Re: [atlarge-discuss] online voting

["James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>]

These seem like pretty good rules to me.    Also, is there a reason that
votes are secret rather than public?   I am assuming that most people prefer
the secret ballot, but is the an arguement on the other side?  In a f2f
meeting, we often have a more public vote, such as a show of hands.
Knowing who votes how does allow one to understand better what is going on,
such as seeking how different regions or other groups vote.    Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Svensson" <alexander@svensson.de>
To: "atlarge discuss list" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] online voting


> At 11.05.2002 07:51, James Love wrote:
> >What is the current state of play with online voting?  The DNSO type
voting
> >seems to have some good features regarding verifying how one's vote was
> >calculated.  Do we want public or secret voting?  Does it cost money to
have
> >these fancy voting services, or are they inexpensive or free software
tools
> >that volenteers can use?   Are there good articles on pros and cons for
> >this?
>
>  From my experiences with the (IMHO very good) DNSO
> type voting system here are some of the realities
> of e-mail balloting. A system for sending and
> receiving e-mail ballots must take into account the
> following:
>
> [ ] Some respondents use Blackhole lists (so the mail
>     must be sent from a system that is not on any
>     Blackhole list or allows for smtp-auth sending).
> [ ] Some respondents use wrong email addresses (so
>     the delivery failures must be recorded).
> [ ] Some respondents send the ballot from a different
>     email address than the one the ballot was sent
>     to (so the balloting system must not depend on
>     the "From" address).
> [ ] Some respondents send blank ballots (so the system
>     must count them as abstentions and not confuse
>     them with delivery failures).
> [ ] Some respondents mark ballots, but not according
>     to the instructions (so "blank" ballots have
>     to be checked to see whether they really are
>     empty).
> [ ] Some respondents delete their ballots accidentally
>     (so the vote operator must be able to resend
>     ballots).
> [ ] Some respondents send more than one ballot (so the
>     system must only use the last ballot sent).
> [ ] Some respondents send ballots with more votes than
>     they have (so the system must notify them that
>     their ballot will not be recorded).
> [ ] Some respondents reply to the sample ballot contained
>     in the voter information email (so the system must
>     notify them that this ballot will not be recorder).
>
> In addition,
> [ ] the voter should receive an acknowledgement that
>     the vote has been recorded,
> [ ] the voter should be able to see at the end of the
>     election that his vote has indeed been recorded
>     properly,
> [ ] there should be some mechanism to settle disputes
>     after the election (e.g. independent watchdogs
>     with copies of all votes),
> [ ] the voters must be sure that their email addresses
>     will not be used by the vote operators and watchdogs
>     in any way except for the purpose of voting,
> [ ] the voting instructions should be clear and concise,
> [ ] the voting system should be as transparent as possible;
>     if possible, the source code should be public.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
>
>



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