|
Grex > Coop6 > #107: Vote program changes -- call for suggestions |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 117 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 50 of 117:
| 
Oct 24 17:07 UTC 1995 |
In most past elections only a handful of non-members have voted.
An exception was the board election of one year ago, for reasons
not clear to me.
|
ajax
|
|
response 51 of 117:
|
Oct 24 17:19 UTC 1995 |
Re 49(4), we could probably use some public key encryption scheme to
allow untraceable votes to be changed via a personal 'voting' password.
Last time it seemed that people were confused about the diff between
members and users, and that users may have been voting thinking it
counted. Perhaps the motd wording or something caused the confusion?
|
lilmo
|
|
response 52 of 117:
|
Oct 25 04:19 UTC 1995 |
Re #49(3): Why do ppl vote in non-binding referendums? Why does Congress
pass non-binding resolutions? To express one's opinion.
|
srw
|
|
response 53 of 117:
|
Oct 25 06:35 UTC 1995 |
Yes, Abstain, Yes, No
|
adbarr
|
|
response 54 of 117:
|
Oct 25 10:17 UTC 1995 |
Very cute, srw.
|
remmers
|
|
response 55 of 117:
|
Oct 25 11:11 UTC 1995 |
If I put in a "platform statement" feature into the vote
program, it'll be easy to set it up so that candidates
can create and modify their statements without interven-
tion by voteadm, and that's how I'd do it. Length limit
is no problem either.
However, I think STeve makes some good points in #45
as to why this might be an undesirable feature.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 56 of 117:
|
Oct 25 13:41 UTC 1995 |
Re 52: Yes, but if the ballots of non-members aren't even counted,
I don't see the point of wanting to cast one.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 57 of 117:
|
Oct 25 13:48 UTC 1995 |
Re 55: The concerns STeve raises in #45 about candidate platforms in the vote
program are 1) that candidates need to be able to change them (which you said
is easy to implement), and 2) that people can look in the conferences to see
what the candidates' thoughts are. I agree that in an ideal world we would
all have already looked in the conferences and know all the candidates, but
in reality there are a number of voters who could use the extra help in
deciding who to vote for. Without platform statements, they're left to choose
among a bunch of people's names. With platform statements, they can make at
least a somewhat-informed decision.
Then there's the question of *should* the not-very-well-informed people be
voting? If they don't know the issues, then maybe they shouldn't. But I
don't think that's our decision to make: they have a right to vote. And if
they're going to vote, I'd like to see them be as informed as they can be,
before casting a ballot.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 58 of 117:
|
Oct 25 17:41 UTC 1995 |
Well, it certainly would make the candidates have to learn how to
express themselves.. I see nothing wrong with having to put a ten-line
or less brief of what I stand for in..
Abstaining is of value in giving an "I give a damn, but no one's
worth my vote" vote.. however, implementation is a concern, and
I certainly wouldn't put it as a priority.
Counting non-members votes is useful in determining how close/far
we are from our non-voting user's opinions.. a large margin may indictae
reasons why they aren't members! As to why they wish to do it, that
is their business. I, personally, encourage it, as it is valuable
information there for the taking.
Traceability in how I vote is not a high concern here. Certainly,
I would like to think that my vote was totally confidential, but
in all honesty, I'm one of those who will tell you who I voted for, and
why, if asked.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 59 of 117:
|
Oct 25 18:37 UTC 1995 |
I would like to see non-member's votes too. It also gives them
a small, but audible voice, in how things are going.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 60 of 117:
|
Oct 25 19:12 UTC 1995 |
non-members' votes will become more useful when we have platforms, b/c it
could be more apparent WHAT they were voting for, by comparing platforms of
those that received and didn't receive non-members' votes.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 61 of 117:
|
Oct 26 19:09 UTC 1995 |
Precisely. Also, one can, as I stated, use the margin of difference
as an indicator of why they aren't donating members..
|
tsty
|
|
response 62 of 117:
|
Oct 30 06:08 UTC 1995 |
1) statements available - nice bell and whistle - no particular opinion
except that i would use it, i think.
2) vote abstentions - quite a valid option. My recommendation: do it.
3) non-member separate tally - quite a valid consideration. It would have
teh weight of future-flow potential and perhaps stimulate a membership
or several if there were a "movement" starting in the trenches.
4) non-tracability - more than just "valid," necessary, imo. It might
be a technical mess but so is computer programming and the foundation of
this American Experiment. Why not maintain that quality level?
|
steve
|
|
response 63 of 117:
|
Oct 30 16:45 UTC 1995 |
Becuase it isn't needed. TS, the real problem with Grex or any
other UNIX system around is that you'd have to have root in order
to get that inforamation. And if the person has root then you've
got much more serious problems.
This reminds me of a friend who got a really incredible lock
for her storage place from her father. He got this german lock
which was at least $200, and just about indestructable short of
massive amounts of explosives. The key was both magnetic and
tumblered *on three sides*. It was the most incredible lock I
have ever seen in my life. Well guess what? She lost the key,
and desperately needed to get into the cube. The storage people
cut through the door quite easily and gave her the bill for a
new front. All that lock for a front door which could rather
easily be destroyed.
|
janc
|
|
response 64 of 117:
|
Oct 31 01:21 UTC 1995 |
Nice story. Weak analogy.
|
ajax
|
|
response 65 of 117:
|
Oct 31 08:00 UTC 1995 |
I thought it was a nice story, and a pretty good analogy. :)
Some crypto solutions won't do diddly if a root logs a port's I/O.
But as for the issue further privatizing votes...I respect TS's
opinion, but it's not an easy change, and I think it won't get done
for that reason (unless a log of people clamor for it, or John or
another programmer want a good challenge).
|
gregc
|
|
response 66 of 117:
|
Nov 1 11:15 UTC 1995 |
What Steve said illistrates a basic rule of security techniques: Like
everything else, a security system is only as strong as it's weakest link.
Put an indestructible/pick-proof lock on a door, and the thief will just
go *around* the lock. I've seen some amazingly strong door lock assemblys
sold, but few people realize just how damn weak your typical frame house
door jamb really is. It's ussually just a piece of 1" soft white pine.
|
tsty
|
|
response 67 of 117:
|
Nov 2 07:58 UTC 1995 |
we can agree to disagree about privacy of a vote. If i wrote code these
days, i'd write the damn thing, grief and all.
if i were a "public figure" i'd want the vote open - as a non-public
figure, i have a strong preference for a private vote. for me this is
a deeply rooted personal philosophy consistant, i believe, with the
philosophy/concept of America and democracy.
America exports this concept, let's import it here.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 68 of 117:
|
Nov 2 15:35 UTC 1995 |
Oh, it's a good concept, but the question to ask is, where to
start? If we can find where the "weakest link" is, and fix that, and
then re-analyse to find the next weakest, and so on, it could be
made secure..
Now, unfortunatly, the linear form that time takes in the human
psyche prevents this from being reasonably completed prior to said vote,
unless I'm unaware of some labor-saving technique.. This being said,
it's a worthy idea, and I'd like to see it acted on, but I don't thnk
it is reasonable to expect it to be complete before the vote occurs.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 69 of 117:
|
Nov 2 19:38 UTC 1995 |
The "philosophy/concept of America and democracy" was exercised via paper
ballots put into boxes, and then stored, transported, and counted, by
people. Hence inherent in that philosophy and practice is *trust* in those
carrying out the necessary functions. We exercise a lot less trust today,
what with voting machines and computers, but I don't see that we want to
dispense with it alltogether.
|
ajax
|
|
response 70 of 117:
|
Nov 2 22:28 UTC 1995 |
In ancient Athens, the birthplace of democracy, for at least
their annual Ostracism vote, citizens submitted their votes written
on clay tablets. The Ostracism was a kind of neat idea, one of the
few that wasn't adopted in the US's resurrection of democracy. Each
year, people voted for their least favorite person in Athens, and the
person with the most votes would be exhiled for ten years (at a time
when life expectency was around 30). Some of the voting tablets
survive today (they were used to fill holes and such), saying things
like "Domecles is a rascal, out with him!"
|
remmers
|
|
response 71 of 117:
|
Nov 3 00:20 UTC 1995 |
Couldn't the exiled person just run newuser and come right back
in as a pseudo?
|
lilmo
|
|
response 72 of 117:
|
Nov 3 02:13 UTC 1995 |
Votes in America also used to be by using colored paper, one color for each
candidate, as many could not read... and voting wasn't done behind curtains.
|
davel
|
|
response 73 of 117:
|
Nov 3 03:25 UTC 1995 |
Yup. Ballots were provided by the candidates (or their local supporters,
political parties, whatever). You took the ballot for the one you wanted
to vote for & dropped it in the box. (I don't know for certain that
this was universal practice, but it was certainly common.) Of course, you
could collect ballots from everyone & kind of hide which one you used -
the rest would be free kindling.
|
tsty
|
|
response 74 of 117:
|
Nov 3 16:59 UTC 1995 |
yup - there have been a lot progressive changes to "voting in America,"
why regress?
|