Comments on: Direct Online citizen law-making

By: jchester

jchester — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:48:01 +0000

Or better yet, start reading The Daily WTF to see how many organisations handle IT. Including banks and governments.

By: Dave Bath

Dave Bath — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:45:54 +0000

“My Bank”…
Yeah. Ask someone with 10 to 20 years in IT security about any time they’ve had working for banks. Get ready to yell “dead puppies!! dead puppies!!” to stop them giggling themselves to death. Seriously, some quite professional friends of mine won’t work for banks anymore because they know it will do their heads in. They won’t work for government any more for the same reasons.

The banks are bad enough. And yes, most government agencies are worse than the banks. And government business enterprises are worse than full government agencies. Don’t take my word. Read through some of ANAO’s reports.

By: Strawman

Strawman — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:27:53 +0000

>> The problem as I see it is the immaturity of IT do deliver
>> something that is accurate, anonymous, secure and
>> auditable.

My Bank allows me to transfer any amount of money I want to
(up to the piddling small amount I have in the account anyway)
based on a password and a little LCD display thingy I carry
on my key ring. Admittedly this doesn’t satisfy the requirement of _anonymous_, but it satisfies all the others.

The amount of money sloshing around in some people’s bank accounts is considerably more valuable than one vote, but
the bank clearly considers the risks small compared to the
convenience.

Are we suggesting that the government can’t do equally well?
A damning reflection on government competence indeed.

Or are some our elites just afraid of genuine democracy?

By: Dave Bath

Dave Bath — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:11:20 +0000

Nicholas Grey: My placement on political spectra is here. Terje: There are two issues: (1) Privacy, (2) Auditable, which is equivalent to the job scrutineers do when the votes are counted and recounted. The technology is just not up to it yet, and the project managers in government agencies want to cut corners big time. The hacking incentive is particularly great on individual bills because the "sample size" will probably be so small.

By: terje (say tay-a)

terje (say tay-a) — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:06:48 +0000

p.s. Perhaps what I meant is better described as privacy not anonymity.

By: terje (say tay-a)

terje (say tay-a) — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:50:23 +0000

jchester – I think some of our difference of opinion hinges on an interpretation of anonymous. To me anonymous means nobody knows how I voted if I don’t show them how I voted. For some people anonymous means that I can’t even show people how I voted.

Auditable means I can validate that my votes was counted a certain way. Obviously auditable is incompatible with the latter interpretation of anonymous.

By: jchester

jchester — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:38:00 +0000

David;

Thanks for the reminder. I do sometimes get the two mixed up in the rush to comment.

–Jacques.

By: Club Troppo » Missing Link Wednesday 1 August

Club Troppo » Missing Link Wednesday 1 August — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:22:50 +0000

[...] a thought experiment on what a different kind of political landscape might be made possible by direct online citizen initiated referendums on every act of law-making, while Robert Merkel is in two minds about a proposal to enfranchise [...]

By: DavidLeyonhjelm

DavidLeyonhjelm — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:57:42 +0000

Jacques, this is not the LDP blog. Members of the LDP who comment here do so in their individual capacity.

Which provides me with a perfect opportunity to advise that the LDP has a new name. Go to the official LDP blog and find out all about it.

http://ldpblog.wordpress.com/

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:57:16 +0000

Someone wrote a letter to the Australian which talked about shires and counties favourably. Perhaps Direct Voting is only possible in such units.
Dave, a question- What do you call your own brand of politics? Is it idiosyncratic, or are you a member of a group? We welcome honest differences of opinion.