[governance] Co-coordinator Election Results

[Paul Lehto]

We ought to look at two discrete but related issues (1) How one
establishes themselves as a member and/or is purged from member voting
rights, and (2) The issue of anonymity as it creates serious issues
for ballot stuffing if both the listserv "public" and/or election
administrators are unable to solidly verify voter identity.

Issue (1):  Earlier in this thread, the act of voting in this
particular coordinator election was termed an "affirmation" (sigh) of
membership.  This is peculiar and, as far as I can recall at this
moment, unprecedented in this respect:  The percentage of people who
vote is always, even in those cases where failure to vote is a
criminal or civil violation, some fraction of the whole of 100%.  Only
where the failure to vote is repeated over several elections AND not
accompanied by any other statement of intent to remain or be a member
are voters effectively dropped from membership.   The policy that
voting in this particular election defines future voting membership
sets a presumption in favor of exclusion rather than inclusion.  There
are numerous legitimate reasons why good members would either
intentionally not vote, or not be able to vote for a week or more due
to travel or illness, or not be able to decide on the best candidate
in time for the end of the election.  None of these non-voters should
be prevented from voting in the future (if indeed there's any such
intent regarding future elections).

The thing to do is send SEVERAL emails over a significant course of
weeks (plus other communication methods if possible) to insure as
close to 100% chance of actual notice to potential voters before any
are purged.  If the voter is real and participating in conversations
on this listserv from time to time, that in itself should relieve
administrators of any efforts related to possibly purging that voter.
With an appropriate presumption of inclusion rather than exclusion, it
should be relatively easy to register to vote (provided there are the
proofs of identity and no double voting, see below) and relatively
difficult to purge a member from the voting rolls.

Issue (2) On the second concern: If I understood this thread
correctly, then it is possible to be a voting member without any of
the other voting members knowing who the anonymous person is (under
any circumstances, provided the anonymous member acts appropriately so
as not to "blow their cover."  Presumably, list administrators have
more information about the identity of list members, or may require
such, but it's the nature of the internet to facilitate anonymity
and/or multiple identities.

Without the ability, when it comes to the act of voting, for *both*
the voters as well as the election administrators to be able to verify
the legitimate identity of a voter, there's nothing to stop stuffed
and therefore fraudulent ballot box results from occurring, either
from the outside, the membership, and/or the election administrators.
To give just one example, anonymous listmembers who vote could well be
"superdelegates" or repeat voters either for very active and
computer-sophisticated users or for coordinators/administrators or any
other party with an interest in the elections here.

Winners of elections are entitled to the full confidence (presuming it
exists) of the legitimacy of their victory.  Election systems ought
not to be designed from the start so that one can not tell the
difference from the outside between a legitimate election and a fixed
election.

As to this election, it was mentioned that there was more than one
vote from the same IP address.  It's both possible this is legitimate
and possible it's not legitimate.  I don't resolve that issue raised
spontaneously by administrators one way or another other.  However,
but I do affirmatively say that the LACK of evidence (including
knowing how the voting members are) from which any member might
determine the truth of the matter is certainly a problem.  It leaves
no rational basis upon which to conclude the election went properly
(my trust in the election administrators being more of a faith-based
choice and not a rational basis conclusion from evidence).

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor


On 12/21/09, Fearghas McKay <fm-lists at st-kilda.org> wrote:
>
> On 21 Dec 2009, at 15:08, Craig Simon wrote:
>
>> FYI, like STV, the system I've been developing emphasizes ranked
>> choice voting. It uses a combination of Borda Count and Instant
>> Runoff Voting algorithms to tabulate results.
>
> One of the advantages of STV is it that it is relatively simple to
> explain, but even then it usually needs an explanation to a
> significant percentage of the electorate.
>
> Is the addition of Borda Count & Runoff Voting algorithms were the
> extra complexity of explaining ? Is Better the enemy of Good Enough?
>
> Simplicity is always easier to sell and understand - once you start
> talking about Borda Counts et al I get confused and I am involved with
> running elections most years for co-chairs/fellow directors.
>
> For occasional electors complex voting systens are a barrier to
> understanding and believing in the election process, in my opinion.
>
> Perhaps even for regular electors.
>
> Regards
>
> 	f
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box #1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance