>> By a voting system "of the public sphere", I mean... Dave Ketchum wrote:
> I do not see voters getting a choice. Whoever has power or > authority sets up the system. Voters, at most, can choose whether > to participate and/or complain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sphere We're using different definitions. There's no power or authority to speak of in the public sphere. Consider this analogy with another another domain in the public sphere - that of the press: voter = journalist voting systems = broadcast media + Weblog software secret ballot = anonymous authorship Consider enforcing anonymity on all press systems (type 1), such that journalists can no longer attach their names to news articles. You see, it is impossible. There is going to be a mix of types, and in fact it is: 1. Economist, etc. 2. Weblogs, many smaller newspapers, etc. 3. New York Times, etc. Type 2 predominates, meaning the journalist decides whether to reveal her identity. In any case, journalists have the choice of where to post their articles, and are always free to start their own papers, Weblogs, etc. Likewise for voting systems in the public sphere. The state cannot enforce a pure type 1 (secret ballot) system. Voters will choose which system to vote in, and thus choose their own level and mix of restrictions. (Aside - it follows that we're building these systems exclusively for the convenience of voters, and we should expect a radical departure in designs.) > I start below with a couple examples of true type 1 secrecy. This has > serious need, though other methods with the ability can be managed with > MUCH care as to details. Agreed, but only for voting systems on the government/administrative side - as usually discussed in this list. (This thread is mostly not about those.) > The society [club] can give up on the secrecy if its members agree > that there is no value in the secrecy (they must have seen need or > they would never have invested the effort). Agreed, but this differs from an individual member having choice of secret|open for a particular vote, and from a choice of which system to cast the vote in. These differences distinguish an administrative voting system (in the club), from the voting systems of the public sphere (outside the club). >>> Proxies? There is need for a verifiable record as to how many votes a >>> proxy can cast. >> >> etc... > > My point was that if the proxy claims to have 14 votes, self plus > permission by 13 voters must be provable. I see... The verification process rests on proving the individual votes of each voter (including the delegates). Then all the rest - the flow of 13 additional votes through the delegate, and the overall flow in the cascade - follows from the individual votes. Does this answer? Or are you interested in technical details of proving the individual votes? -- Michael Allan Toronto, 647-436-4521 http://zelea.com/ ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info