Re: [OT] Vote!
Re: [OT] Vote!
- Subject: Re: [OT] Vote!
- From: Sander Tekelenburg <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:58:38 +0200
At 19:57 -0400 UTC, on 2005/08/17, deivy petrescu wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2005, at 19:20, Martin Orpen wrote:
[...]
>> We don't have fancy computer systems to count our votes in the UK.
>> We have
>> bits of paper, pencilled crosses, big tables and dedicated people
>> who work
>> very hard with little or no compensation to ensure that everything is
>> counted accurately and fairly. And, if we distrust the result, we
>> can send
>> in more people to recount those bits of paper.
>
> There is one very worrying bit about what you wrote above and others
> have shared the same feeling.
> The fact that it is counted by hand and written in pencil does *not*,
> I repeat, does *not* mean that there is no cheating going on. I know
> for the fact that there might be.
Of course there might be. Exactly that is a good reason to not rely on secret
vote-count procedures (closed source voting machines), because then recounts
are useless. With paper votes however, recounts are [1] possible and [2] can
be done by all parties.
Of course counting must be done by *volunteers* from at least all parties
involved. Not by controllable/bribable parties. That's why Martin's point
about commercialising democracy is important.
> The big difference between the penciled vote and the electronic vote
> is that the second gives one the uneasy feeling that there might have
> some "monkey business" going on, as opposed to the first method which
> makes you feel secure.
For good reason. It's more than just a feeling.
*Even* if voting machines were open source you'd still have the problem that
the only ones who can have a sound reason to trust them are the ones with the
necessary skills to understand how they work.
The point of this is that, besides the risk of vote-counts being manipulated
there is the danger of people simply not trusting the procedure, even when it
*is* honest and correct. For that reasoon alone the process must be clear and
simple; easy to understand and accessible to those who want to be involved.
[...]
>> I don't understand this need to use machines to achieve something
>> that you are better off using ordinary people to do.
It appears to be almost a sort of religious thing. Rather trust The Machine
than people.
> I beg to disagree, if you are elderly person, the possibility of
> voting via internet makes your life simpler doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.
Using a computer however is often very hard for older people (for several
reasons), so I don't see how Internet voting would help many of them. Quite
the contrary. It may in fact even put them (and society at large) in danger,
as one of the risks of Internet voting is that secrecy cannot be guaranteed:
remote voting, from a private location, means there is the risk of people
forcing others who/what to vote for, because the other can check your vote.
(Not to mention the fact that the Internet is insecure by definition.)
Besides that, there is no *need* to even bother to try to reinvent the wheel.
Overhere, voting stations are typically set up in schools, community centers
and 'elderly homes' (dunno what that is called in english). So for most older
people casting their vote is not a problem. If you live in such an 'elderly
home', you most likely won't even have to leave your building. Also, you can
allow someone else to cast your vote for you.
> Also, if you can come up with a better way to vote electronically
> what do you think is going to happen with the penciled vote?
Currently the issue, at least to those who make these decisions, doesn't seem
to be about which is "better", just which is perceived sexier.
[...]
> People can not count!
> Also, it is very easy to make mistakes when you are just adding
That's why you should not rely on one person to do all the counting, which is
what in the end eletronic vote-counting more or less boils down to.
--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
| References: | |
| | >Re: Vote! (From: Martin Orpen <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Vote! (From: deivy petrescu <email@hidden>) |