5 ms·

Voting should be analog (paper), it should be open (i.e. not secret, and not anonymous), and absolutely auditable by any and sundry who consider themselves to b

Voting should be analog (paper), it should be open (i.e. not secret, and not anonymous), and absolutely auditable by any and sundry who consider themselves to be citizens, not just authorities. Like, totally open society, man. If you can't stand and cast your vote among your peers in a public and 100% open form/manner, you're not doing your job, citizen. Change my mind ..

masfuerte 3y ago
Vote for me or I'll break your legs.
- helpfulContrib 3y ago
  [flagged]
- masfuerte 3y ago
  This got no upvotes. Anonymous voting systems really are immune to threats!
maleldil 3y ago
This ignores intimidation, vote buying, and a million other ways people would find to coerce you to vote a certain way or else.
anyonecancode 3y ago
Boss man: I noticed you voted for X. As you might recall from the last All Hands, we're not big fans of X. Unrelatedly, I was wondering how you see your future at this company?
- helpfulContrib 3y ago
  That would be a misdemeanor or crime, as per the doctrine of the state regulating the non-interference of a persons basic human rights. And when I step into the booth, I can say "last time I voted, I got fired for voting" and it'll be on the record, too. I mean, this is all a theoretical, but lets play it out.
  - anyonecancode 3y ago
    Sure, play it out. Lots of things are currently illegal reasons for being fired or discriminated against at work -- eg "protected classes" such as sex, religion, race, national origin. Are you trying to argue that discrimination on that basis does not exist? If not, then we can agree that, whatever laws exist to prohibit it, discrimination based on voting would exist. Given that, you're left with needing to argue that the societal benefits of non-secret voting would outweigh the harms of voting-based discrimination. To me, that doesn't seem like a close call, but I'm open to the counter-argument.
    - helpfulContrib 3y ago
      Do you have a publically verifiable, accessible record of your statements regarding your being discriminated against? Because actually a lot of people might argue that not having this, in the first place, is why our societies are so easily corruptible. The open society dogma, and I admit this is just a thought experiment, might very much include the fact that, when someones rights are abused, it doesn't just get lost in the noise. Being able to vote - and address grievances for which I require government support - seems to me to be a way to complete the vote as a proper transaction, between the individual and the state. Right now, you vote and get nothing back - well, you get the assumption that your government is still going to be, relative to the last one, livable (or else you'd be a refugee and potentially pursuing statelessness..) - but when you use your Vote Statement as a way of communicating something public - per your own free will and agency (and thus right) - this is also a responsibility that must be addressed by the next administration .. giving your vote even more relevance to the incumbents and challengers, alike ..
      - anyonecancode 3y ago
        I'm not sure what you're talking about. You're not audio recorded when you vote. And voting doesn't provide a more publicly verifiable, accessible record than a court record does -- today, you can sue an employer and make statements in court. I'll have to bow out of this convo at this point I think as we seem to be talking past each other, or at any rate you seem to be talking about something different than what I thought we were discussing.
PeterStuer 3y ago
Hey Jimmy, you remember to vote for our wonderfull Madam X, K? We would both hate for that lovely boy of yours to have an accident, right? We'll make sure to check the public logs, hence you forget, which I'm sure you won't, right, Jimmy? We could of course save us both the trouble. I"ve got your mail in ballot papers right here. Just sign on the dotted line and we'll post them for you, no biggy.
- helpfulContrib 3y ago
  Well, we shall make it a penalty, in fact the maximum imposable by the state, to interfere in any way with a persons open, public, commons vote or .. data .. related to that action, in any way. You enter the booth, the light goes on, anything you want to say will be recorded for posterity by the state, for the public sphere, and you state who you support. Its an open public record, and therefore also the right place to let the government know that you are under duress and need assistance with exercising your right to vote. So it goes more like, "I'm Jimmy, and I'm being forced to vote for Madam X, I want my government to address this grievance", and so it does. I mean, the point of this theoretical is to realize that we have the mafia shit-storm we have right now, because things are secret. That secret veil, once removed and turned instead into 15-minutes of fame for everyone, because its your right to do so, means you're gonna have a lot more people interested in voting, buddy. No matter how many chumps Madam X has on the payroll.
  - PeterStuer 3y ago
    Because we have such a great track record of protecting the plebs from the powerfull, right? The secrecy of the vote is not the problem at all. What happens after with that vote is.
    - helpfulContrib 3y ago
      .. which is why what happens during the vote is important. If it can be determined - by treating open, free and immutable communication as a public utility - that a significant set of voters made statements about corruption, or if this moment of protection of communication were available to whistleblowers .. we would have the forum we need to root out corruption. Open. Publicly. Transparently.

masfuerte 3y ago

Vote for me or I'll break your legs.

helpfulContrib 3y ago
[flagged]
masfuerte 3y ago
This got no upvotes. Anonymous voting systems really are immune to threats!

maleldil 3y ago

This ignores intimidation, vote buying, and a million other ways people would find to coerce you to vote a certain way or else.

anyonecancode 3y ago

Boss man: I noticed you voted for X. As you might recall from the last All Hands, we're not big fans of X. Unrelatedly, I was wondering how you see your future at this company?

helpfulContrib 3y ago
That would be a misdemeanor or crime, as per the doctrine of the state regulating the non-interference of a persons basic human rights. And when I step into the booth, I can say "last time I voted, I got fired for voting" and it'll be on the record, too. I mean, this is all a theoretical, but lets play it out.
- anyonecancode 3y ago
  Sure, play it out. Lots of things are currently illegal reasons for being fired or discriminated against at work -- eg "protected classes" such as sex, religion, race, national origin. Are you trying to argue that discrimination on that basis does not exist? If not, then we can agree that, whatever laws exist to prohibit it, discrimination based on voting would exist. Given that, you're left with needing to argue that the societal benefits of non-secret voting would outweigh the harms of voting-based discrimination. To me, that doesn't seem like a close call, but I'm open to the counter-argument.
  - helpfulContrib 3y ago
    Do you have a publically verifiable, accessible record of your statements regarding your being discriminated against? Because actually a lot of people might argue that not having this, in the first place, is why our societies are so easily corruptible. The open society dogma, and I admit this is just a thought experiment, might very much include the fact that, when someones rights are abused, it doesn't just get lost in the noise. Being able to vote - and address grievances for which I require government support - seems to me to be a way to complete the vote as a proper transaction, between the individual and the state. Right now, you vote and get nothing back - well, you get the assumption that your government is still going to be, relative to the last one, livable (or else you'd be a refugee and potentially pursuing statelessness..) - but when you use your Vote Statement as a way of communicating something public - per your own free will and agency (and thus right) - this is also a responsibility that must be addressed by the next administration .. giving your vote even more relevance to the incumbents and challengers, alike ..
    - anyonecancode 3y ago
      I'm not sure what you're talking about. You're not audio recorded when you vote. And voting doesn't provide a more publicly verifiable, accessible record than a court record does -- today, you can sue an employer and make statements in court. I'll have to bow out of this convo at this point I think as we seem to be talking past each other, or at any rate you seem to be talking about something different than what I thought we were discussing.

PeterStuer 3y ago

Hey Jimmy, you remember to vote for our wonderfull Madam X, K? We would both hate for that lovely boy of yours to have an accident, right? We'll make sure to check the public logs, hence you forget, which I'm sure you won't, right, Jimmy? We could of course save us both the trouble. I"ve got your mail in ballot papers right here. Just sign on the dotted line and we'll post them for you, no biggy.

helpfulContrib 3y ago
Well, we shall make it a penalty, in fact the maximum imposable by the state, to interfere in any way with a persons open, public, commons vote or .. data .. related to that action, in any way. You enter the booth, the light goes on, anything you want to say will be recorded for posterity by the state, for the public sphere, and you state who you support. Its an open public record, and therefore also the right place to let the government know that you are under duress and need assistance with exercising your right to vote. So it goes more like, "I'm Jimmy, and I'm being forced to vote for Madam X, I want my government to address this grievance", and so it does. I mean, the point of this theoretical is to realize that we have the mafia shit-storm we have right now, because things are secret. That secret veil, once removed and turned instead into 15-minutes of fame for everyone, because its your right to do so, means you're gonna have a lot more people interested in voting, buddy. No matter how many chumps Madam X has on the payroll.
- PeterStuer 3y ago
  Because we have such a great track record of protecting the plebs from the powerfull, right? The secrecy of the vote is not the problem at all. What happens after with that vote is.
  - helpfulContrib 3y ago
    .. which is why what happens during the vote is important. If it can be determined - by treating open, free and immutable communication as a public utility - that a significant set of voters made statements about corruption, or if this moment of protection of communication were available to whistleblowers .. we would have the forum we need to root out corruption. Open. Publicly. Transparently.