[governance] Re: Internet voting and work of Craig Simon of this list

[Craig Simon]

I found Alexander Meiklejohn's "Free speech and its relation to 
self-government" at 
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/UW/UW-idx?type=header&id=UW.MeikFreeSp 
    I'll look at it more closely when I can. Or perhaps you might 
suggest something else that is more pertinent.

If you're interested in this project enough to help me advance it, I'd 
be grateful for any kind of support or connections you can offer.

Craig

Paul Lehto wrote:
> I'm interested in your work.  From a USA-based First Amendment
> approach, this is akin to a "Mieklejohn" approach - a famous first
> amendment writer, who focused on the right of listeners (decision
> making voters) to HEAR as much as to speak, since after all the
> purpose of freedom of speech is to inform the voters, in its core
> application (though this is not the only purpose, just the most
> important one)
> 
> On 10/29/09, Craig Simon <cls at rkey.com> wrote:
>> I did not intend "pristine" as a pejorative, but as an intensifier.
>> Legitimacy is a critical challenge for any group decision-making
>> process, especially where the making of laws and the spending of public
>> resources is at stake.
>>
>> With regard to filtering of discussion in a large online forum, the
>> challenge is to structure the introduction of ideas and proposals in
>> ways that drastically reduce first-mover, and swarm-promoted advantages.
>>
>> The next phase of my project (presuming I can find the resources to
>> proceed) is intended to demonstrate an approach by which every
>> seriously-offered new idea and proposal would be vetted by some
>> proportion of the serious participants. Thresholds for seriousness
>> involve factors such as registration in order to speak, and completing
>> work as a vetter in order to have one's own speech vetted.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> Paul Lehto wrote:
>>> An internet-based speech forum, at least one that accepts as a model
>>> the idea of presenting all points of view to the decision-makers
>>> (voters) without substantial filtering is something the internet could
>>> do a great job on, since the omission of a point of view would be
>>> relatively easy to show.
>>>
>>> I quibble just a bit with your use of the word "pristine" as that is
>>> easily taken in some kind of utopian sense.  Democratic elections are
>>> PURE procedure -- nothing but procedure.  IF the procedure is not
>>> basically "pristine" you've got a defective procedure, which is to
>>> say, nothing at all but a nullity.  Incorrectly designed procedures or
>>> improperly performed procedures nullify the results or at least create
>>> serious questions about whether results should be nullified (human
>>> laziness wanting to rescue the election from being redone if at all
>>> possible).  I'm not saying Craig intended the utopian sense, but I'm
>>> reacting to the use of the word "pristine" nevertheless.
>>>
>>> Pristine is a reasonable expectation when, as to voting, we are, after
>>> all, only doing simple arithmetic, and adding only by 1s.  All of us
>>> can do that prior to leaving compulsory schooling.
>>>
>>> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor
>>>
>>> On 10/29/09, Craig Simon <cls at rkey.com> wrote:
>>>> To reiterate what I wrote when this discussion was raised in an earlier
>>>> thread:
>>>>
>>>> ... where formal public law-making and officer-selecting elections are
>>>> concerned, I'm not an advocate of Internet voting in particular, or of
>>>> electronic voting in general. I agree with those who argue that a system
>>>> of physically auditable records marked by the voter in a secret manner
>>>> (which we might call the "Hard Australian Ballot") promises a far more
>>>> legitimate account of voter desires.
>>>>
>>>> ...By putting aside (for now) the daunting but critical challenge of
>>>> pristine legitimacy, it's possible to address other important ones...
>>>> namely, how to facilitate a style of mass, diversified participation
>>>> that can effectively build consensus around valuable ideas.
>>>>
>>>> ++++
>>>>
>>>> So, it's clear enough that the system I've been developing is indeed
>>>> flavored more like a computer science project than an immediate solution
>>>> to the hard problems of online voting. Nevertheless, it's a project with
>>>> a very practical intent.
>>>>
>>>> Successful online-based democracies will need fair, scalable venues for
>>>> debate and discussion at least as much as they need secure election
>>>> processes. The system I've been developing is designed to enable online
>>>> democracy in the sense of a town hall, caucus, Indaba, or Loya Jirga,
>>>> where opinions are rendered in public and decision-making is an open
>>>> process.
>>>>
>>>> The goal is to build a set of tools that members of large online
>>>> communities can use to: 1) gain the best possible awareness of candidate
>>>> options being raised within their communities, and; 2) build consensus
>>>> around the preferred candidates.
>>>>
>>>> The project I've got in mind requires many pieces. One is already in
>>>> operation as a ranked choice voting system that provides an interactive
>>>> ballot and a rich visual display of results in real time. Please feel
>>>> free to try it out at http://apps.facebook.com/we-vote/
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your interest,
>>>>
>>>> Craig Simon
>>>>
>>>> Paul Lehto wrote:
>>>>> Dear Mr. Simon, Does your work address some of the preliminary
>>>>> objections and concerns in the links below?  If it dispenses with
>>>>> them, I'd be particularly interested in reading what you have to say
>>>>> in your links below (though I'm not saying I won't in any event)
>>>>>
>>>>> The fundamental, and a very fundamental difference indeed, between a
>>>>> typical computer science project and internet voting is that (a) the
>>>>> interests of the participants in voting are wildly diverse and
>>>>> contradictory, especially considering that a valid election is
>>>>> necessary to replace an incumbent and incumbents typically control all
>>>>> of the electino laws and rules, thus lacking any real incentive to do
>>>>> it right, and (b) the voting for democratic purposes must be
>>>>> transparent (except for one's own private or secret ballot) and,
>>>>> unlike the typical corporate context, the insiders are a much greater
>>>>> threat than even employees in banks are for embezzlement (the #1 theft
>>>>> risk in nearly all businesses) because elections determine the power
>>>>> and composition of the government, yet are run by governments or their
>>>>> direct designees, creating an intense conflict of interest.
>>>>>
>>>>> The links to the internet voting reports, or one of them plus its
>>>>> follow up, are below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor
>>>>>
>>>>> A report written for the Air Force about their SERVE system, Jan 2004.
>>>>> "A Security Analysis of the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting
>>>>> Experiment (SERVE)" Co-authors are Dr. David Jefferson, Dr. Aviel D.
>>>>> Rubin, Dr. Barbara Simons, and Dr. David Wagner. The points are still
>>>>> valid according to everything I've heard or the authors are aware of.
>>>>> The same web page also includes a link to "The new report in response
>>>>> to the May 2007 DoD report on Voting Technologies for UOCAVA Citizens"
>>>>> http://www.servesecurityreport.org/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/19/09, Craig Simon <cls at rkey.com> wrote:
>>>>>> If you folks actually do start discussing scalable online democracy in
>>>>>> practical terms, please keep in mind that I've been taking concrete
>>>>>> steps on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's still a very long way to go, but you can experience the current
>>>>>> prototype on Facebook at http://apps.facebook.com/we-vote/ .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This project is a direct consequence of my Ph.D. research on the DNS
>>>>>> governance debates (see http://www.rkey.com/essays/diss.pdf ).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig Simon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would conclude that you weren't interested in discussing practical
>>>>>>> democracy, just the theory. Hey, I'm an engineer at heart; I like
>>>>>>> talking about practical solutions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  >Please excuse me if I'm wrong, but I just get the abiding impression
>>>>>>>  >you're not really serious about furthering democracy if you're not
>>>>>>>  >upset with ICANN right now...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've repeatedly said I'm not implying any opinion about ICANN (either
>>>>>>> positive or negative) as a result of this discussion with you.
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
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