Re: [registrars] Re: Ballot should be secret until the end of thevot ing period.

[Michael Brody <mbrody@tldsystems.com>]

I also would like to see the voting results kept secret until the ballot 
has closed. 

Michael Brody


On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> here is the text from nikolaj's email (a bit further back in the thread)
> 
>     "Ascio would like to second Bob's motion, that voting results are kept
> secret
> until the ballot is closed.
> 
> 'Open' voting during the ballot has absolutely nothing to do with openness
> nor transparency.
> Indeed a case can be made that it will subject the voting to regimen."
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
> To: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>
> Cc: "Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.com>; "Nikolaj Nyholm" <nikolajn@ascio.com>;
> "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>; "Registrar Constituency"
> <registrars@dnso.org>; <brunner@nic-naa.net>
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 10:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Re: Ballot should be secret until the end of the
> vot ing period.
> 
> 
> > Ken,
> >
> > I'm not sure what the proposal is, it would help if there was text.
> >
> > I'll skip the irony of using mechanism-X to vote not to use mechanism-X
> > due to a claim of defect in mechanism-X.
> >
> > I won't skip the question "What is mechanism-Y"? Personally, I really do
> > favor crayon, etcetera, and circumstance-aware process over rigid
> mechanism.
> >
> > On the question of access to ballots, etc.
> >
> > I know secret, winner-take-all, single-tier elections are familiar to some
> > registrars, from one civic environment, and several similar to it. This
> > doesn't mean it is better, simply different, from other forms of voting.
> >
> > One of the "pros" of that form is that campaigns only have polling data
> > to change effectively outcomes.
> >
> > One of the "cons" of that form is that votors only have outcome-data to
> > effectively detect campaigns.
> >
> > If (this is a hypothetical) there was effective campaigning, which had as
> > its consequences, both a change in the total turn-out, and the allocation
> > of the incremental turn-out, that distinguishes the non-tie 2nd vote from
> > the tied 1st, an "open process" model would have allowed the existance of
> > that campaign (or campaigns) to be inferred from the live data, allowing
> > both tactial changes by competiting campaigns, and ballot switches by
> voters.
> > In the "closed process" model, the data would have only forensic value.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> 
> 
>