Yāall may make my day.
Hereās the situation:
I am part of a club in which we publish stories. We donāt have enough money to print them all. So we vote.
Currently, we can only vote with only a checkbox āļø per option using Framasoftās polling. Not optimal becauseā¦
Iām interested in ranked voting.
- How can I make a dead-simple (from the coder and user perspective) ranked voting mechanism that also avoids them having to log into places or create accounts? We need to account for old, computer illiterate people.
- How can I assure them integrity in the sense of their votes being counted once, in the sense of the votes being cast properly, and in the sense of people feeling that the solution is āsafeā? I say safe because I created this communityās website pseudonimously and people loved it, but I once stupidly published fragments of someone elseās stories and they got properly pissed at the pseudonymous site creator. They were asking questions about the safety of the community, allegedly seeking legal advice, and even doubting the security of the website. This lead me to make the website a static, open source site with checksums, and a password for some encrypted posts. I delivered the password through the communityās official email list, which incidentally is one of the ways Iāve thought of verifying voter identities.
- Could the solution piggyback on existing solutions?
Solutions Iāve considered:
- Hardcoding Google Forms. I set up radio buttons to rank the first option (e.g. āFries - 2ā. Then, depending on the rank they chose there, I make a new page for the next option with every rank except the one they chose (e.g. ā1ā and ā3ā because ā2ā was chosen already). This effectively creates a ādynamicā (hardcoded) solution.
- Pros: This seems simple. They can claim an identity (e.g. āPartners in Crimeā, a couple that writes together).
- Cons: With more than 3 options, this insane. The amount of pages I need to hardcode with this method is ān!ā! Slower feedback in case thereās double submission (āPartners in Crimeā vote twice, or someone manipulates the election).
- Giving a markdown template of the ballot and have them fill it out and submit through a Matrix room.
- Pros: I can verify the ballot and, if incorrectly ranked (e.g. two options were ranked as ā2ā), have them correct it. They can edit the message. People can see each vote and verify the election. Minimal programming time.
- Cons: Non tech-savvy people, in their ignorance, could think Iām demanding them sign up into a sketchy service. I know, this sounds absurd, but this group, while mostly sensible, has some tin-foil hat people. Formatting could be harder than clicking for older people. Anonymity is lost, in case thatās a desirable thing (which Iām ambivalent about; ultimately, people could chat with my pseudonym privately). However, the biggest con is that, if not enough people sign up for this, the legitimacy of this election would be compromised. Some people may not sign up because itās harder than simply clicking a link and then immediately clicking on options (believe me, stuff like this matters). The last con is that, if someone finds out that in my private life I use Matrix regularly, they could out me as the creator of the site. I donāt want to end up getting suedā¦
- Using a proprietary solution like Survey Monkey and Qualtrics.
- Pros: Known brands. I can sell the brand as a safety feature for skeptical older folks. Probably has a simple interface. Fast programming. Probably has a way of verifying identities through an email list.
- Cons: This is proprietary software. Iād love not to use it. They may harvest our data and sell it, as it goes all-too-often. The email list thing on its own could be an issue. Plus, my current āPR strategyā is to emphasize the openness of FLOSS, and how itās compatible with pseudonimityā¦
- Rather than a static website, set up a database-driven website
- Pros: The frictions regarding registration into Matrix would disappear. I can create this exactly as I want, with less redundancy than in the Google Forms hardcoded solution.
- Cons: This is out of my skillset. This is not as easily verifiable as a static website with checksums or a Matrix room.
- Hold a Jitsi meeting and vote āface to faceā
- Pros: Election integrity is probably assured.
- Cons: Iād probably be outed as the creator of the website, since Iāve blogged about how we should use ranked-choice voting. Itās also not easier to ācast a ballotā in a Jitsi meeting. We still need a ballot-collection mechanism. Otherwise the whole thing ends up as a procedural hearing with people dictating their votes⦠ughā¦
The issue with email verification
These folks even heavily questioned the fact that I had their emails to begin with (to be sure, this, in the middle of other comments that lauded the website, which is why Iām not giving up on this). The thing is, I got their emails from the publisher, but it isnāt clear if the publisher shouldāve done that to begin with. I found out about this because, when people were threatening to sue because of āexposing private informationā (an email), I got a lawyer and was told that this is a gray area; there are some cases that consider emails sensitive information and others that donāt. This is why Iād prefer not to get those who are pissed even more pissed by using their emails again.
But anyway, avoiding emails is why I thought it would be easier for people to claim identities. That is, they submit their vote, but also say āIām Partners in Crimeā or āIām Mikeā, and at first I trust them. However, if, at any point, someone else claims those same identities, then I ask for email verification only to them, on the grounds that there is an issue in their identity verification.
This would be especially useful in a public Matrix room, where everyone can verify that, indeed, there was a conflict in the claiming of identities.
What makes this method better than the āemails by defaultā solution, is that verification is their prerogative. If they donāt want to verify it, the vote is not counted. If they want to, they can. And email is not the only way. Iām open to alternatives. Either from them or from you. But so far itās the only way I can think of, other than selfies (like Reddit does it at timesā¦; not a fan of this method).
Why bother
This is a beautiful community at its best. We have published loads of amazing literature and changed for the good each otherās worldviews. It only helps that now have, as a writing collective, a good reputation.
Apart from that, I have basic skills that Iād like to hone and make useful in making this ranked-choice vote happen. Ranked voting would improve our current voting system. And if I can make it with FLOSS, all the better!
deleted by creator