OFFICIAL Petition for the Mods re Presidential Election

[trickey]

I voted no. People have a right to secrecy (sp?). That should be enough siad. Although i would like to see the resultes of the poll with only the votes of members counting, i feel that this isnt the way to go about it.

I also think the list of voters should not be made public because people did not know about this before they voted. I fell that the list should be made public next election, but it muts be made clear before the vote, that the list will be made public.

[Jon Shafer]

Or maybe we could just ask Markos to see how many of the voters were members and give us the # instead?

[trickey]

Originally posted by Trip
Or maybe we could just ask Markos to see how many of the voters were members and give us the # instead?

much better idea.

[Spiffor]

Trip : read the quote in 2 posts above yours. Markos already answered. The only thing we don't know is for whom people voted.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Trip : read the quote in 2 posts above yours. Markos already answered. The only thing we don't know is for whom people voted.

I know, but he hasn't done it now that it's over. I'm sure the # of illigitimate voters has increased a lot. Maybe up over 40 or so now.

[Papa Chubby]

What is wrong with getting a list of the people that voted. Such lists are maintained in most democratic countries, there would be members of different political parties noting down who votes. We are not talking about making public what each voter voted, but what users voted, thats not so bad. Another controversial issue is whether we should do a recount with only the members of the democracy game counting. Yet there is nothing in our code of laws that suggests that you have to be a member of the democracy game to vote, there are other talking about double voting tainting the election. This might be true, and is certainly immoral, but there is nothing that prohibits such actions taking place. Not at least from the standpoint of our code of laws.

[sabrewolf]

you're only allowed to publish the list if the people know in ADVANCE that it's public.

however, to check validity, someone NEUTRAL (neither ministers, nor oppositionists) could check that list and evaluate, e.g.
trip vs. ninot
settlers/cheftains: 20 vs. 2
warlords/princes: 10 vs. 10
kings/deities: 15 vs. 20
that could mean, there's some cheating going on.

but i think, votes should be under disclosure otherwise...

[Kuciwalker]

YES

[Sirotnikov]

Yes means that we wish MarkG to reveal the voter list while maintaining the secret ballot.

to this i vote Yea

[The Dark Lord]

Yes. Although it does not matter regarding the Presidential issue, it will help us know if it was legitimate or not... wait...that doesn't even make sense...

It will also work as a nice member census, but that is besides the point.

And if it doesn't show our vote, it doesn't matter if the list is published. This does not violate the rules of a secret ballot...IMNSHO.

[Schee]

No. Only persons who are already registered to the Democracy game should be allowed to vote, but even if I voted I don't want the list to be revealed, its a principle of the Democracy.
And I disagree with sabrewolf, it could be a good system but everybody must be equal in front of the law.

[kring]

Originally posted by trickey
I voted no. People have a right to secrecy (sp?). That should be enough siad. Although i would like to see the resultes of the poll with only the votes of members counting, i feel that this isnt the way to go about it.

I also think the list of voters should not be made public because people did not know about this before they voted. I fell that the list should be made public next election, but it muts be made clear before the vote, that the list will be made public.

I would agree with this one; if we did have the risk of voting becoming known, regardless of whether or not the actual vote itself was revealed, it would hurt us more than help us.

Trip's suggestion about just giving the numbers, I would also support. The problem there is the Constitution does not state citizens only can vote. I usually vote (til now, may change that to not voting and cancelling citizenship) but I rarely advertise that I voted. Sometimes I post and vote later. Sometimes, I vote and post. Sometimes I vote, but no post; sometimes post, but don't vote (the latter is usually due to too many polls in too many places).

[Timeline]

If the list is released, yet secret ballot is maintained, it will not allow us to see who voted for who, correct?

Then it will be impossible to see which way the election would've went without the unregistered voters.

It will only tell us how many unregistered people voted, and we already know that. Also, many of them have since signed up, so it will be even more work to figure out who was a member at the time of the start of the poll and who was not.

In my opinion, this list will be useless. But then again, it can't really cause any harm either.

I vote no, but do not strongly oppose the idea.

[Kuciwalker]

There's no reason to vote no.

[kring]

It can cause harm, it will discourage some people from voting. I don't usually say when I vote because I see no point in it. If a person is required to state how s/he has voted (ESP. how s/he voted as has been suggested), or be on a list where anyone (outside of a duly appointed/elected election commission), then the numbers of active voters will go down.

Another harm will be once the Pandora's box is open, how soon before it opens all the way?