Unscolitied life advice

[jack]

1. If you're pouring from something and it has a lid, hold the lid on with a finger if you can. Then in the 1/20 times the lid is loose it doesn't fall off and send hot/cold liquid all overr the table.

2. http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/blog/archives/2010/05/thoughts_on_the.html Advice from dutch blogger Peter-Paul Koch to Britain on handling what is in Britian called "a hung parliament", and in many parts of Europe, NZ, and so on, called "a parliament".

In short, I can't say if he's right, but (a) he says that in times of economic downturn, it's typical for voters to turn away from smaller newer parties to the devils they know (b) to Dutch voters a Con/Lib alliance is obvious, but forming a coalition should take more than three days, and everyone ought to accept that, even the financial markets.

3. DO NOT USE ELECTRONIC VOTING OF ANY FORM UNTIL YOU'VE TESTED IT!

I see there are electoral nightmares I've had as yet unrealised.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10102126.stm Some people want e-voting. Some people say it's a terrible terrible disastrous idea.

I agree it's a good idea in principle, and am pleased people are getting on board with the idea that the internet is good for serious things. But security for e-voting is difficult for lots of reasons. Look at the American utter disaster with machines which were simply trying to count the ballots in one physical place.

That made me sufficiently cautious I wouldn't like to introduce either without coming up with a proposal and then giving it a rigorous testing.

If the current system were bad enough then possibly rushing to judgement would be better, but honestly, while postal-vote-stuffing and poll-centre-closing are impermissible mistakes, I think the current system does fairly well and needs improving, not wholesale abandonment.

Comments

[simont]

the idea that the internet is good for serious things

My god, electronic voting over the Internet? I was against electronic voting even when I thought it was just a question of walking to the polling station as usual but interacting with a poorly security-designed and potentially untrustworthy piece of electronics instead of a small piece of paper and a wooden box. If they're planning on adding the hostile environment of the Internet into the mix, it doesn't even bear thinking about.

(I suppose I should have realised the latter was under discussion simply because the former wouldn't have made any difference to last week's polling station queue management issues, but I think my mind blanked the possibility because it was just too horrifying.)

[jack]

"My god, electronic voting over the Internet?"

I don't know for sure, I just saw other people mentioning something in passing and looked on BBC. It's hopefully not a serious suggestion but I didn't feel happy assuming that. I think your quote ought to be immortalised as a warning to people who suggest it.

[nanaya]

Pfft, like we Brits can learn *anything* from Yoorup! They're completely different from us, and they eat weird food and everything.

Erm, I don't know if you know this, but libellum's partner dennywas running as an MP on a platform of direct digital democracy, where he promised to allow the constituents to vote in online polls for every piece of legislation going through Parliament, and he would vote the way the majority decided,,,,

[jack]

:)

libellum's partner [personal profile] dennywas running as an MP on a platform of direct digital democracy,

Liv told me indirectly. I thought it was an excellent point to make, but the direct representation is probably even more useful in giving feedback to an MP who is not bound to accept it.

[seryn]

It would be nice if there was a means of securely voting that did not involve going somewhere inconvenient I never go otherwise, where there is no parking, and watching helplessly while the poll workers give my full name and address out loud in front of a room full of people who demonstrably know I am not at home. But we can't reliably count paper ballots where I live, why should I trust a non-transparent electronic process?

Not to mention that Diebolt's CEO said publicly that he would ensure that the Republican would get elected president and that happened while Diebolt had monopolistic contracts for electronic voting in most regions. I can't say whether that would have happened anyway because there are a lot of people in my country who thought the tongue-tied monkey was actually doing a good job when he couldn't make a coherent speech or keep his hands off foreign heads of state. (I would bet Angela Merkel is still pissed.)


Here I was all set to say that I'm smart enough not to deal with containers with detachable attached lids... but then I remembered my teapot. And the lid always tries to escape.

But I do have some unsolicited life advice of my own... why did you subscribe to my DW if you weren't going to ever comment on anything I say?

[jack]

I agree internet voting would be wonderful if it could possibly work, and make voting a lot easier for more people, especially if the current procedure is bad. And I don't think it's inherently impossible, although being both secure and anonymous is incredibly difficult. But as you say, the disasters in getting even a comparatively simple machine not to be horribly fucked up make me think we are far, far, far, far from ready. (A compromise might be more widespread postal voting??)

all set to say that I'm smart enough not to deal with containers with detachable attached lids... but then I remembered my teapot.

I think the core of my advice is that a bit of extra redundancy doesn't hurt, even if you're competent already. And it definitely helps people like me who think I'm competent, but actually, just because I can do it when not distracted, doesn't mean I can do it if I am distracted :)

why did you subscribe to my DW if you weren't going to ever comment on anything I say?

I'm sorry, I normally subscribe to anyone who subscribes/circles me, but I still read DW friends page less often than LJ. And when I've just met someone knew I often start to comment slowly until I feel I know them better. And it'll probably stay that way for a while. But I can take you off again if you'd prefer.

[seryn]

California has permanent vote-by-mail registration. I signed up for it. I live downtown in a strange pocket of "good neighborhood", but it wouldn't be that hard for the polling place to be somewhere that would require me to have an armed escort.

The problem with vote-by-mail is that your ballot is mailed in an envelope with your signature and address on it (required by law). So it's less anonymous than I would like. And the people tasked to open envelopes are not necessarily sworn elections officials, the process is very opaque. It wouldn't be that hard to push some envelopes to the side for seeming "too ethnic".

I often discover that I am no longer as competent as I think I am. I don't have too many problems with the lidded containers, but I could use similar warnings like, "Do not assume that because the cabinet door swung over your head yesterday when you were barefoot that it will not smack you in the forehead today with you in your tall shoes."

And no, I don't want you to leave, I just don't want to have to leave myself, which I'm going to do to everyone who hasn't left a single comment on my stuff or even introduced themselves. Someone's vouched for you not being the kind of jerk who views themselves as a celebrity deserving of worshiping fans, so you get a chance to address the issue. Thanks for doing so.