This Election is Over Already

[dcrocket]

Of course there are a lot of ways to do this stuff. I guess my concern is how to evaluate the current system that is in place for this particular election, and decide if it meets my standards of confidentiality and validity. I may have missed it with all the election posts, but where is the technical description of the vote counting procedure, who are the individuals doing the counting, and what legal and security systems are in place? Can you advise please?

Paranoia is a wonderful thing....it frees you from the bounds of reality. It also will disenfranchise you. Your choice....just don't complain about the results.

[bigdawg2121]

So Mr. Epee would actually be afforded all 3 of his votes via the barcode system right? Is that necessarily what we want?

[campb1pr]

The adjective "well thought out" was attached to the USFFC's plan for online registration. In your epistimology, is it possible for that to be proven wrong, or is the very worst you'd say is "WorldChamp03 feels it's well thought out despite weak evidence"?

Because it's been pretty well documented in the Technology thread that the plan has an unreasonable deadline, no specifications or parameters to plan off of, and all the other essential elements of a plan. Every person I can think of with professional IT experience has brought up its flaws. It may not match your defintion of the phrase, but for the rest of us "well thought out" is not an accurate description of the plan.

You have a good point. I guess I was reacting to the utter finality of the statement. But, hey, it's an internet forum, so...

You're wrong, nanny nanny boo boo. I say so, and so do lots of other people I can find. Therefore, you are just wrong, and nothing you say has any basis in fact. You say the sky is blue? Nope - it's green. I've got friends who say so too.

I am not saying that I disagree with the IT pros about the USFFC plan. I have no idea if it is feasible or not. The arguments posted in that thread seem to say to me that it is not feasible. (In my personal opinion after reading the work of others.) But that does not mean that it cannot, will not, never ever never work. To say that it is factually untrue is to say to Orville and Wilbur that humans will never fly. Ever. To say to Copernicus that the sun revolves around the earth, no matter what you believe. Ok, so that's hyperbole, but in context. I am just saying that argument is not about hitting each other over the head with the same rocks, saying "I'm right, you're wrong" over and over and over. It is about point and counterpoint, separating opinion from fact, and weighing evidence. If folks on both sides of these issues ever hope to work together, they need to start by recognizing that they each have different opinions, and that they are entitled to. Writing off someone elses opinion and heaping derision on it are not ways to make the world go 'round. (cue Kumbaya....) Sorry to get soap boxy, but let's just avoid making absolute statements in a relative world. Please.

[I will now return to my cave and await the next shipment of my anti-nitpicking medication, we now return you to your regularly scheduled flame wars and discussion.]

[tchwojko]

No, what has been well documented is that most people with a lot of IT professional experience believe that the FFC approach is not sufficiently thought through. Some of the ones taking that position have expressed their opposition to the FFC group before examining the FFC proposed approach.

I fixed your post. And the "conflict of interest" is a ridiculous red herring.

[schlager7]

I got my ballot today. It requires my name and USFA number on the envelope to be "validated." I will not vote under this system, and I bet many others will not either. Sorry T, but this is over.

Try not to be afraid. You're a fencer.

[Soberin]

Try not to be afraid. You're a fencer.

In response to you and to DC above re: faith in elections, fear, etc, -- Bush 2000.

[schlager7]

I merely counsel courage. I give no assurance of victory.

Life is hard... then you die.

[hpfencing]

It's just so they can validate the votes so that there are no extra ballots created. I think its a great idea....

[whtouche]

I hate to be that person, but my limit on illogic has already been reached today, and so this just made me boil over.

KD5 beat me to it; my assessment was not "illogic" and that it made you "boil over" just means you need to think longer and type slower.

I think the problems with the various technological proposals have been pretty well documented. If anyone out there wants to think that the problems with their proposals are a result of partisan politics, I encourage you to read over all the critiques and point out the parts which don't seem legitimate to you.
Not only do the criticisms seem valid on their own merits, but when it comes to matters like that I am more willing to trust a large group of people familiar with technology in general and the infrastructure of the USFA specifically, over one person with no such knowledge and a few cheerleaders.

[telkanuru]

I like how this thread is tagged "dear god why!" now

Interesting question tho.

[cbcarey]

No one is going to care how I voted. But I suspect some key people might be of interest to some parties.

Double envelope would have solved this. Ballot inside unmarked envelope, unmarked envelope into larger envelope with ID outside. People who verify ballots cannot also see the results inside. They verify the outside, shell the sealed ballot, and move on. Second phase opens sealed ballots and counts. Removes the temptation of taking a peak at the ballot as you open the envelope.

Too late now.

[telkanuru]

[FencingKitten]

No one is going to care how I voted. But I suspect some key people might be of interest to some parties.

Double envelope would have solved this. Ballot inside unmarked envelope, unmarked envelope into larger envelope with ID outside. People who verify ballots cannot also see the results inside. They verify the outside, shell the sealed ballot, and move on. Second phase opens sealed ballots and counts. Removes the temptation of taking a peak at the ballot as you open the envelope.

Too late now.

Honest confusion with no flippancy intended...

...why, if the name and member number are on the outside, do they have to open the envelope to validate the voting member, and thus risk peeking at the answers?

'Cause I'm envisioning a person with a member checklist:
"Member 1... eligible to vote... (tosses still-sealed envelope into) this bin. Member two... oops, 17, that one is not eligible... (tosses still-sealed envelope into) that other bin, someone else will need to double check me on those..."

and the next person with a member checklist...
"Member 2, wait, why is this envelope here? Totally eligible, he's 18! (tosses still-sealed envelope into bin 1 above)."

[KD5MDK]

In order to prevent the vote counters (who have to look at the votes) from being aware of who voted which way.

cbcarey's proposal for 2 envelopes would be more private, at an additional cost I'm not sure of. On the tradeoff of cost/benefit, I think it's below the threashold at this point.

[FencingKitten]

Oh. Duh. Sorry.

[cbcarey]

Honest confusion with no flippancy intended...

...why, if the name and member number are on the outside, do they have to open the envelope to validate the voting member, and thus risk peeking at the answers?

Because at some point, someones job will be to open the envelope, and at that moment, that person will have in one hand, the id of the voter, and in the other, the vote. The temptation will be there to see how "Person I know" voted. If that vote were in a plain envelope, that middle person would just be shelling votes and putting the sealed and now clean vote into a pile somewhere.

[telkanuru]

Because at some point, someones job will be to open the envelope, and at that moment, that person will have in one hand, the id of the voter, and in the other, the vote. The temptation will be there to see how "Person I know" voted. If that vote were in a plain envelope, that middle person would just be shelling votes and putting the sealed and now clean vote into a pile somewhere.

So what? Are the going to vindictively lose your SN entry form?

I understand it's a principle, but really.

[IHateMrPotatohead]

So what? Are the going to vindictively lose your SN entry form?

I understand it's a principle, but really.

This is just opinion, and does not give indication of my votes either way....

I think the paranoia and worry comes more from people who have something to lose by voting for one side or the other.

For instance, if you are an "up and coming" referee, and certain people see that you voted for the other side, you may not be invited to ref anymore.

OR

You are an "up and coming" fencer and suddenly paperwork gets lost or whatever.

I can think of several options for it to cause some concern, but for the majority of the population, ie. the normal recreational/local fencer....I really don't think it matters. That is probably the largest population of voters.

Regardless, I really don't think it should cause much concern for anyone. The USFA probably doesn't want any (more) legal trouble, so they will probably follow the rules they are supposed to (hopefully).

[cbcarey]

So what? Are the going to vindictively lose your SN entry form?

I understand it's a principle, but really.

The absolute worst case I can imagine is that someone is opening envelopes, sees a name on there of someone they know, and will be tempted to read what that person voted. I don't predict doom and gloom or retribution, etc... But if I were the big-shot-coach-of-a-national-program I might find it uncomfortable to have my vote read by someone at the national office and know that maybe they will take a peek, and maybe they will adjust their opionion of my depending on my vote.

Either way, I am done with this thread. Its all over but the voting. Its too late for could have beens.

[Swordmaster]

No one is going to care how I voted. But I suspect some key people might be of interest to some parties.

Double envelope would have solved this. Ballot inside unmarked envelope, unmarked envelope into larger envelope with ID outside. People who verify ballots cannot also see the results inside. They verify the outside, shell the sealed ballot, and move on. Second phase opens sealed ballots and counts. Removes the temptation of taking a peak at the ballot as you open the envelope.

Too late now.

I don't know how ya'll do things up there in Bean Town, but down here in Texas we usually have a disinterested party involved in the actual tabulation of votes. Especially at sectional meetings where tensions run high and different parties with different agendas are vying for the same offices (sound familiar?) I would think that the folks that are involved with this process, especially the representatives from both slates, would have the good sense to make sure that none of that type of hanky panky would take place by having the envelope separated from the actual votes by someone who was total disinterested in the outcome - say a temporary employee who's only job was to separate the vote from the envelope - after the membership had been verified.