[governance] Truths and Proofs

Thu Oct 8 14:15:47 EDT 2009

Some good thoughts in this post.  With the understanding that my prior
sentence is bigger (as far as my concurrence with the writer of the
post) than what follows, here goes my thoughts on the few
indispensable prerequisites for democratic voting (as opposed to that
field that variation can occur consist with the rights of all):

Eric Dierker wrote; "the arguments of possibility of fraud are not
justification for denying international direct voting on matters of
Internet Governance."

1.  This doesn't mean, I  hope, that its ok to propose, as do
countless authoritarian examples, a bogus or defective mechanism for
elections and that we have to approve of getting fake democracy rather
than real democracy?   Nothing is more common than a minority parading
as a majority, by force or by fraud, since all minorities believe or
aspire to be majorities in every case where issues are contested, any
quite many get ahead of themselves.

2.  If the specific voting system was over the internet, something the
military in the US quickly scuttled in 2004 after they received an
expert report on it, the threat would be more than "a possibility of
fraud."   Heck, on the internet, even people who style themselves
"election integrity" advocates routinely stuff the electronic ballot
boxes of informal unscientific polls if they can, the last thing they
want is a fair sampling procedure, and even when very scrupulous they
only get out the vote of their own side typically, not all voters.
Why?  Because most people find substantive justice (the issues on the
ballot) more fundamental than procedural justice (elections of one
person one vote) on hot issues, even though they all agree in the main
that democratic process is sacred or absolutely necessary, etc.
Thus, they cheat FOR JUSTICE in an important though twisted sense.
Moreover, prior to the adoption of the secret ballot casting process,
election day violence, intimidation, harassments, and yes, deaths was
an annual or more frequent event, especially including deaths of
attempting voters not to mention many brawls.  This was true for the
better part of a century in the USA for example, until the secret
ballot in the late 1800s.  Although citizen interest in voting has its
historical ups and downs to some extent, the interest of the
interested minorities of partisans has always been intense and will
always be intense so long as real issues and elections are on the
ballots.  I don't personally see any basis to conclude that the
election fraud "pressure" if you will that took the form of widespread
fights and even killings prior to the secret ballot simply went away
and disappeared when the secret ballot appeared.  No, I think the
pressure went into every other manipulable way to alter the count,
whether by propaganda of advertising or misinforming voters, Jim Crow
laws, or, most powerful of all, insider cheating, because it can get
you the result one wants overall, with the least risk.

The idea that all voting systems aren't perfect is an unhelpful and
even damaging statement as it plays out around the world because it
implicitly discourages differentiation of better systems from worse
systems. Applied to governance "no system of government is perfect"
would strike down democracy just as swiftly as authoritarianism,
because democracy "isn't perfect" according to numerous people.

I'll just say that Transparency is almost infinitely superior to
secrecy, because without informational transparency (combined with
remedies) we can't even get to first base to understand what is going
on in a government, or in a vote counting system.

Thus, a transparent system constitutes a basic qualification for a
democracy-compliant system of voting.  Without transparency, there's
no accountability, and who can be in favor of unaccountable
government???   Any system of voting that can't deliver transparency
lacks a basic job qualification in any democracy or republic.  Unlike
the rest of the year when voters are subjects of the law and must obey
it whether they know of it or not (just  like a citizen of a
dictatorship, which also insists on "the rule of law") in a free
country the voter is acting in a sovereign capacity, as the
(temporary) co-ruler together with all other voters, selecting their
public servant representatives so that they can go on with their lives
and not be in politics full time.  In this capacity as a voting
sovereign, the voter is COMPLETELY different than the citizen-subject.
 They are the "boss" albeit for a brief but nevertheless real period
related to voting.

 I don't think any voting technology or system that denies
transparency to voters (or sovereign co-rulers, the numerous equal
kings and queens of any free government), is consistent or acceptable
to democratic governments.  Specifically in elections, it's just as if
the public servants, who are employees, are telling the boss (We the
People, specifically in elections) that we can't have all the
information about our own company (our own country).

Either there is a transparent system of public voting as well as
public vote counting (except for the opportunity to secretly screw up
ONLY one's own personal ballot) or else the voting system is not one
that respects the rights and status of a free people.  If one's not
being treated like the co-partner boss, perhaps there's been a
rearrangement of things amongst the hired help.  Non-transparency is
an implicit but 100% clear denial that a democratic arrangement in
fact exists in the body politic in question.

The above being said, if you mean we don't need to wait for perfect in
OTHER RESPECTS besides transparency then I would be more inclined to
agree, provided there's also universal opportunity for suffrage of all
potentially affected persons.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

On 10/8/09, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The "proof" of the premise that voting is necessary in some form is
> contained in many places.* The reality of trustworthy votes is as ancient as
> the travesty that women would have no vote, and the concepts of Ideology in
> Europe**.  Tyranny justified by necessity is an accepted reality as we see
> from Pitt***. So the arguments of possibility of fraud are not justification
> for denying international direct voting on matters of Internet Governance.
> (I specifically do not include IANA type Standard setting, and this should
> be done through appropriate representation via the scientific community and
> endorsed by those elected)
>
> Of course all things of human making are subject to flaw -- thank goodness
> this includes computers ;-)  The flaws are never appropriate reason for not
> acting -- that is the difference between a justification and an excuse.
>
> Marketing is Education and Education is Marketing.  People cringe at this
> phrase of mine, introduced to a communist country Internet Governance
> undergoing a Doi Moi, but several truths that are necessary here are held
> within.  It takes some type of propaganda to get folks caring enough to get
> out and participate and vote. There is a very fine line between revisionist
> history and education, Generally the debate between the two is settled by
> what the power at large wants to market. If we just accept that fact here we
> can move forward and begin to capitalize on the tools available.
>
> We must begin the process of educating the users of the Internet of the fact
> that they in fact do have rights.  That the outsourced voice on the end of a
> helpline is not God.  That here they must Question Authority. That Use
> Agreements and Disclaimers and FAQs are not divinely inspired. We must begin
> to empower users -- not from without, to begin with, but from within their
> own self styled thought boxes. We must continue to act in a way that sheds
> some light on our freedoms and how they transcend modern global economies
> and instant communication networks.
>
> When Parminder is tired and when McTim feels frustrated and when Paul
> believes no one cares and when Roland is cynical and when Avri only has hope
> -- they must get up and try harder and lead the way. They must talk when
> they are hoarse, must write when they are weary and must rally on bad news
> and celebrate on good. This is the foundation of Governance. Not polls or
> money or ease. But hard work and diligence and leading when there is no one
> to follow.
>
>
> *
> Article 21.
>
> (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country,
> directly or through freely chosen representatives.
> (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
> (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of
> government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections
> which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret
> vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=dodcJC_b1_QC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=universal+suffrage+was+achieved+in+britain+in+the
> +year&source=bl&ots=j_IIwx4i9s&sig=UhN50VnhxHAGIE
> QN65QoFM1q5ao&hl=en&ei=dAHOSs7tIIOotgOSkdnJDg&sa=X&oi=book_
> result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false
>
> ***
> http://thinkexist.com/quotation/necessity_is_the_plea_for_every_infringement_of/226531.html
>
>
> --- On Thu, 10/8/09, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Truths and Proofs
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
> Date: Thursday, October 8, 2009, 2:30 PM
>
>
> A good summary, though I'm not saying it's a complete statement
> because I'm not analyzing it that thoroughly, but it is good
> nonetheless.  But I'd make one addition, for now:
>
> If a person or entity thinks it is too bothersome or difficult to
> measure the will of the people and obtain their consent, it takes a
> lot of chutzpah, and then some, to presume to violate, structure,
> frame, regulate or control the exercise of that person's freedom.
> Note especially that freedom is the DEFAULT rule, it exists globally
> wherever a legitimate law does not take it away.  Thus, neither ICANN
> nor government can Grant rights of freedom, they exist beforehand,
> they can only reduce freedom via laws, and then only if those laws are
> promulgated legitimately.
>
> For purposes of the above, I'm ignoring for the moment the substantial
> issue of whether anything short of bona fide elections can provide the
> necessary consent and will of the people, as well as ignoring the
> extreme dubiousness of the trustability of internet-based "elections"
> on topics the bulk of which will concern the fundamental business
> interests of many of the most computer-savvy companies in the world,
> with ample motive, means and opportunity to affect such an internet
> election by "hacking" and the like.  This consideration applies
> regardless of whether any such attempts occur, or not, because it is a
> problem of perception based on possibility, even if we could know for
> sure (and we can't) that a particular piece of software did not
> contain  for example a double trojan horse.  See the classic paper
> "Reflections on Trusting Trust".
>
> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor
>
> On 10/8/09, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Somethings do not need to be debated.  Somethings are self evident by
>> their
>> mere existance - hence cogitoergosum.  Some things are in fact Universally
>> held. (exceptions and variance is the spice, not the rule - see Gregor
>> Mendel.
>>
>> ICANN exists and must be dealt with.
>>
>> Universal Human Rights are worth fighting for, defending and advancing.
>>
>> The will of the people can never be frozen and kept into a nice and neat
>> formula.
>>
>> Most, if given the choice, would like to exercise their own freedoms.
>>
>> Highly technical matters are not within the area of common knowledge. See
>> TLD .lowtech
>>
>> In that Internet Governance is generally needed, not to protect the
>> interests of those already in power, but to protect the rights of those
>> not
>> in power, we should be concerned with determining what the will of the
>> people who use the Internet is.
>
>
> --
> 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
>

-- 
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