of the argument, that people do indeed
> expect privacy in voting" is a presumption, unless substantiated by voting!!
Well, you can try a little experiment. Next national elections, amble over
to a voting booth and require voters to reveal their votes before casting
them in the box, see what their reaction is ;-D
> Every one should have a choice for public or private voting on a case to
> case basis and can differ each time or may be the same,
Well, if, as you say, you want to offer people a choice, then you
definitely have to support private voting, which is the harder of the two to
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:
>> Ed and David,
>> I agree with Ed's points. Public voting is a natural form of
>> expression, and ordinarily it would be our expectation; whereas
>> private voting (at least on public matters) is an awkward and harmful
>> contrivance. But still, for better or worse, people have come to
>> expect privacy in voting. They have come to believe that the secret
>> ballot is a basic right (as though it were a hard won victory over the
>> authorities, as opposed to an imposition by them!). This is the sense
>> in which I concede to David, for sake of the argument, that people do
>> indeed expect privacy in voting.
>> David Ruescas wrote:
>> > I have just stated what I think the public expects, and that the
>> > people I have talked to (experts in researching voting schemes) do
>> > not consider public voting systems seriously for the purposes of
>> > replacing or complementing current private election methods.
>> But we cannot reply to "experts told me so" arguments. If it's in the
>> literature, as you say, please cite your sources.
>> For my part, I cited a recent discussion among experts on the topic.
>> You may go into that forum and ask questions (they tend to be helpful
>> to non-experts).
>> > There's also the choice of words. In the literature, a "secure" voting
>> > system usually implies privacy.
>> Please provide references for this, too. Where do you find that
>> public voting systems are generally characterized (I would say tarred)
>> by the label "insecure"?
>> > ... What I have said is that it doesnt matter what I think, so long
>> > as society has decided on the matter. / If you want to know, I dont
>> > have a qualified opinion. My intuition tells me...
>> Again, it's best just to cite your sources. (We cannot debate on the
>> basis of intuition.)
>> > > Setting all that aside, we could focus on the likelihood of
>> > > success/failure for a private voting system. Before beginning, I
>> > > would ask you to briefly describe your method of verification. What
>> > > assurance will you give people that the results are trustworthy?
>> > > (Just roughly, in a sentence or two.)
>> > A voting system that satisfies this property is said to be universally
>> > verifiable. You can read up on this in the literature, but basically
>> > a universal verifiable voting scheme allows any third party to verify
>> (in a
>> > mathematically provable way) the results of an election. This usually
>> > involves a public bulletin board, where all the data from an election is
>> > posted for anyone and everyone to see.
>> You did not answer the question. Have you designed a verification
>> scheme, yet?
>> Michael Allan
>> Toronto, +1 647-436-4521
>> Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
>> Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
>> Manage subscription:
> Kris Dev,
> President & CEO,
> Life Line to Business / Life Line to Citizen,
> Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
> email: krisdev at gmail.com
> URL: http://ll2b.blogspot.com
> Ph: + 91 98 408 52132 / 1 (206) 274 1635
> Twitter: @krisdev
> Winner of Innovations Award 2009 for IT Innovation;
> Manthan Awardee 2006 for Rural Grass-Root Initiative in Establishing Unique
> Biometric Identity for e-Inclusion & Livelihood Creation;
> Selected for World Bank Innovation Fair 2010.
> Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
> well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing
> and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in
> the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other
> lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. … Article 25 of the
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> "A quick evaluation of the progress we have achieved in the last 20 years
> shows that in the area of poverty alleviation, we have not done enough.
> History will judge us harshly, unless we seize the opportunity to do more."
> - Archbishop Njongo Ndungane, President and Founder, African Monitor.
> "When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power the World will know
> peace." Jimi Hendrix.
> Practice is better than precept.
> Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
> Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
> Manage subscription:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Start