Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Validating Voters For Open Source Governance, In Person

Posted by timothy on from the knock-knock-it's-the-neighbors dept.

An anonymous reader writes "As we (very gradually) move away from feudal, leader-based forms of governance to collaborative and open source governance, some interesting new issues arise. The biggest is usually user authentication: how can we avoid sock-puppets and spammers from overtaking the voting process? Enter the concept of the streetwiki, an ingenious system for having humans validate their physical neighbors. Bleeding-edge social organization meets ancient validation protocol."

36 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. Seeing more of my neighbors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    But I do my best to avoid them, they're terrible people!

  2. This is basically how US elections work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At least in California, there's no requirement for ID (nor should there be).. however, you do have to announce your name and address out loud to the election official at the poll before they let you sign in. (some people find this weird.. you're working the polls, and people come in and just show you their sample ballot or ID, and you tell them.. gotta say it out loud)..

    The idea is that a poll watcher (a neighbor, for instance) could, at that time, say, "hey, that isn't John Smith who lives on Cherry Lane", triggering a provisional vote for that person. The provisional ballot has a signature on it and gets comared against the signature on file at the county.

    1. Re:This is basically how US elections work by wulfmans · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, everybody should show ID to vote. You need ID to open a bank account, get insurance. buy booze. hell you even need ID to go to an Obama rally. Gimme a break.
      getting an ID should be FREE. So everybody can have one.
      Oh...... unless your an illegal person here who CANNOT legally vote anyway.

    2. Re:This is basically how US elections work by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      What you wrote about poll watchers sounds good, but that's not how it works, at least, not in California. I know, because I helped run various polls in Los Angeles for over a decade. The only people who may challenge a person's right to vote are the people running the poll. A poll watcher (or somebody waiting their turn to vote) has the right to object to somebody who they don't think should be allowed to vote, but only a part of the precinct's staff can make a formal challenge.

      Once, I remember allowing a man to use a provisional ballot to quiet him down, although I knew it wouldn't be accepted. He had told me already that he'd moved out of the precinct over six months ago, never bothered to re-register and was insisting that he be allowed to vote. Sorry, but he'd had ample time to re-register and the law says that he can only vote in his old precinct if he moved after registration closed. I let him vote, sealed the ballot in a provisional envelope and wrote the circumstances on the back. I'd bet money on long odds that the ballot ended up being shredded unopened.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    3. Re:This is basically how US elections work by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      >>>there's no requirement for ID (nor should there be)..

      I agree 100%! I want to be able to vote for Mitt Romney at least 5 times, and these damn voter-ID laws are making that difficult. Curses. Foiled again.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:This is basically how US elections work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And when the IDs are free and don't require any time to get them, then you can require photo IDs. At the moment there's no evidence that voter fraud, as in people pretending to be other people, is common enough to justify disenfranchising other voters. The GOP trots that out whenever they lose a close race, but the fact is that they have yet to show that there's any greater likelihood for one candidate or another to win based upon voter fraud or for it to of substantial volume.

      It's quite simply a way of discouraging the poor, elderly and minorities from voting for political reasons. If there's evidence of significant levels of voter fraud then the GOP has the duty to report it so that the individuals can be prosecuted. They don't because they can't.

    5. Re:This is basically how US elections work by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      My state requires a photo ID. The poll watcher looks at me, then my photo, then at me before she allows me to proceed.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:This is basically how US elections work by artor3 · · Score: 2

      Oh come on, you accuse him of drinking the "cool aid" (sic) and then start spouting off this conspiracy nonsense about non-citizen voters and rigging elections? Where is your evidence? Why would the Democrats even risk such scandal in a state that reliably votes for them to begin with?

      Stop listening to right-wing radio. They are poisoning your brain.

    7. Re:This is basically how US elections work by jpapon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right now in the USA there are close to 3 million dead people who are registered to vote and voting

      That's the kind of claim that needs a citation.

      You'll never, ever guess which party they overwhelmingly vote for. That's right... Democrats.

      Good thing I wouldn't have to guess, if you would provide a citation.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    8. Re:This is basically how US elections work by artor3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Interesting. How is it, exactly, that you know that they overwhelmingly vote for Democrats? Given the fact that, as you surely know, US elections use a secret ballot. Come on, tell us! How the fuck could you know who these "dead people" are voting for??"

      Could it be that you're just repeating some lie you heard? And that you're too stupid to even make the mental connection necessary to realize that it is completely impossible for that claim to be factual?

      In all honesty, you disgust me. You talk all big and smart, condescending to those "well-meaning liberals who sincerely and completely wrongly believe" things, when the truth is you have the mental acuity of a dog, and like all good dogs, you're just doing what your master tells you. You were blessed at birth with the ability to reason. Don't let that gift go to waste.

    9. Re:This is basically how US elections work by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whether it's Slashdot or anywhere else, it is the responsibility of the one making a claim, in particular an extraordinary one, to provide the evidence. Now I realize you probably hold every other poster in contempt, otherwise you wouldn't make such a claim and then evade your responsibilities. But I hope you never imagine that you didn't show yourself for who you truly are.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:This is basically how US elections work by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And when the IDs are free and don't require any time to get them, then you can require photo IDs. At the moment there's no evidence that voter fraud, as in people pretending to be other people, is common enough to justify disenfranchising other voters. The GOP trots that out whenever they lose a close race, but the fact is that they have yet to show that there's any greater likelihood for one candidate or another to win based upon voter fraud or for it to of substantial volume.

      It's quite simply a way of discouraging the poor, elderly and minorities from voting for political reasons. If there's evidence of significant levels of voter fraud then the GOP has the duty to report it so that the individuals can be prosecuted. They don't because they can't.

      Uh, until you stop being ignorant why don't you just let the adults speak on this?

      Right now in the USA there are close to 3 million dead people who are registered to vote and voting.

      Dead, deceased, buried and/or cremated people. Voting. Close to 3 million .. that we know about.

      You'll never, ever guess which party they overwhelmingly vote for. That's right... Democrats.

      Now these are facts. Maybe you really hate them and can't stand they are true. They are true anyway - get over yourself. I would LOVE to have state-issued photo ID required to vote. It would be great. Photo IDs are very low cost. If you simply cannot afford $10 every 5 years or so then you have bigger problems.

      And of COURSE no one who's willing to commit voter fraud would be willing to do something so shocking as obtaining a fake ID. Only teenagers that want to get into bars or buy alcohol would do that.

      And even if an ID were to cost $10 (in my state it's $25) it would also require taking a trip to town/city hall or a DMV/RMV which depending on where you are and how busy it is, may require the better part of a day waiting in line. For someone that's working two jobs or more (say two full time and a part time job) that may be a real hardship.

      The only people who are against this are 1) racists who think just because you're black or Hispanic that you cannot afford $10 every 5 years or so, 2) people who want to commit voter fraud, 3) Democrats who benefit from voter fraud, or 4) well-meaning liberals who sincerely and completely wrongly believe that photo ID requirements would ever disenfranchise anyone. You see, none of these are valid.

      While we're at it, let's try to defray the costs of the election by requiring each voter to chip in a few bucks when they put their ballot in the box. Surely everyone can afford $1 per election, right? There's nothing wrong with that, right?

      Like so many good ideas that we should already be doing, the people who oppose this have no factual reason. Just pure emotion. They don't like something so they think none of the facts are worth investigating. Sigh. Maybe a country full of people like this deserves to fail. Maybe those of us with some sense who understand basic things like the importance of honest elections should find another country to relocate to and let the emotional non-thinkers reap what they sow.

      I can think of other alternatives. One such alternative would be to send everyone a ballot through the mail in a nondescript envelope (basically expanding the existing absentee ballot process to everyone) and requiring them to fill in the ballot at the polling place. This would be easier if election day was a federal holiday and/or employers were required by law to allow workers time off to vote. Now true, people who are willing to commit voter fraud may also be willing to commit mail fraud ... but if the envelopes are nondescript, the person committing the voter and mail frauds would need to intercept all the mail, and that's more likely to be noticed.

    11. Re:This is basically how US elections work by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-10/pew-study-inaccurate-voter-registration-rolls/53083406/1

      it's not what the op claimed, but it isn't exactly refuting it either. I like how they even point to 106% of the last census (less then 2 years ago) being registered to vote in one Ohio county. At first glance, you might think well, that's only 6% over, but think of the children or the lack of children for it to be that simple.

    12. Re:This is basically how US elections work by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is a far cry from what the previous poster claimed. The fact that voter rolls are not purged is not the same as fraudulent votes being cast.

      Recall the 2000 election in Florida, with over-zealous purging of the rolls to eliminate potential felons ("similar names"). You can go too far in either direction without an agenda.

    13. Re:This is basically how US elections work by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At least in California, there's no requirement for ID (nor should there be)..

      Uh...
      Why? For the love of all that's ... why? In Canada it's a requirement to have ID to vote. And it's to stop flagrant voter fraud that runs amok like you have in the US now. Here's how it works here: At tax time you are given the option to give your personal information to elections canada via your taxes. This information is passed to the provincial branch of elections canada. If you weren't of age at the time, you can be enrolled when the next election comes along(very rare but it happens). When you show up at the polling station, you show government issued ID. Or two current bills(last 30 days), showing that you live in that district. Everyone has ID of some form up here. There are also a few other things you can use. Once that happens, your name is stricken from the voter register and the ballot is used up.

      No wonder voting in the US is a mess.

      Hey, someone earlier up wanted a source on that 3 million dead? Here, well it's 1.8 million, give or take a bit. Though it might be more, with 24 million more listed as inaccurate, and several million more registered illegally. Including non-americans.

      Voter ID works. GET IT.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    14. Re:This is basically how US elections work by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would just like to gently remind the thread and slashdot in general that this article is NOT about the US. Yes in any conversation about voting and elections the US is an important example, but these conversations that gradually devolve into talking about the fine details of voter laws in florida and california and then inevitably to flamewars about the relative merits of the dems vs the republicans are offtopic and irrelevant. The article is about using distributed semantic networks to verify the identities of individuals for the purpose of voting.

    15. Re:This is basically how US elections work by jon3k · · Score: 2

      There were 11 million illegal immigrants in the US in 2008. Try again.

    16. Re:This is basically how US elections work by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Oh come on, you accuse him of drinking the "cool aid" (sic) and then start spouting off this conspiracy nonsense about non-citizen voters and rigging elections? Where is your evidence? Why would the Democrats even risk such scandal in a state that reliably votes for them to begin with?

      Do a little digging into politics and corruption and the voting rolls over the decades in Chicago...and get back to me on that with reference to election rigging and fraud. That should give you a good example of what HAS been seen to have taken place in recent history.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  3. open source governance? validating neighbours? by mister2au · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a joke, right?

    Representative governments work because people has better things to do than ALL be involved with EVERYTHING.

    That is a sure way destroy an economy and then destroy a social by being controlled by vocal minority wackos - in fact, I'd suggest that some people would view current governments as already being too driven by vocal minorities.

    1. Re:open source governance? validating neighbours? by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually the biggest reason we don't all vote on every last issue is that we can't all live in one city and meet in one place. The Internet fixes that problem. Yes there are other problems, but don't discount the ability to have your say in things that matter! Look at the US presidency, it is a sham bought by corporate money, rarely is either candidate any good, but you have no choice in the matter. Wouldn't it be nicer to have your say in things that matter to you, issue by issue.

      Just to open your mind a bit: If a citizen likes the idea of representative democracy in this system, they can merely shift their voting rights to someone they trust. In this way, people who are trusted become your elected official.

      By no means do I think this would be a perfect government. But it would be a different government and if it played out for a few decades in just a simulated form, lots of the problems could be ironed out, or the idea could be scrapped altogether. One thing I theorize it is even nice for is piggybacking an existing government. The people say what they want, and you can check against what elected officials are doing. If elected officials are going against the direct democracy people and there are enough direct democracy people, the elected official can be voted out.

      There is so much to this and it is so interesting of a topic that it shouldn't just be written off.

      --
      God spoke to me
    2. Re:open source governance? validating neighbours? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is it with this idea that everyone has an obligation to vote and that making voting as easy as possible is automatically a good thing? I think it is immoral to vote when you don't understand the first thing about the candidates or the issues involved, and if you don't have time to get educated about it, then you should sit it out. At least picking a representative has the advantage that any candidate who gets as far as a major election has by then been at least somewhat vetted by the party organization, media etc and should in theory have more of a clue than the 'average' voter. Having EVERYBODY vote on whether the "2011 US bilateral investment treaty with Uruguay" should be signed or not, what percentage of the mortgage insurance premiums should be deductible from the tax return, and every other one of the million issues that come up to the legislators every year, would make great comedy but horrible governance.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    3. Re:open source governance? validating neighbours? by martin-boundary · · Score: 2
      It's important that EVERYBODY votes, even if they don't know what they're voting for. Why? Because if we let a small elite (^H^H^H informed people only) have the privilege of voting, then these people will control the world. However, in that direction lies empire and slavery.

      It's much better if anyone who wants to push an agenda has to convince millions of other people, of which most aren't listening or don't care. It makes it less certain that they'll be able to push through everything or anything that they want.

  4. The biggest problem? by WarSpiteX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is the biggest problem truly voter identification, rather than voter education?

    On another note, once people don't have leaders to blame, will we see increased societal polarization? Right now, hippie liberal wiener in Boston isn't blamed for abortion laws, just as frothing at the mouth nutjob conservative in New Mexico isn't blamed for gun laws. What sort of societal conflict would we see if neighbours, or at least neighbouring states, disagree on divisive issues?

    --


    I'm a little segfault, short and stout.
    1. Re:The biggest problem? by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 2

      It could definitely be a problem if everyone voting or discussing laws had their real name to them as opposed to an anonymous ID#. Even more so, the problem gets deeper than that though: What if a minority find itself in a position where it is oppressed by the majority? Would that minority get violent? The original idea behind US democracy was that the guy in charge changes every 4 years as to not need violent regime change.

      The key is, that making a direct democracy has many problems. You don't just institute it without exploring all the problems. But first creating a simulation of a direct democracy would be a great way to see what are all the problems with it. I don't think exploring it as an experiment is that bad of an idea. Just don't let any country officially download the ap for their government until it has been given like a 20-30 year analysis.

      --
      God spoke to me
    2. Re:The biggest problem? by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I strongly agree with that view. There is a lot of emphasis on getting vote counts correct, when there is substantial evidence that various misunderstandings or divergence in information can have a much bigger effect on elections than the quite small amount of voter fraud. It's not at all unusual on a given issue for 20-40% of the population (sometimes more!) to have factually incorrect views of an issue: not just disagreeing on policy, or being wrong on a politically-charged or subjective question, but just having the wrong information to start with. With those kinds of error rates, hand-wringing over "hanging chads" and such is like trying to get your measurement error down to +/-0.001% in a scientific experiment where your methodology is suspect and you're not quite sure what the material involved actually is. Yeah, you'll get a precise measurement, but of what?

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    3. Re:The biggest problem? by martin-boundary · · Score: 2
      Except that if you don't do the hand-wringing over 0.001%, then why should you bother doing it over 1% or even 30%? If one believes that 40% of voters have factually incorrect views, how much does an error of 30% really matter to one anyway?

      There's nothing wrong with getting the best possible measurement error in a scientific experiment. It means you've removed one additional source of error, and that's always a good thing even if sometimes it is not enough.

  5. I ran across this very problem too by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I eventually want to write a piece of software which allows for direct democracy. Everyone who has a computer or goes to the library can vote on bills, and tell their figure head officials how to act. You still need people as acting officials because sticking a robot in the UN is kinda silly for example. This isn't to change the US government, but if you have a piece of software that acts as direct democracy with customizable features for a constitution, any time some people overthrow their oppressive government, they could just go,"Hey, lets install direct democracy."

    Anyway the problems I've run across is:
    You need to authenticate users manually, so maybe the authenticator cards are good for people so stolen passwords can't stop you.

    But the bigger problem will be people doing MTM attacks and changing votes, or maybe hacking the system from out of the country, or buying citizen's voting rights.

    The main solution for some problems is:
    You need your own closed Internet in your country, a secure web, where people from outside the Internet can't log in.

    Sure sometimes someone will tap into the line on the telephone pole for MTM, but if you stop it, they get prison time.

    You gotta limit what a standard citizen's client can get to also, or people could just route from the internet to client to into the system.

    There are a WHOLE HOST of problems though... more than I can even imagine. There is just about no greater honeypot to a hacker than to become a leader of a country. The way I'm going to go about it involves not working on the security issues at first, but just working on the direct democracy system, so when the security issues can be addressed, the system could be altered or rewritten when it happens. Just having something as proof of concept is better than nothing at all.

    The street based community wiki seems pretty smart. It was better than my plan to start locally and get people to sign up in person, and for us to hand them a password.

    Probs is I have a few projects on my plate before I go back to this system again. If someone wants to start an open source form of government, I'm sure some country down the line will have a revolution and might be interested. So any work done here will be of benefit in the future.

    --
    God spoke to me
    1. Re:I ran across this very problem too by medcalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The software problems aren't the problems. Direct democracies fail because they inevitably result in mob rule. That and attacking Syracuse.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    2. Re:I ran across this very problem too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem may be 'pure' democracy. If like minded people gain the reins of power, our current US Constitution, and the tradition of Western Democracy, so far has put constraints and restraints on the winners such that they do not get to act in a 'winner takes all' fashion.

      Between conservatives and liberals, I don't know what scares me most: the possibility of the side I identify with gaining total control of the 3 US Banches of government, or the side I don't identify with.

      Which leads me to basis of my real fear: the masses. Masses often act like mobs, or the lowest common denominator. (Other than being low and common, I have no issue with the LCD).

      A general rule of thumb, is that in order to appeal to large numbers of people, the idea or at least the image needs to be simple and lacking sophistication.

      The proper response to my assertion would be for someone to whack me upside the head as they scoot buy on a skateboard, and one of their buds hollers "Awesome!"

    3. Re:I ran across this very problem too by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

      That way stupid shit like the TARP bill won't pass (80% of Americans were against it according to Gallup polling).

      If we don't trust voters to pick the right people to rep them, why would we trust them to make the right decision on individual bills? It's the same system with the same problems, you're just changing the kind of questions you're posing to it. Why is polling on bills better than polling on representatives? Are people better at judging bills than judging people? That's pretty much a complete inversion of the founders' vision, not that that's a bad thing, it's just a very radical idea, with very little reason to it.

      Voting is a small part of passing laws. The most important part of the process is the writing -- he who frames the question controls the process.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  6. There's nothing "ingenious" about this... by Cornwallis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is nothing more than a digital version of a Tammany Hall machine.

    Jezum H. Crow, paper ballots work fine. You're a solution in search of a problem.

    1. Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this... by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      My state uses scantrons. It has the advantages of both electronic voting (a quick tally by computer) and paper (hard to rig the election & provides an official tally in the event of a recount).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  7. not sure by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The way this works (as I understand it, simplified), is people eventually notice sock-puppets, un-trust them, and then the sock-puppets live off in their own un-trusted world that no one trusts.

    That might work on a fairly neutral topic, but imagine you notice there are sock-puppets who agree with your opinion on abortion, are you going to un-trust them, or are you going to create more yourself? After all, it's a matter of life-or-death, what are a few bogus accounts when such an important principle (insert any principle you believe strongly) is on the line??

    This plan doesn't seem to account that people would be willing to accept sock-puppets that agree with them. Also doesn't seem to realize that I have better things to do with my time than constantly update my 'trusted' list.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  8. The dream lives on! by fm6 · · Score: 2

    Leaderless government! Yeah right.

    Not a new idea. That's precisely how the U.S. Presidency was supposed to work: Congress would define policies (by consensus, political parties were considered uncool) and implemented by a chief executive (also chosen by consensus, hence our weird, unwieldy electoral college) who was not seen as a leader. That's why he's called a "president", because in 1789 the word didn't have connotations of leadership — it just meant "presiding officer". No longer true, of course.

    Government by consensus isn't going to happen as long as people are contentious and combative in defending their own views and attacking those they disagree with. A good government takes the ongoing nonviolent civil war that is social discourse in a free society (particularly on Slashdot) and uses it to synthesize a laws and policies the governed can mostly live with.

  9. Re:Reasons? by WarSpiteX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately it's not so much a matter of the ID itself as the onerous conditions that the Republican party wants to put on getting voter ID. Poor people don't always have a residence they've been at for a year along with three bills and other forms of ID.

    --


    I'm a little segfault, short and stout.
  10. Re:teenagers in their bedrooms by crutchy · · Score: 2

    i'm gunna vote for the first candidate to don a darth vader costume for the rest of his life, and to change the form of government to a galactic empire. of course i don't give a shit about the old guy with the self-inflicted wrinkly face