Validating Voters For Open Source Governance, In Person

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."

Comments

This is basically how US elections work

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[wulfmans]

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.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[jpapon]

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.

not sure

[phantomfive]

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.