Cloud democracy in Russia: technical aspects
In May 2011, Leonid Volkov and Fyodor Krasheninnikov's book Cloud Democracy was published on the Internet. The authors propose to introduce a system of electronic voting everywhere: starting from the voting of residents of the house on household issues and ending with the presidential elections of the Russian Federation - this is called “cloud democracy”.
In short, the proposed use of direct voting in conjunction with the system of delegation of votes, operating in continuous mode (without "instant" elections). 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 the means of user identification. (encryption certificate, electronic signature and public key).
The authentication module must be responsible for the fact that a particular user corresponds to a specific real person. One of the options is to enter 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 becomes purely technical. While this is not, you can try to use the mutual signing procedure, common, for example, in the GnuPG community (implementation of OpenPGP).
')
Subsystem of registration of subjects of voting
This system is needed to record and record votes at different levels.
Technically, the “voting subject” will be the following:
To delegate your vote, the user should be able to do it separately for each subject of the vote. He should have the opportunity at the level of the HOA to cast his vote to one, and at the level of the State Duma, to another.
In addition, given the presence of a matrix of specializations in the system, the ability to separate delegations for different specializations is necessary. For example, on economic issues I can trust one person, on sports issues to another, and on issues related to IT, I want to make a decision myself.
Therefore, the delegation system, as a minimum, should be two-tier. At the first level - the subjects of voting, on the second - the matrix of specializations for each subject of voting.
The subsystem of the matrix user rating
Since it implies (or is only just thinking about) a system in which no one will know the actual number of votes delegated to someone, it is necessary to provide some kind of feedback between delegated users and delegates. To do this, you can use the "matrix user rating" ("Honesty", "Activity", "Compliance with expectations", etc.). In many systems such as social networks or blogs, a concept such as “karma” is now used, which reflects something like the user's “authority”.
Ratings will be changed by users of their delegates after certain events. For example, after voting by the delegate on some issues. Or, for example, before you take your vote from the delegate, the user can evaluate the work of the delegate. Such a “selection” of a vote will not always be accompanied by negative evaluations.
In addition, the ratings will be able to change automatically. For example, for users on whose subjects some votes were passed, and the users did not delegate their vote and did not vote, the rating “Activity” will decrease.
Voting subsystem with delegation and direct voting
This is the core of the whole complex - the thing for which the other subsystems will work. There will be registration of questions for voting with reference to the subject of voting and indicating which areas this issue relates to.
In the process of this subsystem, it is necessary to provide for many mechanisms. First, it must be mandatory to check 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 belonging to the given voting subject participated in the voting.
Summary
Of course, the ideal e-voting system has not been implemented in any other country in the world. And it seems extremely difficult to ensure widespread 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 is a deputy of the Yekaterinburg City Duma, an IT investor and consultant, a public figure, a blogger.
Fyodor Krasheninnikov - President of the Institute for the Development and Modernization of Public Relations, a public figure, political scientist, writer, journalist and blogger.
via Cloud-Democracy.org , UncleAndy
In short, the proposed use of direct voting in conjunction with the system of delegation of votes, operating in continuous mode (without "instant" elections). 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 the means of user identification. (encryption certificate, electronic signature and public key).
The authentication module must be responsible for the fact that a particular user corresponds to a specific real person. One of the options is to enter 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 becomes purely technical. While this is not, you can try to use the mutual signing procedure, common, for example, in the GnuPG community (implementation of OpenPGP).
')
Subsystem of registration of subjects of voting
This system is needed to record and record votes at different levels.
Technically, the “voting subject” will be the following:
- the name of the subject, so that the users related to it could identify it;
- user filtering criteria. The most obvious - on a territorial basis. For example, "users living in house number 8 of city X, such and such area."
- a link to a resource on the Internet where discussion and communication takes place in the context of this subject.
To delegate your vote, the user should be able to do it separately for each subject of the vote. He should have the opportunity at the level of the HOA to cast his vote to one, and at the level of the State Duma, to another.
In addition, given the presence of a matrix of specializations in the system, the ability to separate delegations for different specializations is necessary. For example, on economic issues I can trust one person, on sports issues to another, and on issues related to IT, I want to make a decision myself.
Therefore, the delegation system, as a minimum, should be two-tier. At the first level - the subjects of voting, on the second - the matrix of specializations for each subject of voting.
The subsystem of the matrix user rating
Since it implies (or is only just thinking about) a system in which no one will know the actual number of votes delegated to someone, it is necessary to provide some kind of feedback between delegated users and delegates. To do this, you can use the "matrix user rating" ("Honesty", "Activity", "Compliance with expectations", etc.). In many systems such as social networks or blogs, a concept such as “karma” is now used, which reflects something like the user's “authority”.
Ratings will be changed by users of their delegates after certain events. For example, after voting by the delegate on some issues. Or, for example, before you take your vote from the delegate, the user can evaluate the work of the delegate. Such a “selection” of a vote will not always be accompanied by negative evaluations.
In addition, the ratings will be able to change automatically. For example, for users on whose subjects some votes were passed, and the users did not delegate their vote and did not vote, the rating “Activity” will decrease.
Voting subsystem with delegation and direct voting
This is the core of the whole complex - the thing for which the other subsystems will work. There will be registration of questions for voting with reference to the subject of voting and indicating which areas this issue relates to.
In the process of this subsystem, it is necessary to provide for many mechanisms. First, it must be mandatory to check 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 belonging to the given voting subject participated in the voting.
Summary
Of course, the ideal e-voting system has not been implemented in any other country in the world. And it seems extremely difficult to ensure widespread 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 is a deputy of the Yekaterinburg City Duma, an IT investor and consultant, a public figure, a blogger.
Fyodor Krasheninnikov - President of the Institute for the Development and Modernization of Public Relations, a public figure, political scientist, writer, journalist and blogger.
via Cloud-Democracy.org , UncleAndy
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/122944/
All Articles