Timeline for Values Based Election System: The issue with 1st time candidates
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 2, 2021 at 2:35 | vote | accept | Nosajimiki | ||
| Feb 18, 2020 at 21:20 | comment | added | Muuski | Voter turn out is low as it is, how do you think that would be affected if it takes even longer to learn the system before finally spending upwards of an hour to vote? Just the waiting in line for a spot would be a nightmare. Your candidates would be chosen by the 1% who bother to show up, I wonder which one it will be....? | |
| Feb 18, 2020 at 16:02 | history | edited | Nosajimiki | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 259 characters in body
|
| Feb 18, 2020 at 15:46 | comment | added | Nosajimiki | I see your concerns which are certainly worth a follow up question later, but in keeping with the 1-question policy, let's just focus on the candidate values allocation issues for this one. | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 23:08 | comment | added | AlexP | The point is not that the computerised system is deterministic etc. The point is that you must be able to prove in court that it worked correctly, that it was not hacked, that the intentions of the electorate were accurately captured etc. You must be able to provide an audit trail. No audit trail, no trust. This is how it is. | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 23:01 | comment | added | Nosajimiki | As your wiki link states: "Errors can be found or introduced from human factors, such as transcription errors, or machine errors, such as misreads of paper ballots. Alternately, tallies may change because of a reinterpretation of voter intent." A computerized system is deterministic and repeatable. Sure a lot of people won't trust it at first, but the same could be said of nearly any new way of doing things. | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 22:22 | answer | added | Adam Reynolds | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 21:41 | comment | added | AlexP | Election recount. Voter verified paper trail. List of UK Parliamentary election petitions, with multicolored results. It is important for an election to be verifiable. | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 21:38 | comment | added | Nosajimiki | There are plenty of ways to verify the data without seeing the raw data, I just did not want to make an already long question 3 times as long as it needs to be. As for faith: we already rely on that. I don't know about you've but I've never gotten to count paper ballots to confirm an election. | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 21:03 | comment | added | AlexP | Welcome comrade Stalin! So that's it, closed record. To be taken on faith. Truly those who vote do not count, what counts is those who count the vote. The dream of all dictators ever. Trust me, the database is correct. Sorry no, you cannot verify that it is correct. | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 20:59 | comment | added | Nosajimiki | That is where digital age technology comes in. The database of results itself can be a closed record, while certain aggregate values (how many votes you got) would be public. The question process is determined and made public before the election, and is verifiable after it simply by requarying the database following the agreed scoring system. When using a 100% digital voting system, querying 323,847,192 records and coming up with that exact result each time is WAY easier than with paper so recounts are pointless in most cases. | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 20:26 | answer | added | EDL | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 20:24 | comment | added | AlexP | Sorter explanation: the result of the election must be proved publicly. Otherwise it is not an election, it's an arbitrary assignment. | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 20:20 | comment | added | AlexP | Of course they know on which values they were elected. Election happens, A is elected, B is not. B contests the election. The electoral authority must show in open court that A is a better match. They must provide (1) all the answers of all the constituents; (2) the set of values computed for A and the set of values computed for B; (3) the computation which shows that A is a better match than B. How else could they do it? Quite soon those tables and computations will be provided as a matter of course without waiting for a contestation. As today they provide the detailed tally of the votes. | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 19:59 | comment | added | Nosajimiki | I don't see your point, if you vote for a person's values, rather than their persona, then all they have to do to represent the people who elected them is be themself, and do what they already think is right in each situation. They don't know which values they got elected based on, just that they were the right combination of values to win. | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 19:40 | comment | added | AlexP | You do of course realize that the system requires each and every adult in the country to provide a written, detailed and authenticated set of answers to the most intimate and delicate questions, to be kept for reference in the permanent record. This is necessary because otherwise it would be impossible to prove that a winner or loser of the election was the correct winner or loser. | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 19:35 | comment | added | AlexP | The biggg problem with this is that in a representative democracy, the representatives are supposed to represent their constituents, and not the opinions of their constituents. That is, a representative is supposed to be a complete person, with a mind of their own, capable of making decisions and taking the best positions in the interest of the country; they are not supposed to be slaves of the opinion polls, and they are not supposed to put the whims of their constituents ahead of the reasoned interests of the country. And remember that the people at large are very conservative... | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 19:19 | answer | added | user71781 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 19:08 | history | asked | Nosajimiki | CC BY-SA 4.0 |