Text 11518, 475 rader
Skriven 2013-12-09 21:20:24 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
Kommentar till text 11485 av FidoNews Robot (2:2/2.0)
Ärende: Fair Elections in Fidoland
==================================
Hello Michiel,
FR> GENERAL ARTICLES
FR> Why a vote cast is a vote cast.
FR> By Michiel van der Vlist, 2:280/5555
FR> In the 2010 FSTC election Björn Felten requested that
FR> he be allowed to correct his already cast vote. The
FR> EC responded with "let me sleep on it". This is a
FR> summary of the storm of protest that followed. Read
FR> and judge for yourself...
When is a vote cast really cast? That is the real question
that Björn was asking. Is a vote cast when a voter presses
the "send" button? Or is a vote cast only to considered as
truly cast on election day itself? And what, pray tell, is
election day? Is election day when an election to be held
is announced? Is election day the day when votes are counted?
Is election day different for each voter, being the day the
voter "sends" in his/her vote to be counted? And what about
dead people? Do their votes count?
FR> == 38937 ================================================
FR> Date : 16 Nov 10 18:22:54
FR> From : Ross Cassell 1:123/456
FR> To : Michiel van der Vlist
FR> Subject : Votes received.
FR> --------------------------------------------------------
FR> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
FR> Hello Michiel!
FR> 16 Nov 10 22:36, you wrote to Björn Felten:
MV>> Hmmm... I don't know. There is no provision in the rules
MV>> for changing a vote that is already cast. OTOH, the rules do
MV>> not forbid it either. I lean towards allowing it, but only
MV>> if there are no serious objections from the constituency.
MV>> It will set a precedent either way. So let me sleep on it.
FR> I protest in the name of protocol..
FR> If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules.. Changing
FR> the rules with a vote in progress is unheard of.
FR> I submit:
FR> Had the 2 no votes not been cast, Bjorn would not be pleading to
FR> change his, therefore his regret over his own vote, is a sad
FR> consequence.
FR> I neither cast and up or down vote for Alexey just to avoid being cast
FR> in some negative light, but held back such vote because he did come
FR> across as worrying more about nit picking others than anything else..
FR> Since Sweden is the cradle of Democracy, I fail to see why Bjorn is
FR> scornful of others making a concious decision.
FR> Do not allow revotes, what you gonna do, allow others to change their
FR> votes if they dont like the direction the outcome is heading?
FR> NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FR> Now if you want, you can after the election, put in a rule or rule
FR> change, which I still would object to a revote, but you could change
FR> the format to allow a yes vote or a non-vote, then each candidate
FR> would have to score 50% or 50%+1 of all voters(*) counted. You of
FR> course would be making this suggestion to the full FTSC, where we
FR> would fight over it and not ever agree.
FR> (*) If 20 voters then 10 or 11 yes votes needed.
FR> However I could see someone pitching a fit over non-votes and wanting
FR> to change their vote, see what happens here..
FR> Dont tilt at windmills Michiel, be strong, I am here for you!
FR> Of course you could make the balloting secret, only publishing the
FR> results after the election concluded, that would be a viable option.
FR> I can see you balking at this, but you could publicly acknowledge in
FR> here... "RC such and such voted" But dont publish the actual vote,
FR> until it is all tallied and too late.
FR> Felten, you know better than this. You must know ride down downtown
FR> Stockholm, nude on a moose with a Wolf on the loose.
FR> ==
FR> Ross
Ross leaves out quite a lot in his remarks.
"If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules." In other
words, dead people can vote, since it is clearly not against the rules.
Not only that, but people can vote more than once. Including dead
people. Just keep clicking and clicking and clicking, as long as your
mouse can take it, until the voting deadline kills the mouse.
At least Ross had sense enough to write "Do not allow revotes" as it
would mean the loss of an arm or two for voters who had changed their
minds as to who to vote for. One can only imagine what it would be
like if everybody wanted to change their votes. Nobody would have an
arm to stand on. Or click with.
Ross was most emphatic on this point, writing "NO!!!!!!!!!!!!"
But then, he changes his mind -
"Now if you want, you can after the election ..."
Arms away, everybody! Let the votes begin!
FR> == 38943 ================================================
FR> Date : 16 Nov 10 21:24:13
FR> From : Ross Cassell 1:123/456
FR> To : Michiel van der Vlist
FR> Subject : Votes received.
FR> --------------------------------------------------------
FR> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
FR> Hello Michiel!
FR> 17 Nov 10 01:40, you wrote to me:
RC>>> If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules..
MV>> Indeed, it is not in the rules. They do not explicitly allow
MV>> nor forbid it. So it can go either way.
FR> I think that when it comes to something like this, one should not
FR> fall back and say well the rules dont forbid it either.
FR> You leave room open for someone (a candidate) to protest the vote.
FR> You also leave room open for others (RC's and REC's) to also want
FR> to change their vote.
FR> As it is, with each vote you receive, you ack it then follow it
FR> with a tally of all votes counted thus far, including the one you
FR> just acked, now if you allow Bjorn to recast, you are going to
FR> have to allow others to recast, then you get a pissing match if
FR> others decide to recast ballots to counteract other recast votes..
FR> Dont open the box Pandora!
FR> Ross
Even you admit that Ross is right. Even the dead can vote, as
"... They do not explicity allow nor forbid it." The same goes
for voting as many times as one wants. Multiple voting, even
for dead folks. If only Mayor Daley were still alive ...
FR> == 38944 ================================================
FR> Date : 16 Nov 10 21:48:20
FR> From : Janis Kracht 1:261/38
FR> To : Ross Cassell
FR> Subject : Votes received.
FR> --------------------------------------------------------
FR> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
FR> Hi Ross,
>> I protest in the name of protocol..
>> If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules.. Changing
>> the rules with a vote in progress is unheard of.
FR> Thank you Ross for pointing this out.
FR> !! Note to Michiel: where do you draw the line if you allow this?
FR> I'm curious if you've thought it through.
FR> Take care,
FR> Janis
See there? Janis agrees with Ross! Hooray for the dead
having the right to vote! :)
FR> == 38945 ================================================
FR> Date : 16 Nov 10 21:51:58
FR> From : Janis Kracht 1:261/38
FR> To : Michiel van der Vlist
FR> Subject : Votes received.
FR> --------------------------------------------------------
FR> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
FR> Hello Michiel,
>>>> Hmmm... I don't know. There is no provision in the rules for
>>>> changing a vote thais already cast. OTOH, the rules do not forbid
>>>> it either. I lean towards allowing it, but only if there are no
>>>> serious objections from the constituency. It will set a precedent
>>>> either way. So let me sleep on it.
>>> I protest in the name of protocol..
>> Noted. And as someone with voting rights your opinion carries
>> weight.
FR> Of course it does, my friend.. but please do not forget who asked
FR> their RCs to put you in office!
>>> If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules..
FR> Michiel, if you allow this, where do you draw the line as to WHEN
FR> people may change their vote?? And at WHAT point do you tell people
FR> when that point is?
FR> When you've seen that enough RCs and RECs have said to you, Ok, this
FR> is my final vote. For goodness sake, you sound like a game show host
FR> over here asking people, "Is that your final answer??"
FR> Seriously..
FR> Take care,
FR> Janis
FR> == 38956 ================================================
FR> Date : 16 Nov 10 23:12:12
FR> From : Joe Delahaye 1:249/303
FR> To : Ross Cassell
FR> Subject : Votes received.
FR> --------------------------------------------------------
FR> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
FR> Re: Votes received.
FR> By: Ross Cassell to Michiel van der Vlist on Tue Nov 16 2010 18:22:5
>> I protest in the name of protocol..
>> If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules.. Changing
>> the rules with a vote in progress is unheard of.
FR> I have to agree with that. Once a vote is cast, it is done.
What happens if a voter casts his/her vote and then dies
before his/her vote is counted? The vote still counts, since
there is no rule against dead people voting. :)
FR> == 39014 ================================================
FR> Date : 17 Nov 10 00:04:00
FR> From : Michael Luko 1:266/512
FR> To : Michiel Van Der Vlist
FR> Subject : Votes received.
FR> --------------------------------------------------------
FR> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
->> Hmmm... I don't know. There is no provision in the rules for
->> changing a vote thais already cast. OTOH, the rules do not forbid
->> it either. I lean towards allowing it, but only if there are no
->> serious objections from the constituency. It will set a precedent
->> either way. So let me sleep on it.
FR> I could see allowing a resubmission based on a technicality or
FR> misunderstanding but not just based on how the voting is proceding.
You can't have it both ways. Either the dead can vote, or the dead
cannot vote. So which is it? Some dead can vote, while other dead
cannot vote? Some dead can vote multiple times, and some can vote
only once, or not at all? My gosh, what about the living? Do the
living have any rights? Any rights at all?
FR> Unless you are in a vote for one amongst different candidates and the
FR> candidate in which the voter voted dropped out of the race. Then I
FR> could see allowing those who voted for the dropped candidate to
FR> resubmit a vote amongst the remaining candidates. I had a case last
FR> year where I wasn't very clear that on my regional feed back poll
FR> that each candidate was up for election. So I allowed those who only
FR> voted for one candidate to resubmit their ballot indicating a vote
FR> for each candidate unless of course they were actually abstaining
FR> on that candidate.
Oh, my. A candidate who concedes (or dies before his/her time)
can still win the election if the dead rise from their graves and
put him/her in office! Imagine that! The Walking Dead elect their
own ...
FR> If you allow changes based on the way someone doesn't like the way
FR> the results are going. You could run into the problem well so and so
FR> was able to change their vote because they didn't like the way things
FR> were going then I can do the same. We could have an never ending
FR> election process with everyone constantly changing ballots.
Oh what fun that would be! Now if only sysops would have thought
of that neat idea when piecing together P4 ...
FR> == 39008 ================================================
FR> Date : 17 Nov 10 00:09:56
FR> From : Jon Justvig 1:298/5
FR> To : Ross Cassell
FR> Subject : Votes received.
FR> --------------------------------------------------------
FR> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
>> Of course you could make the balloting secret, only publishing the
>> results after the election concluded, that would be a viable option.
>> I can see you balking at this, but you could publicly acknowledge in
>> here... "RC such and such voted" But dont publish the actual vote,
>> until it is all tallied and too late.
FR> I really agree with this. Seeing votes will also tell others to vote
FR> for this person and not this person. It done secretly and having the
FR> final vote seems like the fair way to me. Like pick a number out of
FR> a jar, if you win you win.
FR> <g>
FR> Sincerely,
FR> Jon Justvig
As long as I am the one counting the vote I really like that idea!
I picks the number, I counts the number, I reveals the number ...
FR> == 39015 ================================================
FR> Date : 17 Nov 10 00:17:00
FR> From : Michael Luko 1:266/512
FR> To : Ross Cassell
FR> Subject : Votes received.
FR> --------------------------------------------------------
FR> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
->> You also leave room open for others (RC's and REC's) to also want
->> to change their vote.
->> As it is, with each vote you receive, you ack it then follow it
->> with a tally of all votes counted thus far, including the one you
->> acked, now if you allow Bjorn to recast, you are going to have to
->> just allow others to recast, then you get a pissing match if others
->> decide to recast ballots to counteract other recast votes..
->> Dont open the box Pandora!
FR> Or opening a can of worms. :) The voting could go on forever and no
FR> where fast.
Will it go 'round in circles?
FR> == 39011 ================================================
FR> Date : 17 Nov 10 00:20:48
FR> From : Jon Justvig 1:298/5
FR> To : Joe Delahaye
FR> Subject : Votes received.
FR> --------------------------------------------------------
FR> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
>> Re: Votes received.
>> By: Ross Cassell to Michiel van der Vlist on Tue Nov 16 2010 18:22:5
>>> I protest in the name of protocol..
>>> If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules.. Changing
>>> the rules with a vote in progress is unheard of.
>> I have to agree with that. Once a vote is cast, it is done.
FR> Sounds like a few kids in kindergarden to me. <g>
"Changing the rules with a vote in progress" worked out great
in the former USSR. So great that Venezuela and Cuba continue
to oh eait a minute this is fido ...
FR> Sincerely,
FR> Jon Justvig
FR> == 38939 ================================================
FR> Date : 17 Nov 10 01:40:37
FR> From : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555
FR> To : Ross Cassell
FR> Subject : Votes received.
FR> --------------------------------------------------------
FR> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
FR> Hello Ross,
FR> On Tuesday November 16 2010 18:22, you wrote to me:
MV>>> Hmmm... I don't know. There is no provision in the rules for
MV>>> changing a vote thais already cast. OTOH, the rules do not
MV>>> forbid it either. I lean towards allowing it, but only if there
MV>>> are no serious objections from the constituency. It will set a
MV>>> precedent either way. So let me sleep on it.
RC>> I protest in the name of protocol..
FR> Noted. And as someone with voting rights your opinion carries weight.
Beware. Ross is a fan of The Walking Dead.
RC>> If it is not in the rules, then it is not in the rules..
FR> Indeed, it is not in the rules. They do not explicitly allow nor
FR> forbid it. So it can go either way.
There is only one way to get rid of the walking dead ...
RC>> Changing the rules with a vote in progress is unheard of.
FR> There is a difference between changing the rules and changing a vote.
The only rules that matter are the rules that are enforced.
FR> Changing the rules while the game is afoot is unheard of. Changing a
FR> vote is not. Not in this part of the world anyway.
In Bush v. Gore, neither the rules of the game nor the vote were
changed. Istead, a new election was conducted, with Bush winning
by a score of 5-4, with the votes from the other election being
disallowed.
FR> Changing a once cast vote is only problematic when votes are anonymous,
That is pure poppycock, as even those who post anonymously are real
people. An individual who owns a node can go by any name that he/she
chooses to go by and still be the very same individual.
FR> as in that case it is not possible to know what the originally cast vote
was
FR> that is to be retracted. In open elections this problem does not exist, so
FR> I see no basic problem.
No individual can own more than one node in fidonet.
Or rather, within the same region in fidonet.
But that is only for show, not the actual reality.
Given there are presently four regions in fidonet, it
is theoretically possible for one individual to own
four nodes. Therefore, it is possible for one individual
to have four votes, and winning four elections to the
same post.
FR> As a matter of fact, my RC - responding to my recomendation to consult
FR> the region - is now collecting votes from the sysops in the region
FR> over this very election. One sysop casted a vote that he retracted
FR> next day and cast a new one. My RC accepted. So it is not unheard of.
See there? Multiple votes are allowed. Even if they are from dead
people.
RC>> I submit:
RC>> Had the 2 no votes not been cast, Bjorn would not be pleading to
RC>> change his, therefore his regret over his own vote, is a sad
RC>> consequence.
FR> Possibly. It is however not for the vote collector or anyone else to
FR> question the motives of the voter. The same applies to a voter who
FR> requests a change of vote. When we deny it to one, we must deny it to
FR> all. When we allow it for one, we must allow it for all. Irrespective
FR> of the voter's motives.
FR> Let's sleep on it.
Bedtime for Bonzo. Playtime begins. :)
FR> == 39083 ================================================
FR> Date : 17 Nov 10 09:22:28
FR> From : Jon Justvig 1:298/5
FR> To : Björn Felten
FR> Subject : Votes received.
FR> --------------------------------------------------------
FR> AREA:FTSC_PUBLIC
>>> I really agree with this. Seeing votes will also tell others to
>>> vote for this person and not this person.
>> I totally agree. I was thinking wrongly. In the Swedish governmental
>> elections you can vote as many times you like, the votes are given a
>> time stam and the latest vote counts. But that's a closed election,
>> in an open election like this, of course you should not be allowed
>> to change your vote once it's being passed.
>> Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I stand corrected. Please forget my
Had it not been for Mayor Daley counting dead voters in Chicago,
JFK never would have been elected president. Think about that and
what would have happened if the dead would have stayed dead. Nixon
would have placed Checkers in charge and made poo poo out of us all.
--Lee
--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
* Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)
|