Brian wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Tim Starling <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Let me say for the record that I'm not at all happy with this data >> being released, since it allows vote-buying. Even if the numbers given >> by voters are reduced to the smallest values which still give the same >> rankings, with 18 candidates there are 18 factorial possible >> orderings. That number is sufficiently higher than the number of >> voters that a party wishing to buy votes can specify a voter-specific >> ticket with some random rankings, and be reasonably assured that if >> that ticket appears in the final unencrypted dump, then the contract >> was fulfilled and money can be transferred to the voter. [...] > > This kind of fear mongering attitude is why we can't allow more members of > the community to vote. You'd rather spread FUD about vote buying than design > a system that allows the largest number of community members to vote.
My hope is that the opposite is true. I'm interested in building protections against attacks such as vote-buying into our software, so that we can have wider participation in elections without leaving the system open to subversion. Ultimately the decision is not up to me, but I don't want technical deficiencies to be used as arguments against wider participation. -- Tim Starling _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
