E-voting: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| 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]]. | ||
Latest revision as of 16:10, 26 June 2004
E-voting is, in general, a bad idea. There is no way to make audit trails 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 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.