[LINK] How many eyes / delegation of democracy

[rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au]

Thanks to Roger and Jan for doing something which the passionate 
advocates of e-voting *didn't* do, and that's addressing a point which 
to me forms the foundation of the discussion.

 From Jan:

> All sorts of things in society are handled by experts, your term 
> sub-groups, on our behalf and we don't need to know how the thing 
> works, but we do need trust that the system is being observed and 
> challenged. There is margin of error in every election, no matter how 
> perfect it may be designed. 


And from Roger:

> Democracy seldom involves equality of action, and is more about 
> equality of opportunity.  Success of a democratic process requires a 
> *critical mass* of eyes, not a universality of them. 


To pick up Roger's specific point first: yes, critical mass rather than 
universality is the practical requirement. But equality of opportunity 
is my concern regarding democractic process. As things now stand, pretty 
much anybody has the mental capacity to take part in the process, if 
they wish to (and if they meet the legal requirements, and there's 
enough positions and so on). Under an electronic system, equality of 
opportunity is lost. Even if I can view the code, I cannot understand it.

(Even if it's open source, it's not trivial to read someone else's 
source code and determine whether it does what it's supposed to do; is 
free from flaw, bias or error; and that none of its dependencies - for 
eg, dependency on the OS, the BIOS, etc - are undesirable.)

Human psychology is important here as well. It's not just that a handful 
of insiders or experts believe things are on the level; it's that the 
majority should trust the system. There's no better answer to criticism 
than "go and see for yourself". Today, people can do so; and that should 
be preserved.

My second point addresses something implicit in Roger's post, and 
explicit in Jan's and relates to delegation.

Yes, Jan, we do delegate activities to others. This raises a specific 
question and a general philosophy.

Specifically, the delegation of democratic process should not be 
exclusive. Viewing and counting of votes should be as inclusive as it 
can possibly be, and arguments of convenience (you get the count 
quicker), cost (specious and probably wrong anyway), or simplicity don't 
outweigh the need for an inclusive process. And the delegation should 
not be coercive - "you will trust us because there's no other choice" is 
inimical to democracy.

Since delegation is necessary to life, it's always better that it be 
voluntary rather than coerced. An electronic voting system demands that 
most of the population delegate trust in the process, and removes their 
access to that part of the process ... you can no longer choose to 
delegate or participate.

RC