|
Grex > Coop7 > #18: Vote program changes -- call for suggestions |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
remmers
|
|
Vote program changes -- call for suggestions
| 
Feb 15 19:54 UTC 1995 |
I'm the author and maintainer of the programs used on Grex to hold
online Board elections and votes on member proposals. During the
recent elections, some ideas were brought up for possible revisions and
enhancements to the vote programs. Since those elections are still
fresh in people's minds and the next scheduled election isn't until
December, this is an opportune time to discuss voting procedures.
Please use this items to suggest changes to the vote programs.
|
| 117 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 1 of 117:
|
Feb 15 20:19 UTC 1995 |
One was to have the candidates' platforms accessible from the voting
program, so voters don't have to go searching for them again.
|
orwell
|
|
response 2 of 117:
|
Feb 15 21:58 UTC 1995 |
As a current non-member of grex, i would like to ask what do the officers
do? Even though nonmembers do not pay a monthly fee. How about
extending suffrage to longstanding non-members of grex. I agree with
Rane, the candidates platfroms (even though i was ineligible to vote)
were not visisible clearly.
|
steve
|
|
response 3 of 117:
|
Feb 15 23:48 UTC 1995 |
Allow non-members to vote on things, and let turnout be able to show
the results for members and non-members. Also the final results too.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 4 of 117:
|
Feb 16 05:03 UTC 1995 |
There was the question of abstentions, but now that we don't have
quorums it's a moot point.
|
cicero
|
|
response 5 of 117:
|
Feb 16 08:33 UTC 1995 |
unless we want to distinguish between those who didn't want to vote versus
those who didn't have an opinion or preference. Allowing abstentions would
give us a way to accurately measure the volume of members who participate in
Grex administration.
|
mdw
|
|
response 6 of 117:
|
Feb 16 08:33 UTC 1995 |
I agree with Steve - except I think I'd it be by "members" and
"everyone". Mathematically it's equivalent (you should be giving voter
counts so it's easy to derive the 3rd given any two), but it may be more
interesting in terms of showing if enough non-members would have cared
tothrow the vote.
I'm also not at all sure that it's so useful for non-members to vote on
board members - the real value, to me, is what non-members feel on
issues, not on board members. For board elections, I think I'd almost
rather the vote program invited non-members to become members in
friendly terms than anything else.
|
ajax
|
|
response 7 of 117:
|
Feb 16 09:03 UTC 1995 |
I prefer the "members" and "everyone" distinction as well. If non-members
can use the vote program, care should be taken to let them know that it
doesn't count, and why.
|
steve
|
|
response 8 of 117:
|
Feb 16 09:20 UTC 1995 |
Sounds like better termonology to me.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 9 of 117:
|
Feb 16 16:50 UTC 1995 |
Yes, but by keeping tally on the general populace's feelings, you'll
have a better perspective on what makes grex tick.
|
ajax
|
|
response 10 of 117:
|
Feb 16 18:16 UTC 1995 |
How about listing members, non-members, and everyone, in three tallies?
|
tsty
|
|
response 11 of 117:
|
Feb 17 22:25 UTC 1995 |
I agree more with two tallies, members and everyone.
As suggested during the campaign, how about total non-traceability
between vote and voter?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 12 of 117:
|
Feb 18 08:40 UTC 1995 |
Optional non-traceability (except for the record of who voted).
|
jshafer
|
|
response 13 of 117:
|
Feb 18 20:23 UTC 1995 |
Optional? So if I'm to only erson who chooses for my vote to
be non-traceable, than it should be obvious what I voted?
|
scg
|
|
response 14 of 117:
|
Feb 18 21:49 UTC 1995 |
It would be tracable only to somebody with root who decided to look, and
if we can't trust our roots not look at peoples' votes then we have much
bigger problems than the vote program.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 15 of 117:
|
Feb 18 22:23 UTC 1995 |
If you were the only person that voted in the election, by any method,
the same would be true.
|
cicero
|
|
response 16 of 117:
|
Feb 19 06:37 UTC 1995 |
re #13:
It MUST be traceable that you voted, otherwise you could vote twice. What
we are talking about making untraceable is HOW you vote. When you vote in
a US election, there is a permanent record that you did or did not vote, just
not HOW you voted.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 17 of 117:
|
Feb 19 22:30 UTC 1995 |
If you can't trust a root not to look at how you voted, you also can't
trust a root not to hack the vote program to illicitly record, or alter, how
you voted. What's the real point?
|
ajax
|
|
response 18 of 117:
|
Feb 19 22:33 UTC 1995 |
Marc, true, but it doesn't hurt to make it a lot *harder* for roots to look
at or hack vote records. I understand the program design already makes some
effort to deter root tampering.
|
steve
|
|
response 19 of 117:
|
Feb 20 05:43 UTC 1995 |
If we're to be concerned with that, we'd probably be best at looking
how to make the vote program a clint/server type of program, such that
the data actually resides elsewhere on the net.
|
mdw
|
|
response 20 of 117:
|
Feb 20 09:58 UTC 1995 |
Actually, if the design becomes too complex, it may become harder to
prove that the program itself did the right thing. How does one manage
a vote recount, if one can't prove who voted or how they voted?
|
lilmo
|
|
response 21 of 117:
|
Feb 21 04:09 UTC 1995 |
Re #20: As was stated before, WHO voted must be recorded, but HOW they voted
needn't be connected to that. For a recount, you get the list of ppl that
voted, and allow only them to vote again. *shrug*
|
mdw
|
|
response 22 of 117:
|
Feb 21 08:11 UTC 1995 |
That's not a recount. Also, it's not likely you'll get exactly the same
results the 2nd time. If it were a nearly tied vote, and it split
differently on the two votes, there's no evident reason why one would
prefer the results of the 2nd election over the first.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 23 of 117:
|
Feb 22 06:32 UTC 1995 |
Hmm... you're right, it would'nt be a recount. Oh, well, you can't have
everything.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 24 of 117:
|
Feb 22 13:53 UTC 1995 |
No but it is natural to try..
|