# I am the Watcher. I am your guide through this vast new twtiverse.
#
# Usage:
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/users View list of users and latest twt date.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/twt View all twts.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/mentions?uri=:uri View all mentions for uri.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/conv/:hash View all twts for a conversation subject.
#
# Options:
# uri Filter to show a specific users twts.
# offset Start index for quey.
# limit Count of items to return (going back in time).
#
# twt range = 1 11
# self = https://watcher.sour.is/conv/pd4brpq
My thesis was on digital/electronic voting (about 10 years ago)
There is an interesting problem there: How could you replace the paper ballots with a digital device? You'll find a few benefits like a fast counting and transmitting the data without moving the ballot box to a central place.
The disadvantage is assuring the secrecy and freedom when you are voting. It's easy with an inert paper, extremely difficult with an electronic device. How could you be sure the vote is correct if it's secert?
I found an interesting proposal (I have to read it deeply) on how to fix this problem that has been 'looking for a solution' for decades:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/e2e-primer.pdf
To make it more interesting, the vote has to be anonymous and untraceable. Yes, we know who went to the election, but we shouldn't have a way to know your decision.
And you must be sure that every vote was counted correctly. Interesting design problem.
@eaplmx To add to those challenges, there is yet another legal requirement in many electroral systems: it needs to be understandable and scrutinizeable by "random people". There is an understanding that, in the EU, this requirement exists independently on any specific requirement for it, due to nr. 1 of art. 5 of the GDPR (the "transparent manner" bit).
@eaplmx To add to those challenges, there is yet another legal requirement in many electroral systems: it needs to be understandable and scrutinizeable by "random people". There is an understanding that, in the EU, this requirement exists independently on any specific requirement for it, due to nr. 1 of art. 5 of the GDPR (the "transparent manner" bit).
@marado That's true!
My grandpa was a citizen invited to help with the voting in the neighborhood (I don't know the title in english, but something like ballot box Secretary), and I took the training with him. It was nice, both could understand it quickly.
The current process is an hybrid between ancient processes that anyone can understand and modern tech. And it works for the process of auditing, with technology on top to have results in a few hours.
But it's damn expensive 🤔
as we can see in the last question here:
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/faq
digital/remote voting is not ready for massive elections. Regardless my country, and many countries are thinking on using it due to the expected cost reductions.
it's gonna be an interesting case to study after.
@eaplmx Yes, the regardless part is what scares me... In Portugal the major parties want it for general elections, *despite* what I said above applying to us. There have been talks about a constitutional revision to allow it, but they're purposefully ignoring that no amount of national legislation is going to make it GDPR-compliant...
@eaplmx Yes, the regardless part is what scares me... In Portugal the major parties want it for general elections, *despite* what I said above applying to us. There have been talks about a constitutional revision to allow it, but they're purposefully ignoring that no amount of national legislation is going to make it GDPR-compliant...
Interesting discussion on electoral voting systems 👌
Interesting discussion on electoral voting systems 👌