A crucial principle which should be applied to discussions: scrutineering. At present, we can be confident that elections in voting stations with booths are fair and uncorrupted because people of all sorts, with many different interests (laypeople) are *capable* of credibly scrutineering the process. As soon as you go online, credible scrutineers drops to a tiny, specialised sliver of tech experts. Who are, therefore, easy to co-opt/corrupt/bribe/bamboozle. 1/2

In Germany, where they know a bit about how democracy can be corrupted, they have set a very powerful (& sensible) precedent, that electronic & are *unconstitutional* - that is *because* laypeople (and voters!) cannot scrutineer the process. We need to think about this very carefully, and I think NZ should follow their lead in principle (even without a formal constitution). dw.com/en/german-court-rules-e

Show thread

@lightweight The first part of this status made me laugh much harder than it should have.

@lightweight The reference to Germany's democracy being uh, corrupted.

Follow

@emsenn ah, yes. Perhaps a slight understatement... although we're seeing almost exactly the same pattern happening in the US right not.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!