Archive for ‘Soluții tehnice’

August 10, 2012

Vote Accounting. Method and Importance of Quorum/Threshold

We think that any community that adheres to a voting system for decision taking has to abide to the following principles:

  1. Maintain awareness on the technical limitations of the chosen voting system.
  2. Use the same voting system for all decisions. (By instantiating every time the best current version of the voting system)
  3. The voting system has to remain open to improvement and upgrade. (Improvement in the sense of refinement and not in the sense of gross revision of the vote accounting practices. Therefore we would expect that each improvement to lead to a lesser change in the way the votes are accounted and with lower tolerance for meeting the agreed-upon principles than the previous improvements)
  4. All the constants of the voting instance (voting schedule, nomination and minimal information on every stakeholder, quorum, total number of community members with voting power) have to be published in advance and each voting member has to sign that he/she knows them before voting.
  5. Compose and enact laws that institute the voting system and ability to improve/upgrade the system without impeding decisions that required previous instantiating.
  6. Transparency and verifiability  of vote accounting. (We already recommended non-anonymous voting)

We also have to be aware that not voting has also to remain a right of the community member for any good voting system. Otherwise we would not remain true to the first principle. A voting system has to account the number of non-voting members with voting rights for feed-back (for principle 3) and quorum purposes.

Voting inside any system means in fact two votes: first vote (the invisible vote) is the vote of confidence and usefulness and desirability of the current voting system instance (with the acceptance of data correctness – principle 4). Second vote is the visible vote in favor of some or none of the stakeholders (the voter may just invalidate his vote by not respecting some procedures). Not voting in a voting instance is in fact just one vote: the member forfeits his right to the second vote on grounds of:

  • lack of usefulness of the decision that constitutes the outcome of the voting instance or in the subsequent implementation of that decision
  • lack of trust in the voting system or in that specific instance of the voting system (including in vote accounting)
  • vested interest in the current instance not attaining the published quorum

Not voting inside a proposed system has often times a greater importance than voting. Any democratic community has to carefully account for „the invisible vote” in order to lessen the technical limitations of the voting system and continue upgrading it.

Members with voting power in a community should not be discriminating against. They do have the same rights in a voting instance as any of the members that exercised their vote in that same instance. Their apparent lack of vote is in fact a powerful exercise of their rights to not be accounted in a system that did not find importance and legitimacy in their opinion.

The total number of members with voting power and the quorum has to be announced before the start of a voting instance. The number of members with voting power that did not vote has to be accounted by rounding up the number of those that we can account in a verifiable manner with the tolerance for those that may exist but impossible/very hard to verify.

As a conclusion: every instance of decision taken through vote should have a quorum (sometimes 50% +1, sometimes 30% – depending on the importance of the decision) to establish legitimacy and literacy of the votes captured by that instance of the voting system.

These days there is a voting instance in Romania (for a nation-wide referendum) where some authorities propose not taking into account some members with voting rights on the grounds that they live outside the country. Authorities in Romania failed to publish the total number of citizens that have to voting right and the number that has to be met for quorum BEFORE the start of the voting instance (principle 4). They try to change the voting system in  an instance precedent to the upgrade (against principle 3) and with major quorum implications (against principle 5).  For the purposes of this article, we will stop here, but this instance of voting in Romania has not respected any of the above-mentioned principles and there are many other „democratic” states that still do not in most or all of their voting instances or even voting systems.

Anunțuri
Iulie 29, 2012

Instant Meritocracy and Rightful Information Solution

This is a proposal pertinent to any voting instance. It solves the problem of a meritocratic calculation of the individual vote, the misinformation by the mass media and the unequal awareness of the stakes involved in any voting decision.

We propose that every vote to be scored by a simple calculation of its merits. That means every person that votes to have his/her vote accounted for, but divided by the results of a simple quiz.

The quiz should have a number of questions equal to the number of the main stakeholders of that election +1. The last question on any quiz should be about the limitation of the actual system and on the methods used for vote accounting. Every stakeholder should present all questions that will be asked and their correct answer and their method of grading for that question. Every question should have equal scoring weight.

Now for an instant example: In a electoral space there are 3 candidates, that means 3 stakeholders. Each candidate publicizes a set of questions and their correct answer (from their point of view). The quiz for this voting instance will consist of 4 questions: 3 questions proposed from each candidate plus an additional question related to the methods employed at the election instance. The quiz with all correct answers will have a grade of 1 (100%). Any question that will be answered brings 25% to the weight of the vote. So the voter that provides no right answer will have no say (his vote will be accounted as 0% of a normal vote).

The merits of this system is that all potential voters will be informed by all the candidates in an equal and transparent manner. There can be few ways for the mass media to misinform. The voter that studies and keeps himself better informed will have a higher chance to change something by instantly earning that merit.

Noiembrie 21, 2011

Reprezentativi reprezentativi

Sigur, este un joc de cuvinte care merita explicat: Primul cuvant „reprezentativi” este un substantiv iar al doilea, un adjectiv. Insa este acelasi cuvant. Si din pacate in cazul nostru, al situatiei Parlamentului Romaniei, repetitia nu devine tautologie. Va invit la o suma de standarde la care ne asteptam din partea unei persoane care reprezinta politic pe unul sau mai multi cetateni cu drept de vot. Reprezentantul are datoria de a mentine un site pe care sa se gaseasca urmatoarele informatii si aplicatii web intr-un format download-abil:

  • O istorie completa a modului cum a votat fiecare lege. (la cele la care are voie sa publice aceasta informatie si sa militeze pentru votarea transparenta la toate legile dezbatute)
  • La fiecare lege sau pachet de legi, sa prezinte cu cel putin 3 zile in avans fata de momentul votarii, problema care crede ca va fi rezolvata prin adoptarea ei si problemele pe care le va crea pentru votantii din circumscriptia sa. Aceasta informatie sa fie prezenta si in istoria votului.
  • Sa mentina legile care urmeaza a fi votate, in forma propusa incepand cu cel putin 3 zile inainte de votare. Sa mentina un poll (sondaj) (de preferinta meritocratic) in legatura cu fiecare lege si eventuale alternative deschis mai ales pentru circumscriptia sa.
In final si cel mai important: reprezentantul trebuie sa tina cont de rezultatele sondajului la votare (adica sa reprezinte).
Etichete:
Noiembrie 15, 2011

Sistem de votare 2

Acest sistem este pentru votare anonima, dar cu posibilitate de verificare:

Noiembrie 15, 2011

Sistem de votare 1

Consideratii:

  • Pentru ca sa se voteze in mod direct fiecare lege care priveste o majoritate a populatiei, va trebui organizat cate un referendum la fiecare saptamana.
  • Pentru un referendum pe saptamana in care sa se voteze 3-4 legi, fiecare cu 3-4 optiuni, va trebui gasit un sistem de votare foarte eficient, ieftin si totusi verificabil si stabil
  • Pentru ca un sistem de votare (SdV) ieftin ar trebui sa gasim o solutie pentru distribuirea costurilor astfel incat sa plateasca toti cetatenii care au drept de vot si sa se ajunga in fapt la o suma modica

Propuneri:

  • Pentru a putea face voturile cu adevarat verificabile, propunem votul neanonim, adica votul in nume propriu, cu semnatura.
  • Propunem ca fiecare cetatean care voteaza sa plateasca o suma modica de bani necesara procesarii votului.

Sistemul de Votare (SdV) utilizand infrastructura actuala:

  • Se numara intrebarile si variantele de raspuns. Se face o suma de variante pe care o notam N. N este un numar natural mai mare decat 2.
  • Guvernul va crea un numar de N conturi la fiecare banca care doreste sa participe la aceasta actiune.
  • Cetatenii vor fi informati la sediile bancilor despre cele N optiuni prin afisare clara si cu avizul semnat al managerului de locatie.
  • Se poate stabili o perioada de o saptamana pentru votare pe pachetul de legi de actualitate.
  • Fiecare cetatean poate vota numai o data.
  • Cetateanul isi va exprima optiunile prin alimentarea conturilor deschise de Guvern. Pt conturile la care aproba optiunea, va depune cate 1RON plus comisionul bancii.
  • Banca are datoria de a verifica buletinul cetateanului, varsta persoanei trebuie sa fie cea legala pentru a avea dreptul de vot.
  • Cetateanul are datoria de a semna actul de depunere.
  • Banca are datoria de a elibera cetateanului o chitanta cu un numar unic, un token.
  • Fiecare vot este public si neanonim iar votul va deveni informatie de domeniu public.
  • La sfarsitul perioadei de vot, Guvernul va cere bancilor participante o activitate de cont, in format electronic. Va verifica unicitatea fiecarui vot prin CNP, si va face totalul la toate cele N variante si va declara optiunile castigatoare. Va publica bazele de date de vot si legile in forma aprobata.
  • dupa votare banii stransi in conturile deschise pentru votare vor fi impartiti saracilor, prin tragere la sorti.
  • Cetatenii care au primit token/chitanta de la banca, vor putea verifica felul in care Guvernul le-a inregistrat votul prin site-ul guvernamental si folosirea numelui si a combinatiei data+token.
%d blogeri au apreciat asta: