[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Raising the number of ballots cast...
I don't usually bother according your posts with a response... but your
points do deserve comment here:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Bradley and all,
> I see several problems with this methodology and "Bot Product"
> of Kents.
> 1. ) Does not provide for secret balloting
This is an assembly, which implies to me a legislative body (truncated,
but nevertheless a legislative body). Therefore, why should ballots be
cast secretly? that would be for the At-Large Membership, not the
> 2.) Does not provide for non-refutable ballot checking
huh? A list of eligable voters and their email addresses are entered and
the gate is opened. Out come the ballots. If you're a spoofed address, You
don't get that ballot - someone else might, but you won't.
> 3.) I not a broad enough method as it only provides for votes to come
> from members of the DNSO GA
No. My understanding is that is provides for whomever you add to the
> 4.) Is too easily rigged to produce a certain result.
How so? If your referring to the way Joop used to editorialize things on
the ballot in the JDNO, Well, there just needs to be some simple controls
in place as to how the actual wording and editing processes will take
place with regards to the various referendums.
> 5.) Does not provide for oversight by a neutral party.
It doesn't? What system does, when you really get right down to it. Even
Jimmy Carter can't guarantee elections completely free of voter fraud or
government intervention. What about Chicago? Don't dead people and pets
still vote there? And how many people were living in the Mayors house in
Compton California during the most recent elections?
> 6.) Is untested in a reasonable manner.
times a wasting isn't it?
Rest assured JW, if you meet the requirements to belong to this list once
there are rules in place, I will make it a point to support voting rights
for one of your 65 million personalities.
Everyone here knows that one of em is real.
> IDNO Bootstrap wrote:
> > One small note:
> > the nice thing about a mechanism such as Kent's VoteBot is that those who
> > are members of the list who may not be actively monitoring are reminded
> > that there is an election pending, are sent the referendum, actually
> > receive the ballot in their hand, and merely have to (I assume) fill it
> > out and send it back.
> > No browsing, or anything, it just goes out with the regular email batch.
> > I can't think of a simpler method of voting, or for that matter, of
> > raising voter awareness and participation - they don't even have to pay
> > attention to the cacophany here.
> > Anyone else have thoughts on this "Type" of methodology?
--Bradley D. Thornton MCSE; MCT.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org (or direct:)