Public voting?

[Hileville]

Admin:  If I see another warning by a Global Moderator that is ignored official warnings will begin to be handed out.

[QuietDad]

The issues are that all it does for me is that it lets me know I voted, at that one of the votes for my candidate/issue/whatever would be mine. A lot of effort for little reward. Everyone thinks they vote for someone. The election chairman sees how many people voted, then announces the candidate he wants to win. won the vote 33-1 when in fact it can be the other way around and no one will ever know. Thee 33 people who actually voted for the loser might post "Sorry for your lose, but I voted for you!", but that rarely if ever, happens.

 

The ONLY way you'll verify a vote (without major coding and someone who will want to administer it) on the internet is a public vote. You get to vote the usual Candidate a/b/ Ron/Abstain or whatever and ANY vote that shows "Edited on :" is declared invalid. 

 

I have no doubt that all the elections have been honest, BUT, there is massive room for abuse in the current system.

[Unibot]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Kris Kringle" data-cid="114048" data-time="1389754048">If Glen can show us how exactly his option would work, then it's something worth taking a look at. It might or might now work, but if Glen can show us how it works in reality, then why not?

 
Here's a step-by-step for how it would work.

2. I register for citizenship through the normal application.
3. Upon accepting my citizenship application, the admin would send me an activation code for my ballot access. (The admin would get the code simply by typing in the nation's name and hitting "Get code")
4. I would click a tab on the forum called "Voter registration" or whatever, which would take me to a page with a box asking me to put in my activation code.
5. After submitting my activation code, I would get a box asking me to create a phrase or a password that I'll use every time I vote.
6. Each time there's an election, I would go to the "Vote" tab and fill out my ballot. I would put in my phrase/password when I submit my ballot, and get a verification code.
7. When the votes are tallied, I would be able to see that my vote was counted by looking for my verification code. Because the ballots are only identified with a verification code, they can be made public without revealing whose ballot is whose.

The technical, behind the scenes stuff:

2. The activation code is a one-time-use thing. There's no way to connect an activation code to a voter once they've registered their phrase/password.
3. The phrase/password would be hashed, and that hash would be the verification code given to the user.
4. It would be very difficult to tamper with the votes, because people could independently verify that their vote was counted, and that their vote was not changed after the fact. It's difficult because, in order to tamper with an election, you need to make it so that people can't tell their vote was changed. Additionally, you'd need the number of total voters to be secret or otherwise not independently verifiable, so that you can "stuff the ballot box."
5. Even if somebody has access to the database, there's no way they can change votes or add votes without red flags going off. If they change somebody's vote, that person can tell. If they "stuff the ballot box," the region could tell because each ballot is publicly accessible. If there are 20 extra votes, but only 15 ballots, then obviously somebody tried to doctor the results.

It's not completely secure, admittedly. A very dedicated person could still commit fraud, but that type of system would make it inconvenient to do so. You'd have to register a ton of fake citizens, get them all through voter registration, and then vote with all them to "stuff the ballot box." Because of how our citizenship registration works, with the various security checks, the only people who feasibly could do this are the admins themselves who are both ECs _and_ handle citizenship, or some collusion among admins.
</blockquote>
Oh, I actually came up with a similar system as this for TNP. I'd be supportive of it here. It's not nearly as "complicated" as people are trying to make it out to be.

[Awesomiasa]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Kris Kringle" data-cid="114048" data-time="1389754048">
<div>
If Glen can show us how exactly his option would work, then it's something worth taking a look at. It might or might now work, but if Glen can show us how it works in reality, then why not?

 

Here's a step-by-step for how it would work.

1. I register for citizenship through the normal application.
   
2. Upon accepting my citizenship application, the admin would send me an activation code for my ballot access. (The admin would get the code simply by typing in the nation's name and hitting "Get code")
   
3. I would click a tab on the forum called "Voter registration" or whatever, which would take me to a page with a box asking me to put in my activation code.
   
4. After submitting my activation code, I would get a box asking me to create a phrase or a password that I'll use every time I vote.
   
5. Each time there's an election, I would go to the "Vote" tab and fill out my ballot. I would put in my phrase/password when I submit my ballot, and get a verification code.
   
6. When the votes are tallied, I would be able to see that my vote was counted by looking for my verification code. Because the ballots are only identified with a verification code, they can be made public without revealing whose ballot is whose.
   

The technical, behind the scenes stuff:

1. The activation code is a one-time-use thing. There's no way to connect an activation code to a voter once they've registered their phrase/password.
   
2. The phrase/password would be hashed, and that hash would be the verification code given to the user.
   
3. It would be very difficult to tamper with the votes, because people could independently verify that their vote was counted, and that their vote was not changed after the fact. It's difficult because, in order to tamper with an election, you need to make it so that people can't tell their vote was changed. Additionally, you'd need the number of total voters to be secret or otherwise not independently verifiable, so that you can "stuff the ballot box."
   
4. Even if somebody has access to the database, there's no way they can change votes or add votes without red flags going off. If they change somebody's vote, that person can tell. If they "stuff the ballot box," the region could tell because each ballot is publicly accessible. If there are 20 extra votes, but only 15 ballots, then obviously somebody tried to doctor the results.
   

It's not completely secure, admittedly. A very dedicated person could still commit fraud, but that type of system would make it inconvenient to do so. You'd have to register a ton of fake citizens, get them all through voter registration, and then vote with all them to "stuff the ballot box." Because of how our citizenship registration works, with the various security checks, the only people who feasibly could do this are the admins themselves who are both ECs _and_ handle citizenship, or some collusion among admins.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
I have a question though, why can't we automate the first part by having a PM with a random code sent to a new citizen once (s)he receives citizenship? Also, will the activation codes expire? (like most activation codes do?)

[Sandaoguo]

I have a question though, why can't we automate the first part by having a PM with a random code sent to a new citizen once (s)he receives citizenship? Also, will the activation codes expire? (like most activation codes do?)

 

There's no real reason for it to expire. It could be integrated with the PM system, but that would require knowledge of how IP.Board works internally, which I do not have.

[Escade]

Thank you, Lady Elysium for sharing your concerns.  I think they highlight the fact that we need to try a few different things.  Also feel free to let me know of concerns privately as well. I'm here to listen to everyone in TSP not just one or two people. 

 

GR, Please go ahead and set up the system. I may not follow the process but I like trying new things out.  We can do a test run that is verified in two ways by two separate entities. 


PunkD, while I personally like the idea of public voting I also like the idea of lobbying. I have publicly voted and also publicly endorsed candidates. However, I understand that some people can feel uncomfortable with either or. What we don't want is voter intimidation. 

 

Perhaps I would be fine with banning lobbying after a person has put in a vote if all voters actually engaged with the campaigns of all candidates (i.e. ask questions). I think that no candidate should be thrown out unless its for egregious reasons, that's just a bit extreme.

 

We can try out GR's method for a "TSP Yearbook" vote or at least a trial run.  People use both the code system and also a public\private thread and we'll see the results and activity for both. 

 

When something isn't perfect the best next step is to try a few different things and then we can always go back to the old way - they don't become extinguished. We can do a test run on "Cake Vs. Pie" or the next person I hire as personal adviser. A trial run is just that - a trial run. 

 

 

[Drugged Monkeys]

In a true democratic election, you cannot change your vote once it is cast correct?


I ask because people keep claiming one persons or the others idea is "undermining the democratic system" when in fact our current system that allows vote changing is anti democratic is it not?

[Punk D]

GR's proposal is not all that complex to me. 

 

I do have a couple of questions for GR - in your method does this remove the ability to change your vote once you've voted already? Based on my interpretation of your post, it does, but I want to make sure that's an accurate read. 

 

Also, who sets up the polling for each election and you said the activation code is a one time thing, so there can be multiple elections run and a voter wouldn't need to continually create additional activation codes?

 

EDIT: Re: Drugged Monkey's comment on democracy usually not allowing people to change their votes once cast, I would agree most RL democracies don't allow this. If we didn't allow this, it would cause people to seriously consider their votes. 

[Aistos]

Keeping the registration process as simple as possible makes it easier for new citizens to understand the forum at their own pace. As it is, there are enough things to read and grasp without having to go through any more autentifications or password setting. Making everything more complicated, even if just a little, might have an effect on participation.

 

Lobbying can be easily regulated, perhaps by banning the especific act of sending electoral PMs to voters during the period when elections are underway while maintaining the platform threads open. This way candidates could remain active until the last moment and nobody would feel they are being explicitly targeted. Other ideas would be to create a list of citizens that consent to be sent electoral PMs at all (it could be either opt-in or opt-out), or only allow the candidate or the person the candidate explicitly names in his platform thread to send said PMs with the additional restriction of only one electoral PM for each candidacy.

 

Not allowing vote change could be done by declaring invalid any vote emitted in an edited post, I guess. Frankly, I don't have the slightest idea of the technical ramifications of it.

 

But some of the vote changes and PM's of the recent MoFA election are syntomatic of another problem: the effects of a third candidacy and the needed majority to achieve victory. Perhaps having a runoff in every case where the winner has not attained more votes than the rest of the candidates together would be in order.

[Sandaoguo]

In a true democratic election, you cannot change your vote once it is cast correct?

It's not a rule of democracy in the real world. You can't change your ballot because there's no way to tell whose ballot is whose. In the US Congress at least, I know that members can change their votes during the voting periods, but not once voting is closed. That's because votes are tied to identities. It's the same thing in NS: we allow changes to votes because we can allow it. There's no technical barrier preventing it.

 

 

I do have a couple of questions for GR - in your method does this remove the ability to change your vote once you've voted already? Based on my interpretation of your post, it does, but I want to make sure that's an accurate read.

It would be possible to allow somebody to change their vote during the voting period, since votes are tied to the phrase/password they choose.

 

Also, who sets up the polling for each election and you said the activation code is a one time thing, so there can be multiple elections run and a voter wouldn't need to continually create additional activation codes?

An Election Commissioner would set up the ballot. The purpose of the activation code is to make sure that people can't just create new voting accounts whenever they want. It's also a way to verify the identity. Think of the activation code as a voter registration form. You don't have to submit a new one each election.

[Drugged Monkeys]

I like the idea of opting out of election lobbying proposed by Aistos. Again it would leave the research up to the candidates to make sure they don't lobby someone who has opted out.

[Kris Kringle]

I disagree with most of what Aistos said, and also need to point out this:

Lobbying can be easily regulated, perhaps by banning the especific act of sending electoral PMs to voters during the period when elections are underway while maintaining the platform threads open. This way candidates could remain active until the last moment and nobody would feel they are being explicitly targeted.

Other than banning PMs that is what really happens. Campaign threads are always open, even during open. The problem is that, except for certain elections, most people don't ask many questions, or vote without really questioning or knowing about the candidates. But do like the idea of opting out of campaign PMs. I wouldn't opt out, but I'm sure it is everyone's right and it allows everyone to decide whether campaign threads are enough for them or not. That said, I wouldn't legislate on that. I think we should do that, but not as part of the law, mainly because I wouldn't like candidates or lobbyists to be punished because they PMed the wrong person, maybe even accidentally.

[Punk D]

Opting out of PMs, IRC solicitations, etc could be the answer. votes remain public, but if you're on that list people should not contact it.

 

It does still allow you as a voter to change your vote. 

 

I kinda like that idea. I do believe there should be a deterrent to ensure people who have made this selection aren't solicited.

[Aistos]

I know it is what happens. Since the topic was close to that of an electoral silence, I wanted to point out I wasn't advocating for closing the campaign threads.

 

In a matter as sensitive as the electoral system, leaving something to tradition is somewhat risky. Still, I'm inclined to believe that if someone has opted out of campaign PMs and receives one nonetheless, the probability of said person voting to the sender or the candidate endorsed by the sender would decrease rather than increase, which might be considered enough punishment. The possibility of someone trying to boicott a candidacy that way would be covered by the figure of fraud of article 6.3. I would favour having an independent corpus of electoral law where all this matters can be regulated, but can see this working without getting elevated to law too.

[QuietDad]

Having a ipboard sandbox at my disposal, I went playing to see the options available and I think I have a workable solution, but defer it to Hile and the administrators because I don't neccesarily have the same versions or options installed that is here.

 

Ipboard does have a poll feature. If we voted by poll AND the vote was created in the Election Center AND the Election center was open to citizens only, you couldn't vote unless you were a citizen. Once you vote, you get a summary of how the voting is going, BUT it doesn't tell you who voted how. That information is available to admins should the need arise.

 

It just seems to me that this solves a myriad of problems. No one sees how I voted or even if I voted. I can still delete my vote and re-vote and logging is there for admin purposes if needed. It would stop the campaigning after I vote by the people who TG saying "OH GOD! PLEASE CHANGE IT TO...".

 

Again, it's a suggestion and I don't know how the admins and Hile feel about it.

[Hileville]

We aren't going back to poll voting.

[Escade]

In a true democratic election, you cannot change your vote once it is cast correct?


I ask because people keep claiming one persons or the others idea is "undermining the democratic system" when in fact our current system that allows vote changing is anti democratic is it not?

 

I don't think bringing democratic\anti-democratic into the rhetoric is helpful since there is always a counter example. 

 

For example, in the U.S. democratic system votes are private and that has certain benefits that protect the voter. However, as previously stated by another poster there are always accusations of some vote tampering and in reality sometimes there had been vote tampering.

 

Finally, perhaps voters not interested in campaigning could just write something short in their vote thread like "Opt Out" and then publicly post the message if someone spams them anyway.  That should be a deterrent.

 

However, in this past election some people campaigned without the people they were campaigning for knowing (or someone's name was used without their knowing). I would like to suggest that candidates authorize in their campaign threads anyone who is speaking on their behalf to separate from "official" and "unofficial" campaigning. 

 

Finally, QD I don't know the technical but I assumed that polls could be thus used but I've been told there are some problems with it?

[QuietDad]

As I said. I'm playing in a sandbox in my world and while the same version as here, it is no where near the same after you add modifications to both sides. If hile says it's an issue, he's the admin and I defer to him.

[Southern Bellz]

I just think a voting system that requires an IT degree to understand is a solution that I'm comfortable with.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Cormac]

I agree with Southern Bellz. I'm opposed to Glen's suggested system, end of story. It's too complicated.

 

I'm firmly in favor of public voting. I'm also in favor of an opt-in/opt-out system for lobbying, which would still allow people to change their votes; but if others have issues with that I would also be fine with not allowing votes to be changed after votes are cast, which should also reduce lobbying.

[Belschaft]

What SB said.

 

Also, adopting a voting system that is dependent on one individual being around to maintain it is a bad idea. Further, we have no way to validate/check how the system operates and whether or not it is actually rigged. Other Admins can (and do) provide their own vote counts at present to validate the results. Switching to an off-forum system that is under the control of one individual is silly.

[Sandaoguo]

It's nice to see that people are still afraid of new technology. Like I said, I'm writing it anyways. If you guys are still afraid to use it when it's finished, that's your loss.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk

[Kris Kringle]

Actually I do want to see how that system works. Glen has offered to set it up, so I don't see a problem with testing it. I don't think it makes sense to discard it as too complicated but not let the one who proposes it make their case. If it doesn't work, then fine, we haven't lost anything. But if it works, then better for us.

[Escade]

As stated previously, GR we are willing to try it. Update us once you are ready to test it out. There are a number of trial runs we can perform. 

[Southern Bellz]

It's nice to see that people are still afraid of new technology. Like I said, I'm writing it anyways. If you guys are still afraid to use it when it's finished, that's your loss. Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk

 

I'm sorry, but you don't need to resort to snark and blanket personal attacks just because people disagree with you.

 

I am not anti-technology, I just think there is a much more simple solution to this issue.  I am getting really tired of this pattern of just dismissing people as 'anti-democratic' or 'anti-technology'.  It has become a pattern, and its destructive.

 

As far as I can tell, the two concerns of this body is being able to verify the vote, and avoiding post-vote harassment to change the vote. 

 

If we make elections vote final and public, it would make the vote easy to verify, avoid any election harassment to encourage vote changing, and be easy for the ECs to administer.

 

 

EDIT: Also, I was not lobbied to at all in this election, can someone who felt offended by the messages please share with the assembly?