RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re: ...atlarge-panel/0209/msg00035.html

[espresso@e-scape.net]

Joey Borda **star*walker** wrote in part:
>> This might be particularly appropriate to address “privacy of the
>> ballot,”
>> “privacy of the vote,” “privacy of the voter” concerns being raised in
>> posts subsequent to the one being addressed here and which I
>> would share on the whole.
>>
>> I can just imagine member concerns that any particular panel
>> member(s) not
>> know how they voted, and I believe that would be a legitimate concern.

and Joanna Lane responded:
>I don't follow the logic. Why would members be more concerned that an
>elected panel member know their vote than an ordinary member who is not
>elected? How do the electorate benefit from  elected representatives being
>deliberately denied access to information about the will of those who
>elected them?

If somebody were more concerned about a Panel member knowing how they had voted than about a non-Panel member, I suspect it could be either for fear that a Panel member might bear a grudge if one voted for an opponent ... or for fear that this organization will self-destruct by fragmenting into political parties as certain ICANN types seem to be hoping.

It is normal in most democratic bodies that voting on controversial or personally sensitive matters be done by a secret ballot. We are unable to hold a secret ballot by e-mail or on a Web site at the moment for technical and financial reasons. I don't think we've rejected the secrecy of the ballot as a matter of principle, and the proposal is to have the identifiable ballots passed to a trusted person who will keep the personal details confidential while providing the Panel with non-identifiable results (which would be independently verifiable if one chose to demand a recount by some other neutral party). This strikes me as a sensible way of doing it --at a physical annual general meeting in a non-profit organization, one usually appoints a "president of elections" and one or more scrutineers who serve the same kind of function.

>And aside from that political issue, there is a utility issue - keeping the
>lines of communication open to the Panel - someone involved in the count
>needs to have posting privileges to the Panel list to keep the rest of us
>updated on any difficulties that may arise. Were this a vote on the
>selection of the Panel members themselves, of course that raises a conflict
>of interest issue, but on this vote, I just don't get it.

Once again, I find myself confused. Surely it is possible to allow somebody who is not on the Panel list to have the e-mail addresses of the Panel members and send them all a message if the need arises? and to "Reply to all" in responding to such a message? But even if it were not, the person collecting and counting the ballots hardly needs to receive all the other Panel-list messages in order to communicate to the Panel --at least, the list management software I've used (Mailman and Majordomo) allows one to designate a non-subscriber's address as having posting privileges or, failing that, to let that person send the message to the list-owner for reposting.

As for "this vote", I know feelings may run high in some circles about matters that seem routine or non-controversial to others, and I also have reservations about inventing an ad-hoc voting process rather than deciding now that, absent a decision to switch to some other decision, we will establish the principle that how individuals vote is their own business.

>> The votes should also be presented to the membership in their “raw” form*
>> along with the tabulated totals. Interested members will be able
>> to compute the final totals and members’ selected choice for themselves >> for comparison with the ballot receivers.

>This is dependant upon voluntary effort - it's no small job to comply with
>this request. All email addresses must be stripped from any "raw" data,
>together with a direct correlation between a member's name and the vote >theycast. 

Actually, with a little planning the task should be trivial. 

If members were randomly assigned membership numbers (or passwords, if one preferred) which were included in their e-ballot (using a mail-merge), the trusted person receiving the completed ballots (who might or might not be the person who maintains the database) could simply save the ballot text (including the number or password) without the e-mail headers. 

Then, a second person (who does not have access to the database where the numbers or passwords can be matched to names) could have a spreadsheet or table in which to record the contents of the ballot -- number/password, and whatever choices were being voted on -- and add up the totals so as to publish the results.

The e-mail ballots themselves would be retained in case the results were challenged. In that case, the process would be repeated by two other individuals to confirm that all was in order.

>What I would hope to see is a list of names of those who actually cast
>a vote, although I would not expect to see a list of those who did not cast
>a vote.

It would be most unusual to publish or discuss who voted, even without connecting it to how they voted. In a democracy, people usually have the right to vote or abstain without being answerable to anyone for their decision.

If there were any lingering doubts about whether all ballots had been included in the count, one could publish a list of the numbers or passwords for which votes had been tabulated and ask members to check this and speak up promptly if they had voted without being included in the count.

>> The greatest number of our members I will wager do not have the time nor
>> the inclination to follow the voluminous discussions and endless threads
>> here on any given issue. I see no reason not to keep them enfranchised by
>> summarizing issues PRO and CON right on a ballot!
>>
>> While democracy may challenge us to stay informed on issues one of the
>> abuses of “democracy” is inundating, innocently or complicitously, 
>> citizens with gobbledeegook until they go away or fall asleep, and miss >> the actual voting entirely!
>>
>> This is unacceptable to me!

I'm with you, Joey, though it can be argued I share responsibility for the volume of discussions. Normally, either the ballot itself or some kind of background report sent separately contains something about why the vote is being held and what the relative merits of the proposal might be. 

Discussion lists are for general discussion; committee/WG lists are for people collaborating on a particular matter; one can't expect every voter to want to wade through it all -- but one also can't say "so vote without the information you need to make a wise choice". Ideally, that information needs to be made available in advance of the vote (usually sent with the notice that voting will take place) so people can read it and reflect on it before the deadline.

>> I volunteer to spearhead the alternative for this occasion I allude to
>> above. I am prepared to accept exactly the kind of “PRO” and “CON”
>> statements I describe above regarding each balloted name for
>> publication of
>> the most timely post to coincide with the issuance of the
>> ballots, as well
>> as repeated posting in advance.
>
>Please do! We could also include a hyperlink from the ballot to a specific
>section of the website forum dedicated to "Pros and Cons" to which you and
>others may wish to post position statements. Please advise URL when you have it.

An excellent idea, though in that case I'd prefer it if the ballot went out at least a few days before it was meant to be returned.

>Point taken.
>Thanks you for your thoughtful response.
>Joanna

And for yours, Joanna.

>> I call upon viewholders, in concert, to well-compose their views
>> and E-mail
>> them to me for assembly and timely publication, organized along the lines
>> of my previously submitted sample ballot.

I'll look forward to seeing the comments and thank you for the offer.

Regards,

Judyth

##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"The international community is a work in progress. Many 
strands of cooperation have asserted themselves over the 
years. We must now stitch them into a strong fabric of
community--of international community for an international 
era." --Kofi A. Annan, Secretary-general of the UN and 
recipient of the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize.
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de