June 28, 2011 at 19:13Cloud democracy in Russia: technical aspects
In May 2011, the book of Cloud Democracy by Leonid Volkov and Fedor Krasheninnikov was published on the Internet . The authors propose to introduce a system of electronic voting everywhere: starting from voting by residents of the porch on domestic issues and ending with the election of the President of the Russian Federation - this is called "cloud democracy."
In short, the use of direct voting in conjunction with the system of delegation of votes, operating in a continuous mode (without "instant" elections), is proposed. Technically, such a system may consist of several subsystems .
User Identity Subsystem
The authorization module should be responsible for the technical aspects of user interaction with the system and provide means of user identification. (encryption certificate, electronic signature and public key).
The authentication module must be responsible for ensuring that a particular user matches a specific real person. One of the options is to introduce at the state level personal cards that are used for voting, that is, for the formation of an electronic signature. Such a system works in Estonia. In this case, the authentication problem will turn into a purely technical one. While this is not the case, you can try to use the mutual signing procedure, common, for example, in the GnuPG community (implementation of OpenPGP).
Subsystem of registration of voting subjects
This system is needed to record and register votes at different levels.
Technically, the “voting subject” will be the following:
To delegate your vote, the user should be able to do this separately for each voting subject. He should have the opportunity at the HOA to cast his vote to one, and at the level of the State Duma - to another.
In addition, given the presence of the specialization matrix in the system, it is necessary to be able to split delegation for different specializations. For example, on economic issues I can trust one person, on sports issues - another, and on issues related to the IT sector, I want to make a decision myself.
Therefore, the delegation system, at a minimum, should be two-tier. At the first level - subjects of voting, at the second - a matrix of specializations for each subject of voting.
User Matrix Rating Subsystem
Since it implies (or so far only ponders) a system in which no one will know the real number of votes delegated to someone, it is necessary to provide some kind of feedback between the users who delegated their votes and delegates. To do this, you can use the "matrix user rating" ("Honesty", "Activity", "Compliance with expectations", etc.). Many systems such as social networks or blogs now use the concept of “karma”, which reflects something like the “authority” of the user.
Ratings will be changed by users of their delegates after certain events. For example, after a vote by a delegate on some issues. Or, for example, before taking your vote from the delegate, the user can evaluate the delegate. Such a “selection” of the vote will not always be accompanied by negative ratings.
In addition, the ratings will be able to change automatically. For example, for users whose subjects some kind of voting took place, and users did not delegate their vote and did not vote, the rating "Activity" will be reduced.
Subsystem of voting taking into account delegation and direct voting
This is the core of the entire complex - for which the rest of the subsystems will work. Here, registration of questions for voting will be made with their binding to the subject of voting and indicating which areas this issue relates to.
During the operation of this subsystem, it is necessary to provide for many mechanisms. First, it must be possible to verify your own vote for each vote. Regardless of whether it was delegated or not. Secondly, you should be able to check which of the users related to this subject of voting participated in the voting.
Summary
Of course, the ideal electronic voting system has not yet been implemented in any country in the world. And it seems extremely difficult to ensure universal electronic voting in the vast expanses of the Russian hinterland. But this idea is still interesting, even if it is purely theoretical. And where else to discuss the technical aspects of the implementation of such a system, if not on Habré?
About the authors of the book:
Leonid Volkov - deputy of the Yekaterinburg City Duma, IT investor and consultant, public figure, blogger.
Fedor Krasheninnikov is the president of the Institute for the Development and Modernization of Public Relations, a public figure, political scientist, writer, publicist and blogger.
via Cloud-democracy.rf , UncleAndy
In short, the use of direct voting in conjunction with the system of delegation of votes, operating in a continuous mode (without "instant" elections), is proposed. Technically, such a system may consist of several subsystems .
User Identity Subsystem
The authorization module should be responsible for the technical aspects of user interaction with the system and provide means of user identification. (encryption certificate, electronic signature and public key).
The authentication module must be responsible for ensuring that a particular user matches a specific real person. One of the options is to introduce at the state level personal cards that are used for voting, that is, for the formation of an electronic signature. Such a system works in Estonia. In this case, the authentication problem will turn into a purely technical one. While this is not the case, you can try to use the mutual signing procedure, common, for example, in the GnuPG community (implementation of OpenPGP).
Subsystem of registration of voting subjects
This system is needed to record and register votes at different levels.
Technically, the “voting subject” will be the following:
- the name of the subject, so that users related to him can identify him;
- user filtering criteria. The most obvious is territorial. For example, "users living in house number 8 of city X, such and such an area."
- A link to a resource on the Internet where discussions and communication are held in the context of this subject.
To delegate your vote, the user should be able to do this separately for each voting subject. He should have the opportunity at the HOA to cast his vote to one, and at the level of the State Duma - to another.
In addition, given the presence of the specialization matrix in the system, it is necessary to be able to split delegation for different specializations. For example, on economic issues I can trust one person, on sports issues - another, and on issues related to the IT sector, I want to make a decision myself.
Therefore, the delegation system, at a minimum, should be two-tier. At the first level - subjects of voting, at the second - a matrix of specializations for each subject of voting.
User Matrix Rating Subsystem
Since it implies (or so far only ponders) a system in which no one will know the real number of votes delegated to someone, it is necessary to provide some kind of feedback between the users who delegated their votes and delegates. To do this, you can use the "matrix user rating" ("Honesty", "Activity", "Compliance with expectations", etc.). Many systems such as social networks or blogs now use the concept of “karma”, which reflects something like the “authority” of the user.
Ratings will be changed by users of their delegates after certain events. For example, after a vote by a delegate on some issues. Or, for example, before taking your vote from the delegate, the user can evaluate the delegate. Such a “selection” of the vote will not always be accompanied by negative ratings.
In addition, the ratings will be able to change automatically. For example, for users whose subjects some kind of voting took place, and users did not delegate their vote and did not vote, the rating "Activity" will be reduced.
Subsystem of voting taking into account delegation and direct voting
This is the core of the entire complex - for which the rest of the subsystems will work. Here, registration of questions for voting will be made with their binding to the subject of voting and indicating which areas this issue relates to.
During the operation of this subsystem, it is necessary to provide for many mechanisms. First, it must be possible to verify your own vote for each vote. Regardless of whether it was delegated or not. Secondly, you should be able to check which of the users related to this subject of voting participated in the voting.
Summary
Of course, the ideal electronic voting system has not yet been implemented in any country in the world. And it seems extremely difficult to ensure universal electronic voting in the vast expanses of the Russian hinterland. But this idea is still interesting, even if it is purely theoretical. And where else to discuss the technical aspects of the implementation of such a system, if not on Habré?
About the authors of the book:
Leonid Volkov - deputy of the Yekaterinburg City Duma, IT investor and consultant, public figure, blogger.
Fedor Krasheninnikov is the president of the Institute for the Development and Modernization of Public Relations, a public figure, political scientist, writer, publicist and blogger.
via Cloud-democracy.rf , UncleAndy