On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:30:41 -0500 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sphere
Thanks for this. I did a search on "vot" and am convinced voting is
not one of their topics - and suspect you stretched to tie it in.
I had to learn new things, and got stretched that way. I learned
about this concept of the public sphere, which is part of theoretical
social science. I'm not an expert on it, but I think it fits with the
voting mechanism. I describe the fit in the original post. Is
anything stretched?
I see now you're not offering secrecy. Seems to me it should not be
offered unless whoever is offering is attempting to actually deliver. Thus,
while a voter might assert to having voted as stated, secrecy would forbid
proving this.
True, I don't offer secrecy, at present - votes are forced to be
openly disclosed. But, as I concede to Juho, we must eventually add
an option for a secret ballot, so giving the voter a choice of
disclosure type (mixed type 2).
If I understand, you are saying Juho's type 2 is no good? So, if a
secret ballot is made available to some voters (who demand it), then
it must be forced on all other voters too? Even on those who demand
open voting?
I think the word "secret" should not be used unless secrecy is actually
promised and attempted.
I see little value in what you call open voting, but could understand that
being offered in other elections.
Again, the voter does not control secrecy. Whoever is controlling the
method of voting should not claim secrecy unless doing their best to
provide as claimed.
Else the voter could be coerced (social pressure) into voting openly,
when she'd rather vote secretly? (This came up earlier, near top of
thread.)
Real topic here is whether you MEAN secret when you use the word. And,
yes, a voter could fear open voting so properly needs to know whether
secrecy protection is offered.
Note that, in extremes, knowing some votes can be useful in determining
other votes.
... The verification process rests on proving the individual votes
of each voter...
The proxy claims, and needs to be able to prove, authority to vote
as if 14 voters.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proxy voting and delegated voting are procedures for the delegation to
another member of a voting body of that member's power to vote in his
absence. Proxy appointments can be used to form a voting bloc that can
exercise greater influence in deliberations or negotiations. A person so
designated is called a "proxy" and the person designating him is called a
"principal."
You seem to be thinking of something else.
No such claim. No need for proxy (P) even to be aware she is a proxy.
For example:
...
Could be the authority includes some direction as to how to vote - my point
is that the proxy could simply be trusted to vote in the permission giver's
interest.
...
--
da...@clarityconnect.com people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
