Difference between revisions of "E-voting"

From Consumerium development wiki R&D Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
 
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 17:10, 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.