[Noisebridge-discuss] Voting experiment.

[Jacob Appelbaum]

On 09/10/2010 11:51 AM, Sai Emrys wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net> wrote:
>> Yep. In profit oriented, privacy unfriendly, non-equal, non-democratic
>> systems
> 
> Red herring flamebait. Proxy voting exists in non-profit corporations
> as well

I was being sarcastic - you caught me.

>, and can be done in a privacy-preserving way.
> 

[citation needed]

>> have a majority overrule a minority and force them into doing something,
>> rather than failing to achieve cohesive and unified action.
> 
> ... and what Al was proposing, AFAICT, is supermajority rule rather
> than majority.

Forced rule is forced rule. We rejected it when we started Noisebridge
for a number of reasons.

> 
> In an everyone-vetoes system, troll minorities have no reason to
> bother working with the majority or even attempting to reach
> negotiated compromises... just as much as in a simple majority or
> plurality system, voting blocks larger than x% have no reason to
> bother working with smaller ones. Fixing that lack of impetus to
> compromise I think is the true aim.

I don't buy that it works in a majority system and I don't think I'd buy
that it would work in ours. It simply allows for a majority to ignore
dissenting voices and sometimes to use coercive force for action.

By default the Noisebridge 501c3 does very little - this is and has been
by design from the start. It's awesome - look at what has been done
without using any force at all - everyone does what they want, no one
does what they do not want to do. The group discussions for non-obvious
decisions are painful sometimes. I suppose you could argue that the
process is something some people object to and it would be valid in both
directions. I find that people are not heard very well in a system that
values ballots over discussions.

>> I know - lets design a new evoting machine. Perhaps we'll be the ones to
>> make it un-hackable! We can ask India, they seem to have no problems
>> with their system at the moment. :-)
> 
> Yet more irrelevant flamebait.
> 

Actually, I'm making a point. If the government of India isn't getting
it right - how will we?

> Knock it off, Jake.

We've already discussed the issue to death. It was an old topic years
ago and nothing new is introduced each time it comes up.

All the best,
Jake