h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Shazz!

Due to circumstances outside my control, I recently was obliged to register my pets Mindspring and Ferrari in order to prevent their being hijacked. Upon becoming the owner of two new identities, I suddenly realised what potential there was for voting abuse.

I would not for a moment accuse other candidates of stooping to such underhanded tactics in order to stuff the ballot boxes, but I am concerned that over-enthusiastic supporters of any camp may register new identities purely in order to inflate the results for their selected candidate.

I wonder if you could spell out clearly to the electorate that, by multiple voting, you mean not just voting more than once under one's own ID but also ballot box stuffing by means of spurious researcher registrations.

Needless to say, Mindspring and Ferrari will not be voting!

Asteroid Lil
Spin Doctor
Celery-Webjello 2000

I agree!
I will quote this in the Post if it's OK with you, maybe shame people into behaving themselves!
shazzPRME

Didn't I read somewhere that the votes of each candidate will be available for scrutiny? In that case there's not much of a problem because however clever people think they are at inventing "new" researcher names, the rest of us will still know, you know.

I meant "the votes of each researcher"...

Many researchers have more than one email address. I do. I put Mindspring and Ferrari under separate accounts basically so that I don't have to sort out "who I am" with h2g2 every time I log on. For example, I played with Mindspring a bit earlier today, and have had to go through an extra few pages just now to log in as myself.

So even somebody with access to the adress database might find it impossible to determine for certain whether an ID is "primary" or not.

I don't argue against them (multiple ID's) although I find them difficult to maintain, myself. I can see the creative possibilities, but I can also see their cynical misuse.

As long as we pass the reminder along, I'm sure that our supporters will adhere to the honor system.

I am aware of the technical difficulty (nay, impossibility) of spotting such abuse officially but if the voting lists are to be made available then I'm sure we can spot any major abuse by candidates and close their close friends. If the candidates are aware of the possiblity of being rumbled -- even at some point in the future when they use their alter ego again and make a slip (as Minoova did) -- then it might deter blatant attempts.

Perhaps there needs to be a rule to the effect that the President must step down if it is shown, at some point during their year(?) of office, that they have stuffed the ballot in this way (in sufficient amounts to have affected the result).

Personally, I am troubled by the idea of making the voting public.

The problem with making the rolls public is that it may discourage participation by those who wish to maintain the anonymity of their alternate ID's, anonymity which would be exposed by the conspicuous absence of certain names on the voting lists. This would have nothing to do with ballot-stuffing, but everything to do with protection of privacy.

And what if a voter decides to vote with his alternate ID only, or with one of his alternates?

And what if you are mistaken about the "alternate-ness" of an ID?

It's an interesting problem, but I still think we are better off to rely on the honour system.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the voting lists will be made available to the candidates at least. I too can see the problem with this but if that was made clear from the start then those are the rules we must abide by.

I totally agree that it needs to be an honour system. There needs to be agreement between the candidates that such ballot-stuffing activities are not helpful. We may as well not have a vote if people are going to treat it with such lack of respect. I'm not proposing a witch-hunt! But maybe the thought that they might be caught might deter the more... er... anarchic candiates and their supporters from being tempted.

Could I put your minds at rest ladies
I have posted a full set of rules for voting in this weeks Prez newsletter. Voting WILL be closed, I have handed over the monitoring of the voting to someone who is very adept at the job, knows h2g2 extremely well, and will try to ensure that there is NO multiple voting etc. On the matter of *available for public scrutiny*... this merely is trying to allay any fears that I myself might try to influence the poll. Therefore ALL votes will be kept in a special folder and, in the event of any major query, they will be then available if required... although I hope that will not be neccessary.
shazzPRME

As the person moderating the voting, I'm glad these points are coming up.

There is no sure fire way to check for multiple voting. But I'm doing what I can.

I've set up the voting system so that the votes get emailed to my computer. Where they get filtered through a system here that sorts them out into pigeon holes for each candidate.

If there is an influx, or indeed surplus of votes for a candidate that come from email addressess ending in hotmail or yahoo or a few of the other free email places, then it flags it for my attention.

Then I'll look into it and use my judgement.

No votes will be nulled until after the parties concerned are contacted.

As for privacy...

This system does mean that I will be furnished with the email addresses of those voting. Most of which I've probably got already. I assure you all now that those addresses stay on my computer and go no further.

A lot of email packages are set up so that real life names are attached in the 'From' section. This is why we've asked that the body of the email is filled in with your h2g2 name and number. Real life names will not be used for anything. Nothing at all.

When the voting is complete I will publish the results. I will publish how many votes each candidate got. If it is wished that the h2g2 names of who voted for whom is published then I shall publish that as well.

I will under no circumstances publish Real Life Names or Email addresses.

If you have any other queries, please ask.

Pastey

I am completely happy with these arrangements. And I congratulate you both on the amount of work you've done to ensure fair voting and privacy.

I'm very happy with these arrangements which seem to be sensible and just need publicizing. A lot.

My concern is that people will still be able to get round it. I know it's unlikely, but I'm wondering if somebody at h2g2 Towers can help us - they probably have access to user information that we don't.

As a matter of interest, are the candidates themselves allowed to vote?

A valid question Peregrin! In the Mayor competition I DID allow the candidates to vote... only once of course... at least this assured all of them at least one vote! As this is a good, to the point, open debate on the voting, please tell me your views on this. Pastey and I have until Sunday to add to the general rules and would welcome comments.
If it appears that there is abuse of the 'one h2g2 user, one vote' system, then we will contact the Towers for assistance in moderating... I am sure that you can see why we hope not to have to do this though... they are quite busy enough atm, without us asking them to check out every email which arrives.
shazzPRME

Of course the candidates should be allowed to vote. You can't disenfranchise the candidates! They would be able to vote for themslves IRL.

If Presidential candidates can vote in real life, then I reckon that we should let them vote in here

As to a definate check on mulitple voting. No, we can't check for sure. But I have my ways to find out

Good! I thought as much... as you so rightly say, they can vote in RL... it's just us returning officers who have to abstain
shazzPRME

Now, is it unfair that The Celery cannot vote for himself or unfair that The Celery creation is a front for several researchers and therefore effectively votes for himself several times?



Amy the troublemaking Ant.

Erm, well... that is one problem that we cannot really comment on! I think that The Celery probably only has the same number of supporters in his camp, for example press officers, security personnel etc as most of the other candidates. Therefore he actually has the slight disadvantage of not being able to vote for himself!
shazzPRME