142.177.94.100 at 16:10, 26 June 2004

2004-06-26T16:10:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:10, 26 June 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''E-voting''' is, in general, a bad idea. There is no way to make [[audit trail]]s trusted and comprehensible to the average person voting, even if that average person is a power user or has average programmer skills. The [[public key crypto]] solutions all require understanding and trusting algorithms that, ultimately, cannot be understood by the ordinary person voting, leading to a "just trust me" situation that is not necessarily better than just trusting a [[GodKing]] to make all the decisions. ''See [[board vote code]] for an example of how [[Wikimedia corruption]] and e-voting are converging to create a system that only the most notorious [[developer vigilantiism\|vigilantes]] will understand and be able to hack to their specifications.''		'''E-voting''' is, in general, a bad idea. There is no way to make [[audit trail]]s trusted and comprehensible to the average person voting, even if that average person is a power user or has average programmer skills. The [[public key crypto]] solutions all require understanding and trusting algorithms that, ultimately, cannot be understood by the ordinary person voting, leading to a "just trust me" situation that is not necessarily better than just trusting a [[GodKing]] to make all the decisions - at least one ''knows'' one is doing that!

			One must [[assume bad faith]] in all analysis of e-voting systems. Not to do so opens up infinite avenues for abuse. ''See [[board vote code]] for an example of how [[Wikimedia corruption]] and e-voting are converging to create a system that only the most notorious [[developer vigilantiism\|vigilantes]] will understand and be able to hack to their specifications.''

	However, there is a use for electronic [[edits, votes and bets]] in the ordinary daily types of decisions that do not involve choosing a person but rather an outcome. If a person is to have a very narrow mandate to make only a small number of decisions for a short period of time, e-voting may be tolerable and even desirable, if it does not shortcut [[consensus decision making]] and [[deliberative democracy]].		However, there is a use for electronic [[edits, votes and bets]] in the ordinary daily types of decisions that do not involve choosing a person but rather an outcome. If a person is to have a very narrow mandate to make only a small number of decisions for a short period of time, e-voting may be tolerable and even desirable, if it does not shortcut [[consensus decision making]] and [[deliberative democracy]].

142.177.94.100 at 16:04, 26 June 2004

2004-06-26T16:04:25Z

New page

'''E-voting''' is, in general, a bad idea. There is no way to make [[audit trail]]s trusted and comprehensible to the average person voting, even if that average person is a power user or has average programmer skills. The [[public key crypto]] solutions all require understanding and trusting algorithms that, ultimately, cannot be understood by the ordinary person voting, leading to a "just trust me" situation that is not necessarily better than just trusting a [[GodKing]] to make all the decisions. ''See [[board vote code]] for an example of how [[Wikimedia corruption]] and e-voting are converging to create a system that only the most notorious [[developer vigilantiism|vigilantes]] will understand and be able to hack to their specifications.''

However, there is a use for electronic [[edits, votes and bets]] in the ordinary daily types of decisions that do not involve choosing a person but rather an outcome. If a person is to have a very narrow mandate to make only a small number of decisions for a short period of time, e-voting may be tolerable and even desirable, if it does not shortcut [[consensus decision making]] and [[deliberative democracy]].

E-voting - Revision history

142.177.94.100 at 16:10, 26 June 2004

142.177.94.100 at 16:04, 26 June 2004