Difference between revisions of "Voting"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
791 bytes added ,  14 years ago
no edit summary
 
imported>TheTrucker
'''Voting Mechanics''' is concerned with the polling system itself as opposed to the methodology used in selecting between various choices. There is a certain irrelvancy as to the method of selection (IRV, Ranked Choice, Condorset, or whatever) when one focuses instead on the integrity of the actual system employed to gather and count the ballots. And these "mechanisms" are the subject of this article. Stalin said "It doesn't matter who votes. It matters who counts the votes." And that is the best introduction we can have concerning the subject of this article and, perhaps further articles concerned with specifying an incorruptible mechanism for ascertaining the will of the people.
'''Voting Mechanics''' is concerned with the polling system itself as opposed to the methodology used in selecting alternatives.
 
==Initial Provisions==
Stalin said "It doesn't matter who votes. It matters who counts the votes." And that is the best introduction I can give you concerning the purpose of this page and, perhaps further pages concerned with specifying an incorruptible on line polling system.
 
Let us understand that until it can be proved the most paranoid among us there will be paper ballots do be caressed and fondled and lovingly handled by lots of people in suits and high heels. Not to worry.
There is a certain irrelvancy as to the method of polling (IRV, Ranked Choice, Coraset (or whaever that is) or plurality or whatever when one focuses instead on the mechanics and the integrity of the systems. And as a first installment on what I want to create I will say that in my utopian system we can all count the votes. Stalin will not like it but most of us would probably disagree with him.
 
Let us understand that limiting authority is equal to limiting corruption and to the extend that mechanisms are non authoritarian then to that extend are they non corrubtible.
 
Let us understand that in an incorruptible system of voting/polling that all participants (all voters) are granted '''READ''' access to the balot box such that they can all "''count the votes''" in whatever way we wish.
 
Let us understand that annonimity must be provided for those who desire it but that in specific cases where a voter wishes to claim fraud or corruption then annonimity of such claimant must be forfeit.
Let us understand that each of us is in authority to determine whether or not our vote is in the ballot box and whether or not the ballot reflects our actual selection(s), and there is a suitible and generally acceptable method by which we can prove the contrary should it become necessary.
 
I will specify right here and now but, perhaps, subject to change after initial hurdles are cleared that there will be paper ballots do be caressed and fondled
and lovingly handled by lots of people in suits and high heels. Not to worry.
But the actual counting of, or perhaps it is best described as the evaluation of, the result is done by computers in one way or another and by as many people who wish to do it. It is not like computers are such a big mystry any more. We all have one or we wouldn't by reading this.
 
Anonymous user
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.

Navigation menu