Newspapers and other media have an agenda too, whether it be political bias, or the desire to make more money. Most (all?) have comprised their reporting, and continue to do so on a regular basis.
I think you mean "compromised". If you really did mean "comprised", then you need to reword your sentence. (What's doing the comprising? It's a little vague.)
I agree that more voices publishing their views is generally a good thing. The best of the bloggers are substantially better than the worst of the traditional reporters. Still, due to resources, training, and experience, the rare few (and I mean rare) traditional reporters with scruples can deliver news services that bloggers can only dream of. They certainly have their place. There simply isn't the huge categorical divide that they want to believe there is.
In general, low end reporters are better than low end bloggers. High end reporters are better than high end bloggers. Same for average reporters and bloggers. Not at all the same for any arbitrary pairing of reporters and bloggers.
IIA addresses the "spoiler candidate" issue. You cannot add one or more candidates to change the outcome. (This is opposite the way the criteria is phrased, but it's equivalent.) Thus, the election method itself cannot encourage or dissuade a candidate from running.
It also strikes me as essential to remove any and all incentive for strategic voting. The most effective tactic for a voter to deal with a spoiler candidate is, after all, the bluntest form of strategic voting: ignoring their true preference and voting for the lesser of two evils. It also allows the Condorcet Principle for the second, third, etc runners up (important in some races).
But, as the article points out, you're not alone in your conclusion. And yes, I'm still in favor of Condorcet methods, dispite Arrow's Theorum.
You can get, say, 100 friends, download the subversion repo and check that all your votes are counted in your copy of the repo.
You can check to see if the codes match. That's irrelevant. Every code can match in the entire repository. How does that confirm that those actual votes are in the official tally? It's that disconnect that I was pointing to.
As I've now written elsewhere in this thread: this article is the first I've seen to mention that zero-knowledge proofs may be involved with this system. There are many, many types of zero-knowledge proofs, and I don't see an obvious choice here. Until I can find an overview of the process used by this system, I won't be happy with it.
Hand waving is fine in general publications only as long as the details are readily accessible. I haven't found anything that discusses the algorithm and believe it is not easily obtained on the Internet. And no, reading source code does not count as "readily accessible". (It counts as barely accessible; it usually counts as obfuscated.) If I have to resort to reading source code to understand their claim, I'm going to scream.
If I found out that someone did that, I'd report them.
I would too. But if it really is a "friend of a friend", he may only be able to urge someone else to report them. Based on context, it is possible (even if unlikely) that she was reported.
You're not in a mood for literalists, and yet you still replied without carefully reading what I wrote.
... Post all of the codes that were counted, and which vote they represent.
Nope, can't do that. Not with this ballot anyway...
The ballot that you're imagining is different from the one they're proposing. You can't read all the codes on your ballot. You can only read the codes for the candidates and measures that you voted for. If those last two sentences didn't cause you to rethink your statement, then reread them. That's how this ballot is designed to work (for better or worse). You can log in after the election and view the codes associated with your specific ballot. The codes are too short to be a unique identifier unless they're combined with the ballot number.
We can discus what's possible all day long. We started out by discussing this specific system. If you'd like to talk about a different system that also uses codes on the ballot, then please describe it to me so that we can have a rational discussion about the merits and flaws of that system.
Being able to see your own code doesn't prove anything...
Sure it does. They cannot record the correct code unless your ballot has been processed. It doesn't mean that your vote was actually counted, though.
Now I don't know what exactly they put in the repository, or how it's meant to be used. But let's take a simple example of something one might do: Post all of the codes that were counted, and which vote they represent.
Nope, can't do that. Not with this ballot anyway. If you reveal which codes link to which candidates, you can prove how you've voted. That's exactly the type of problem they're trying to avoid.
... confirm that the number of codes attributed to "Yes" is greater than the number of codes attributed to "No", that the list contains my code,...
If you cannot link the codes to votes, you cannot directly verify the election. This is the first I've read about a zero-knowledge proof. I'm still trying to find details of how this is supposed to work in this system. I hope I don't have to resort to reading source code (the hardest way I can think to learn an algorithm). The few zero-knowledge proofs I'm familiar with simply wouldn't work, and it's a large field. I'm not going to be happy with it until somebody at least attempts an overview of this specific system and how it addresses voting issues.
... and that my code is attributed correctly to either "Yes" or "No"...
Can't be done, as explained above. On the other hand, I've read previously that they would let you intentionally void your ballot by filling in multiple bubbles to prove that each candidate on the ballot has a unique code. A replacement ballot would then be supplied. This is a crucial step to proving that your vote was actually read.
Fraud-proof? Nope. In a close race I might be able to stuff the ballot box with codes/votes that weren't on anybody's ballot...
Very true. There have been elections recently with >100% voter turn-out in select areas. Makes you wonder...
Actually, preferential voting (where you rank canidates) still keeps one big problem from our current system: the possibility of "throwing away your vote." You'd have to decide who to rank first: the candidate you really like, or the one you think can win. You don't want your vote for The Ideal Party to take votes away from The Tolerable Party and throw the election to The Horrid Party.
Not necessarily. You really should look up the Condorcet Principle (and corresponding methods, yes plural). The real problem with ranked choice voting is Arrow's Theorem. However you want to deal with Arrow's, I stand by the Condorcet Principle.
Range voting, on the other hand, lets you say "here's how much I like each candidate on a numerical scale." The "practical" candidate isn't hurt at all by your preference for an idealistic one.
This site gives a lot of info on why range voting tends to give the best outcome for the largest number of voters. They advocate for range voting to be used in any election - even school elections. I'd love to see it "trickle up," since it's clearly a better system.
Range Voting reduces down to approval voting. The failure to vote 100% for "Tolerable Party" Winds up hindering them in the same way that abstaining would. Smart voters would always vote 100% and 0% (most dumb voters would too). Now I'm not opposed to approval voting. It would be a major step in the right direction. Just don't kid yourself that range voting is all that special. It's just more confusing than it needs to be.
Now, can I start a flamewar about our system being inferior to Condorcet methods, please?
You have my vote.;)
Just about anything is better than first-past-the-post. I'm partial to the Condorcet Principle, but every time I bring it up, I either get blank stares, or get slapped with Arrows Theorem.
I don't honestly believe that if my choice McCain had won, anything would be any better. So what's it matter whether my vote was counted or not.
This is a major problem, but it is a separate issue. We can't have a healthy democracy without solving both of them. You can't tell me which needs to be solved first.
I know the Florida ballot count debacle wasn't all that long ago, but are we that concerned about votes not being counted?
(Implying issues about votes being lost accidentally)
.. and how you cannot trust people, especially what in politics and...
(I interpreted this as votes being lost intentionally; inline with my post)
I was pointing something out. It was both on-topic (closely related to your "simple answer"), and highly visible (near the top of the thread).
This is Slashdot. A reply doesn't need to be a direct response to be on topic. There'd be very little discussion if there were. Maybe I should have shoehorned my response, rephrasing it to more closely match the wording and context of your post. I thought that would have been superfluous. Two posts later, and it probably would have been cleaner if I did.
but does not provide them with any way to prove to anyone who they voted for.
But can I check to make sure not just that my vote "was counted" but that my vote was for the right person?
You can verify that your vote was received correctly. This still doesn't tell you that your vote winds up in the final tally. There's an important distinction there.
Clearly the state is spending lots of money on the education system.
Oh they are. We just can't figure out where all that money is going.
No, I mean it. Nobody actually knows where the billions of dollars set aside for education disappears to. The money is there, it just never reaches the classroom.
Oh, and California? What a perfect example. The Granola State (home of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes) deserves what they got for electing who they elected.
That's callous and unreasonable. (1) We haven't had any good alternatives in a long time. (2) Everyone is too caught up on the lesser-of-two-evils mentality brought about by our first-past-the-post method of election (I'd be surprised if you lived somewhere different in this regards). Combine that with gerrymandering, and congress stagnates. (3) California is said to have the 5th largest economy in the world. Our government hurts our economy (without question) which ripples throughout the rest of the states. (4) The country as a whole has a tendency to follow California's lead. This doesn't predict the future, but it's worrisome. (5) Only the federal government is more beholden to a plethora of special interest groups, making real action nearly impossible to mobilize. (6) Not every Californian voted for these idiots. You're blaming a lot of innocent people. Yes, I've voted for third party candidates before. (I'd support an actual third party if any of them reflected my political views.)
I'm not asking for an apology. Just be careful who you lump in with the "Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes".
I've reread the hierarchy of this post, and there is nothing whoosh worthy inherent to these posts. I must therefore assume I've trodden on a meme from elsewhere. (somehow inferred by Hognoxious, but not obvious to me)
It's either that, or you just like saying "whoosh".
We, as people, are a different animal altogether. We do have inherent, natural rights simply by virtue of our existence.
It's not as simple as that. I believe we do have inherent, natural rights, but it can't be by simply existing. Governments do exist. They may be collections of people, but they do exist.
The concept of natural rights stems from one of two principles:
Moral - People have inherent rights because God made us that way. Good people respect others.
Ethical - People have inherent rights because we each want to live in a society of peers that honors those rights. By honoring others' rights, we establish our own.
These are not mutually exclusive. Frankly, I think moral reasons work better, but ethical reasons are crucial.
a) If we knew "the inner workings" of said chips, it would give us a substantial boost. We'd no longer be wondering how something could work, only how to make it. We'd probably also be able to infer some of the decisions that eventually led to that design.
b) You should consider embracing your parenthetical statements with parenthesis:
I wonder if people from 2050 er 2060 where did the decade go? from 50 years in the future...
Becomes something like:
I wonder if people from 2050-- er 2060 (where did the decade go?)-- from 50 years in the future...
Ok, now you've got my attention. (seeing how there's no ground wire connection to the bulb...) How was your socket wired wrong, and how do you think that affected the CFL? (I am curious if there is a good answer to this.)
I urge caution with dimmable CFLs. Usually they aren't dimmable at all. As the ggp post said "And yes, any dimmable ones are crap. Even the quality dimmable ones can't be 'dimmed'." If you found an exception to that, then you're lucky. The rest of us want to know what brand you use, how long they've been installed, and how frequently you dim them. (and do they buzz?) As pointed out by cheesewire elsewhere in the thread, there are at least two different types of dimmers. Maybe some dimmers simply refuse CFLs.
I'm not arguing the point. Just clarifying. Slashdot has all kinds, including a great many who don't understand religion and are easily confused. My post really wasn't for your sake, but for others who may be confused by your words.
Slashdot Mirror
Newspapers and other media have an agenda too, whether it be political bias, or the desire to make more money. Most (all?) have comprised their reporting, and continue to do so on a regular basis.
I think you mean "compromised". If you really did mean "comprised", then you need to reword your sentence. (What's doing the comprising? It's a little vague.)
I agree that more voices publishing their views is generally a good thing. The best of the bloggers are substantially better than the worst of the traditional reporters. Still, due to resources, training, and experience, the rare few (and I mean rare) traditional reporters with scruples can deliver news services that bloggers can only dream of. They certainly have their place. There simply isn't the huge categorical divide that they want to believe there is.
In general, low end reporters are better than low end bloggers. High end reporters are better than high end bloggers. Same for average reporters and bloggers. Not at all the same for any arbitrary pairing of reporters and bloggers.
My 3 cents.
No problem.
IIA addresses the "spoiler candidate" issue. You cannot add one or more candidates to change the outcome. (This is opposite the way the criteria is phrased, but it's equivalent.) Thus, the election method itself cannot encourage or dissuade a candidate from running.
It also strikes me as essential to remove any and all incentive for strategic voting. The most effective tactic for a voter to deal with a spoiler candidate is, after all, the bluntest form of strategic voting: ignoring their true preference and voting for the lesser of two evils. It also allows the Condorcet Principle for the second, third, etc runners up (important in some races).
But, as the article points out, you're not alone in your conclusion. And yes, I'm still in favor of Condorcet methods, dispite Arrow's Theorum.
You can get, say, 100 friends, download the subversion repo and check that all your votes are counted in your copy of the repo.
You can check to see if the codes match. That's irrelevant. Every code can match in the entire repository. How does that confirm that those actual votes are in the official tally? It's that disconnect that I was pointing to.
As I've now written elsewhere in this thread: this article is the first I've seen to mention that zero-knowledge proofs may be involved with this system. There are many, many types of zero-knowledge proofs, and I don't see an obvious choice here. Until I can find an overview of the process used by this system, I won't be happy with it.
Hand waving is fine in general publications only as long as the details are readily accessible. I haven't found anything that discusses the algorithm and believe it is not easily obtained on the Internet. And no, reading source code does not count as "readily accessible". (It counts as barely accessible; it usually counts as obfuscated.) If I have to resort to reading source code to understand their claim, I'm going to scream.
If I found out that someone did that, I'd report them.
I would too. But if it really is a "friend of a friend", he may only be able to urge someone else to report them. Based on context, it is possible (even if unlikely) that she was reported.
You're not in a mood for literalists, and yet you still replied without carefully reading what I wrote.
... Post all of the codes that were counted, and which vote they represent.
Nope, can't do that. Not with this ballot anyway...
The ballot that you're imagining is different from the one they're proposing. You can't read all the codes on your ballot. You can only read the codes for the candidates and measures that you voted for. If those last two sentences didn't cause you to rethink your statement, then reread them. That's how this ballot is designed to work (for better or worse). You can log in after the election and view the codes associated with your specific ballot. The codes are too short to be a unique identifier unless they're combined with the ballot number.
We can discus what's possible all day long. We started out by discussing this specific system. If you'd like to talk about a different system that also uses codes on the ballot, then please describe it to me so that we can have a rational discussion about the merits and flaws of that system.
Being able to see your own code doesn't prove anything...
Sure it does. They cannot record the correct code unless your ballot has been processed. It doesn't mean that your vote was actually counted, though.
Now I don't know what exactly they put in the repository, or how it's meant to be used. But let's take a simple example of something one might do: Post all of the codes that were counted, and which vote they represent.
Nope, can't do that. Not with this ballot anyway. If you reveal which codes link to which candidates, you can prove how you've voted. That's exactly the type of problem they're trying to avoid.
... confirm that the number of codes attributed to "Yes" is greater than the number of codes attributed to "No", that the list contains my code,...
If you cannot link the codes to votes, you cannot directly verify the election. This is the first I've read about a zero-knowledge proof. I'm still trying to find details of how this is supposed to work in this system. I hope I don't have to resort to reading source code (the hardest way I can think to learn an algorithm). The few zero-knowledge proofs I'm familiar with simply wouldn't work, and it's a large field. I'm not going to be happy with it until somebody at least attempts an overview of this specific system and how it addresses voting issues.
... and that my code is attributed correctly to either "Yes" or "No" ...
Can't be done, as explained above. On the other hand, I've read previously that they would let you intentionally void your ballot by filling in multiple bubbles to prove that each candidate on the ballot has a unique code. A replacement ballot would then be supplied. This is a crucial step to proving that your vote was actually read.
Fraud-proof? Nope. In a close race I might be able to stuff the ballot box with codes/votes that weren't on anybody's ballot...
Very true. There have been elections recently with >100% voter turn-out in select areas. Makes you wonder...
The codes are made public. What the votes represent (who was voted for) are not.
Actually, preferential voting (where you rank canidates) still keeps one big problem from our current system: the possibility of "throwing away your vote." You'd have to decide who to rank first: the candidate you really like, or the one you think can win. You don't want your vote for The Ideal Party to take votes away from The Tolerable Party and throw the election to The Horrid Party.
Not necessarily. You really should look up the Condorcet Principle (and corresponding methods, yes plural). The real problem with ranked choice voting is Arrow's Theorem. However you want to deal with Arrow's, I stand by the Condorcet Principle.
Range voting, on the other hand, lets you say "here's how much I like each candidate on a numerical scale." The "practical" candidate isn't hurt at all by your preference for an idealistic one.
This site gives a lot of info on why range voting tends to give the best outcome for the largest number of voters. They advocate for range voting to be used in any election - even school elections. I'd love to see it "trickle up," since it's clearly a better system.
Range Voting reduces down to approval voting. The failure to vote 100% for "Tolerable Party" Winds up hindering them in the same way that abstaining would. Smart voters would always vote 100% and 0% (most dumb voters would too). Now I'm not opposed to approval voting. It would be a major step in the right direction. Just don't kid yourself that range voting is all that special. It's just more confusing than it needs to be.
"I've always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe."
Now, can I start a flamewar about our system being inferior to Condorcet methods, please?
You have my vote. ;)
Just about anything is better than first-past-the-post. I'm partial to the Condorcet Principle, but every time I bring it up, I either get blank stares, or get slapped with Arrows Theorem.
I don't honestly believe that if my choice McCain had won, anything would be any better. So what's it matter whether my vote was counted or not.
This is a major problem, but it is a separate issue. We can't have a healthy democracy without solving both of them. You can't tell me which needs to be solved first.
I know the Florida ballot count debacle wasn't all that long ago, but are we that concerned about votes not being counted?
(Implying issues about votes being lost accidentally)
.. and how you cannot trust people, especially what in politics and...
(I interpreted this as votes being lost intentionally; inline with my post)
I was pointing something out. It was both on-topic (closely related to your "simple answer"), and highly visible (near the top of the thread).
This is Slashdot. A reply doesn't need to be a direct response to be on topic. There'd be very little discussion if there were. Maybe I should have shoehorned my response, rephrasing it to more closely match the wording and context of your post. I thought that would have been superfluous. Two posts later, and it probably would have been cleaner if I did.
but does not provide them with any way to prove to anyone who they voted for.
But can I check to make sure not just that my vote "was counted" but that my vote was for the right person?
You can verify that your vote was received correctly. This still doesn't tell you that your vote winds up in the final tally. There's an important distinction there.
Ok, so this system proves that your vote reached the tally server, but how does it prove that your vote is actually in the total?
I'm serious. Just because your vote wasn't lost, doesn't mean it was counted. This helps guard against grievous mistakes, not against wholesale fraud.
Clearly the state is spending lots of money on the education system.
Oh they are. We just can't figure out where all that money is going.
No, I mean it. Nobody actually knows where the billions of dollars set aside for education disappears to. The money is there, it just never reaches the classroom.
Oh, and California? What a perfect example. The Granola State (home of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes) deserves what they got for electing who they elected.
That's callous and unreasonable. (1) We haven't had any good alternatives in a long time. (2) Everyone is too caught up on the lesser-of-two-evils mentality brought about by our first-past-the-post method of election (I'd be surprised if you lived somewhere different in this regards). Combine that with gerrymandering, and congress stagnates. (3) California is said to have the 5th largest economy in the world. Our government hurts our economy (without question) which ripples throughout the rest of the states. (4) The country as a whole has a tendency to follow California's lead. This doesn't predict the future, but it's worrisome. (5) Only the federal government is more beholden to a plethora of special interest groups, making real action nearly impossible to mobilize. (6) Not every Californian voted for these idiots. You're blaming a lot of innocent people. Yes, I've voted for third party candidates before. (I'd support an actual third party if any of them reflected my political views.)
I'm not asking for an apology. Just be careful who you lump in with the "Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes".
I've reread the hierarchy of this post, and there is nothing whoosh worthy inherent to these posts. I must therefore assume I've trodden on a meme from elsewhere. (somehow inferred by Hognoxious, but not obvious to me)
It's either that, or you just like saying "whoosh".
Phone Phishing. That way it's clear, and you get an alliteration as a bonus.
We, as people, are a different animal altogether. We do have inherent, natural rights simply by virtue of our existence.
It's not as simple as that. I believe we do have inherent, natural rights, but it can't be by simply existing. Governments do exist. They may be collections of people, but they do exist.
The concept of natural rights stems from one of two principles:
These are not mutually exclusive. Frankly, I think moral reasons work better, but ethical reasons are crucial.
a) If we knew "the inner workings" of said chips, it would give us a substantial boost. We'd no longer be wondering how something could work, only how to make it. We'd probably also be able to infer some of the decisions that eventually led to that design.
b) You should consider embracing your parenthetical statements with parenthesis:
I wonder if people from 2050 er 2060 where did the decade go? from 50 years in the future...
Becomes something like:
I wonder if people from 2050-- er 2060 (where did the decade go?)-- from 50 years in the future...
Ok, now you've got my attention. (seeing how there's no ground wire connection to the bulb...) How was your socket wired wrong, and how do you think that affected the CFL? (I am curious if there is a good answer to this.)
I urge caution with dimmable CFLs. Usually they aren't dimmable at all. As the ggp post said "And yes, any dimmable ones are crap. Even the quality dimmable ones can't be 'dimmed'." If you found an exception to that, then you're lucky. The rest of us want to know what brand you use, how long they've been installed, and how frequently you dim them. (and do they buzz?) As pointed out by cheesewire elsewhere in the thread, there are at least two different types of dimmers. Maybe some dimmers simply refuse CFLs.
I'm not arguing the point. Just clarifying. Slashdot has all kinds, including a great many who don't understand religion and are easily confused. My post really wasn't for your sake, but for others who may be confused by your words.