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

[Ian Peter]

Thanks Paul for taking this off list and inviting those interested to join
the conversation there.




On 30/10/09 7:07 AM, "Paul Lehto" <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> I will continue this conversation off-list.  Though I'd be happy to cc
> any who are interested in staying in this particular subloop.  Just
> email me, or Craig if you prefer.  My email is lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 
> On 10/29/09, Craig Simon <cls at rkey.com> wrote:
>> 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.MeikFree
>> Sp
>>     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