Voting process for PEP 308 (was: PEP 308: Alternativeconditional operator forms)

Erik Max Francis max at
Thu Feb 13 01:09:51 CET 2003

John La Rooy wrote:

> That is hardly democratic! Why not have votetakers from both/all sides
> so they can "scrutinise" each other. I think most people involved in
> the
> debate will know how to use "cc" in their email.

Well, then you're going to get seriously fragmented results; some people
will send their votes to only a subset of the votetakers, etc.

> The ethical problem
> can
> be avoided by having the votetakers vote before they see any results.

I agree, that would be acceptable too.

> One mechanism would be
> 1. Everyone encrypts their vote and submits the ciphertext
> 2. The ciphertexts are published - via usenet or email
> 3. Everyone submits a key to verify their vote
> 4. The keys are also published
> 5. Everything is out in the open and anyone can count/check the result
> Is an open ballot ok though?

I don't think such an circuitous procedure is necessary at all (if
anything, it is just going to turn off more voters who won't think the
extra work is worth the effort).  As long as, as I've said before, the
full results of the everyone's vote is disclosed at the close of voting
(this isn't a secret ballot, after all, but people shouldn't see each
other's votes while the vote is in progress), I don't see a big problem,
so long as everybody agrees on the _process_.  And the process is what
is being discussed now.

 Erik Max Francis / max at /
 __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/  \ You cannot step into the same river once.
\__/ Cratylus
    Python chess module /
 A chess game adjudicator in Python.

More information about the Python-list mailing list