[pp.int.general] Online voting versus online discussion

[Hugo POINTILLART]

Not to mention simple social or work discrimination regarding wich  
side you voted...
secret vote is mandatory.

Le 11 déc. 12 à 17:27, Maxime Rouquet a écrit :

> On 12/11/2012 03:37 PM, Thomas Bruderer wrote:
>> Why should we be able to make secure bank transfers, but not secure  
>> voting?
>
> Because we trace individual bank transfers and because one can  
> oppose to
> a bank transfer within a few days.
>
> If you want to have secret voting then it is not possible to check  
> that
> your vote is taken rightly into account in the total... so your bank
> transfer parallel does not work.
>
> The key to understand why secret ballot electronic voting systems are
> wrong is the principle of control of the vote directly by the public.
> With a paper ballot vote (with all safeguards such as transparent  
> ballot
> box), anybody can observe the voting and counting procedures, and  
> check
> that everybody's vote is rightly taken into account.
>
> With electronic systems, whatever way you put it, everybody cannot  
> check
> by himself that their is no fraud at least at the level of his polling
> station. Sure there could in both case have fraud with lists of  
> voters,
> but apart from that paper ballots are the only way to achieve  
> secrecy of
> the vote together with the possibility for the public to control the
> full progress of the voting operations.
>
> So, yes, anything "done right" as you say is perfect. The problem is  
> to
> build a system where everything is right even if the people who run  
> the
> vote are desperately wanting to fraud ! Try to think this way  
> instead :
> find a voting procedure so secure that if gives the true result even  
> if
> a lot of people wanted to fraud including those who organised the  
> vote.
>
> All the electronic voting systems that would reach that for the public
> would have to breach, one way or the other, the secrecy of the vote.
>
> If you add to the equation that all citizens are not entirely reliable
> for a reason or the other, you have to rule out non-secret option.
>
> Assume, for instance, that some of the voters will be oppressed by bad
> people if they do not vote "rightly". Or, simply, that some persons  
> will
> "buy" votes they will have the ability to check (or even proceed
> themselves after buying the login), and you will end up with paper
> ballots as the only possible answer to avoid most types of fraud.
>
> Maybe in Switzerland the people are so rich and nice and used to
> democracy none of them would imagine putting pressure on voters,  
> buying
> votes or threatening other citizens to vote as they wish. But in many
> countries there are at least a few places where this is not true.
>
> I am not talking about Belarus here : in France, media are currently
> talking about political murders happening in Corsica. I can't wait to
> see what these murderers would do if the vote was not entirely  
> secret !
> (For the record, at the moment some focus on fake voters, for instance
> they don't declare deaths and make the gone people delegate their  
> vote.)
>
> Non-secret voting procedure would be a dream for any despot. It  
> could be
> useful not to forget that most states in the world are not democracies
> and not to start throwing in the trash fundamental principles such as
> secrecy of the vote and control by the public.
>
> Regards,
>
> m
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>