[LINK] New proposal for e-voting - Turnbull
janet at hawtin.net.au
Tue Sep 10 17:10:37 AEST 2013
On 10 September 2013 15:58, Jan Whitaker <jwhit at janwhitaker.com> wrote:
> [We didn't hear a thing about it this time, even for disabled access.
> What happened to the 'next big thing'? I'd be interested in Linkers'
> view of the security of evoting now - have things changed or is
> Diebold still sus?]
I don't think there is anything especially borked about the senate model.
If you vote below the line the preferences go where you say.
If the parties are required to be transparent then we have the information
about what they aim to represent.
Perhaps people should be required to have some kind of declared position -
some seemed to be a bit hard to find info on.
Perhaps people who want to run should incorporate a party and be active in
the community for 6 months or a year minimum before running so that they
have some 'form'. This might avoid lots of trivial nominations.
It has to be simple enough to not be an obstacle for new entrants and folks
without a lot of money or from culturally diverse communities etc.
I do not mind that there are shooters, outdoors, fishers, sex, drug reform
etc. they are at least something specific.
they are ideas which are of interest to our community. people chose them.
the outdoors kinds of groups have a connection to our environment. climate
change will break the ecologies which underpin their stated interest. sex
and drug reform, are social perspectives. hemp might be a crop which is
resilient and has useful fibre and is tall so may have roots which when
cropped return nitrogen to the soil? perhaps an opportunity..
motorsports - as a group of people with experience in tweaking vehicles
this community could help us find new kinds of car. is it possible to have
mashups and hackadays with solar challenge vehicle folk, new fuels, and
motor sports from different perspectives - if we invented an AU car for
today what would it look like?
pirate party and wikileaks speak to us about the way we think about
information media and technology. we do have obstacles in these areas.
there is contention between the public interest and other entities. if law
is protecting an old model at the expense of our ability to move forward or
human rights violations then it needs to be reconsidered? are there
constructive paths forward?
at this point in time it might be helpful to have people thinking about
single issues. they show us facets of ourselves which people care about and
we can see how they fit into the climate change issue.
perhaps the main parties did not have something clear to say on issues that
people care about. perhaps they will next time?
More information about the Link