kevin_standlee | Electronic Worldcon Site Selection Voting

Current Mood: thoughtful
Current Location: Fremont, California

Entry tags:

Electronic Worldcon Site Selection Voting

Those of you on The List That Must Not Be Named already have had your fill of this, but not every Worldcon member who cares about Worldcon or whose opinion should count is on that list, despite the attitude of some of its members.

Voting for the Hugo Awards via web site was, not too many years ago, a rare and unusual thing, with most voters opting for the traditional paper ballot usually distributed through a convention progress report. Now, voting via the web site is apparently the most-common option for most voters, with fewer and fewer voters opting for traditional ballots. So why can't we cast our Worldcon site selection ballots the same way? It turns out that the following section of the WSFS constitution is the hold-up. Pay attention to section 4.1.2 below, which I've highlighted.

Section 4.1: Voting.

4.1.1: WSFS shall choose the location and Committee of the Worldcon to be held two (2) years from the date of the current Worldcon.

4.1.2: Voting shall be by written ballot cast either by mail or at the current Worldcon with tallying as described in Section 6.3.

4.1.3: The current Worldcon Committee shall administer the voting, collect the advance membership fees, and turn over those funds to the winning Committee before the end of the current Worldcon.

4.1.4: The site-selection voting totals shall be announced at the Business Meeting and published in the first or second Progress Report of the winning Committee, with the by-mail and at-convention votes distinguished.

Section 4.1.2 has been held to prohibit any form of electronic voting, because it specifically states "written ballot cast...by mail" and in this context, "mail" apparently excludes voting by web site or other electronic means of communication. The Hugo Award rules have different specific words that have been held to not prohibit e-voting.

Let us ignore the fact that faxed-in ballots have been accepted in the past; that apparently doesn't bother the people troubled by web-based voting. Also, the questions of how one deals with paying the Advance Supporting Membership (Voting) Fee are not actually in scope here; it seems reasonable to assume that a Worldcon wanting to do e-voting would figure out how to accept payments, and if they couldn't figure out how to do so, they simply wouldn't run e-voting.

Now I personally don't think this language actually prohibits electronic voting, but enough influential WSFS movers and shakers have stuck to this interpretation that it would call into question any Worldcon's attempt to do e-voting for site selection. And the major argument against my interpretation is that when the current wording was adopted in the late 1960s (morphing through a number of changes in the 1970s but retaining effectively the same intention), it was to allow people other than those who actually turned up at the WSFS Business Meeting to determine the site selection, and that "mail" means what it meant in 1968, and that it is wrong to re-interpret it to mean anything else, and that doing so is thwarting the will of members of WSFS as expressed through the Business Meeting.

Fair enough. If that's the case, then I think it's time to broaden the interpretation of what we mean by written ballot and mail. Because WSFS conducts multiple elections of different types, I think a general statement is preferable to trying to patch specific sections. General statements of this sort belong in Article 6, and I therefore intend to introduce the following WSFS constitutional amendment at Aussiecon 4. The amendment itself is short, but has a long commentary to clarify "legislative intent."

Short Title: Electronic Voting
Moved, to amend Article 6 of the WSFS Constitution for the purpose of clarifying the status of electronic voting on the Hugo Awards and Site Selection, by adding a new section after existing Section 6.2 as follows:

Section 6.x: Electronic Voting. Nothing in this constitution shall be interpreted to prohibit conducting Hugo Awards nominating and voting and Site Selection voting by electronic means. This section shall not be interpreted to require that such elections be conducted electronically, nor shall it be interpreted to allow remote participation or proxy voting at the Business Meeting. Paper ballots delivered by any means shall always be acceptable.

Submitted by Kevin Standlee, Johnny Carruthers, Steve Cooper, Linda Deneroff, John C. Fiala, Adrienne Foster, Glenn Glazer, Lisa Hayes, Jim Henry III, Lisa Hertel, Mary Kay Kare, Stacey Helton McConnell, Fred Moulton, Cheryl Morgan, Rita Medany, Cath Mullican, Kevin Roche, Jannie Shea, Stu Segal, Alison Scott, and Randy Smith.

Commentary: The phrase “Voting shall be by written ballot cast either by mail or at the current Worldcon” in section 4.1.2 has been held to prohibit conducting any portion of Worldcon site selection electronically, such as through a web site in the same manner as most recent Hugo Award elections. The word “mail” and “written ballot” has been interpreted to only allow paper ballots delivered by postal mail, private delivery, fax machine, or personal delivery by the voter or an authorized representative. This proposal would broaden the existing interpretation to require that “mail" be interpreted to include "e-mail and other electronic means" such as voting through a web site. It does not specify a specific technology for e-voting. It says that the constitution should be interpreted to allow electronic voting for both the Hugo Awards and Site Selection, but it does not require that such elections be held electronically, and it specifically requires that such elections should always have a paper-ballot/by-mail (or other delivery method) option.

While Worldcons would be required to always include a paper-ballot option, the decision to implement e-voting on any given WSFS election would be in the hands of each individual Worldcon committee. Whether or not previous or future Worldcons implemented e-voting would not have a bearing on the decision. The makers of this motion assume that Worldcon committees would consult with those groups participating in site selection and cooperate with them to implement e-voting, but would leave the final decision as to whether to actually do so in the hands of the current Worldcon committee.

In addition, this proposal explicitly excludes electronic voting, proxy voting, or other forms of remote participation at the Business Meeting. Voting at the Business Meeting shall continue to be in person only, including any votes held there such as constitutional amendments and elections to the WSFS Mark Protection Committee.

What I find annoying about many of the arguments against e-voting is that they boil down to "there will be massive fraud," with "fraud" actually defined (if they'd be honest with themselves) as "people participating who I don't think should participate even though they've met the membership requirements." And when I say this, I get told that I'm being overly mechanistic. By "overly mechanistic," I claim that they're saying that they know better than anyone else who is the "right sort of person" to be allowed to vote.

In any event, before y'all start spinning "movie-plot" scenarios about how someone could subvert a Worldcon site selection election, ask yourself what's stopping the same Nefarious Plotters from doing the exact same thing with the current paper-based system. An e-voting system should not be required to be held to a substantially higher standard than the current election system. We don't require massive levels of security on the Hugo Awards ballot above and beyond the paper ballot.

Furthermore, anyone who wants to claim that I'm calling for the abolition of paper ballots is either not reading the proposal or simply not telling the truth. I want the existing paper-based system to remain the default and lowest-common-denominator of our elections, even as I expect a decreasing percentage of the membership will avail themselves of it.

If you are a member of Aussiecon 4, either attending or supporting, and would like to be listed as a co-sponsor of this proposal -- that is, you're willing to "second" it -- let me know and I will add your name. WSFS precedent has always allowed non-attending members to submit and sponsor proposals. If you're going to A4, I'd appreciate you attending the Business Meeting and voting for it, but you don't have to attend A4 or the BM to be a co-sponsor as long as you are a member of this year's Worldcon.

Edit, 13:00: I have corrected and will continue to correct typos that do not substantially change the meaning of this post without individually calling them out.

Edit, 9 Jun 16:00: As I want to go ahead and submit the proposal to the Business Meeting, I'm closing off further co-sponsors. Thank you to everyone who joined their names to the proposal.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I am a supporting member of A4 and I am strongly in favour of allowing evoting (with attached efunding of course). I will leave it to better minds than mind to work out how to manage the transaction costs, though I guess there are transaction costs with regular banking together with the costs of mail.

This strikes me as a 100% cast iron no brainer and so I would be interested in a potted summary of the opposing argument. If it really is a 'this will let in the great unwashed' then, y'know, piffle.

Sorry, I won't be at A4 to have the argument in person.

I'm not sure I can give an unbiased summary of opponents' positions, but they do tend to suggest that it would make large-scale fraud so much easier that more people would engage in it. For example, they could "register the phone book" by signing up lots of people as members and then voting those dummy memberships to swing an election. There was a suggestion that an unscrupulous CVB might so much want to bring a Worldcon to their city that they would spend the CVB's money to sign up everyone in sight and submit votes in those people's names. I've pointed out that such actions are possible right now; apparently, it's the fact that e-voting makes such things easier is the sticking point.

New ideas always have to pass a higher standard of eligibility than existing ones, but I suspect that if we still voted only in person at the Business Meeting, a proposal to allow postal voting would raise the same cries of potential fraud that e-voting proposals do now. Just think about what might happen if "Worldcon-style" voting was proposed to replace the show-of-hands method for Eastercon site selection.

and if someone would tell me how this is any different than the printing of as many ballots and as many mail-ins? Fraud is hardly limited to the e-world...

...you have to PAY to vote in site selection. I don't see how voting electronically (and thus paying electronically) makes fraud detection any more difficult. You still have a payment trail and either you can see "oh, look, Fred Smith is paying for 500 people's votes...how...odd...he has that many people under his roof?" -- or you cannot.

(I think the fraud fantasy is laughable for this and other reasons.)

P.S. Sorry this was me. I always forget to sign posts.

Kendall (no LJ account; I'm allergic)

1: typo; 6.x says "...to prohibit conducing", and I'm quite sure "conducting" is intended.

2: Things get a little tangled; the sentence saying paper ballots will always be acceptable comes after the sentence saying proxy voting at the business meeting will not be allowed, which leads to those two issues being tangled together when they need to be kept carefully separate.

Typo fixed. Thanks for catching it.

I don't see any way to fix the other issue, because no matter where you move the final sentence, it's going to seem somewhat jarring. The matter of BM proxy voting is there because it's part of a list of things that are not permitted, whereas the final sentence about paper ballots is meant to be something that is required. I could break it up into subsections if absolutely necessary.

The last sentence about paper ballots is actually IMO redundant, as I think the existing constitution already requires it; however, it appears to me that without a postive statement in this form, people will assume the amendment is intended to abolish paper ballots, something I'm not advocating and that I would oppose if someone proposed it.

Edited 2010-05-17 19:46 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't see an easy fix, or I would have proposed it.

I agree with you twice about the paper ballots issue -- yeah, it's required elsewhere already, and yeah, it may well be politically necessary to reiterate it here.

"written" does not include typing or computer print-out does it? I would assume under strict originalist doctrine that all ballots must be hand written in "cursive" (aka "writing" as opposed to "printing") or are otherwise invalid. And the WHOLE THING needs to be hand written. If you're a strict supporter of original intent, you're a strict supporter or you're a hypocrite. /kinda sarcasm

Actually, I can see the point of the strict constructionist on this. I may think it's silly myself, but I can understand it. Email is not legally secure in the way postal mail is. That may not actually be their intention, but it's a way to get to their opinion.

Wish I could attend so I could support it. I expect to be in Reno, though, for the second reading.

We won't be at A4 (although we're members). We will be at Reno, but may not be able to attend the Business Meeting because of committee responsibilities.

Again, you don't have to attend to be a co-sponsor; having memberships in A4 is sufficient if you want to add your name to the co-sponsor list.

In response to the deleted comment: It's difficult for me to put the case for those people who think the current wording allows things like faxes but prohibts other electronic forms. I think what it boils down to is that they want to stick with only those forms with which they are personally comfortable, and what to exclude anything else. Nobody would say that out loud, of course, so one has to find a different way of putting it that sounds more defensible. There's also a strong element of, "Anything allowed in the past, even if it might have been technically wrong, has to be permitted because precedent is more important than anything else." So while technically a fax might not be "mail," the fact that administrators have accepted faxed ballots and no action was taken means that they're incorporated into the definition of mail, whereas anything that hasn't been done in the past is automatically suspicious.

And they say that I generate convoluted reasoning!

Edited 2010-05-17 22:59 (UTC)

I'll be a co-sponsor.

Thanks! You're on the list.

I'll be a cosponsor as well. The way things are going, the post office may be drastically reduced soon, and given how long it takes to pass an amendment sometimes, we could really do ourselves harm if we do not amend this now and allow electronic voting.

Thank you! As I recall, you're not planning to go to Australia, right?

Unfortunately, that is correct.

I've got a supporting membership in A4, and while I'm not likely to go to the business meeting any time in the foreseeable future (I think I'm allergic to parliamentary procedure), I'm very much in favor of electronic voting, and would be willing to be listed.

Had there been online voting for this year's NASFiC, I'd probably be going, but since I didn't have the initial commitment from voting, I never got over the fence to join and make plans.

in this context, "mail" apparently excludes voting by web site or other electronic means of communication

Only because the Chicon 2000 BM thought it necessary to change similar wording in the Hugo article to be clear that Web voting was OK.

Reasoning I can understand even though I don't like it. The "1968" reasoning I find absurd and strikes me more as the same sort of logic-chopping people accuse me of.

Legal systems regularly, though not always, interpret things based on present reality, not just "when written, they only had horse-n-buggy" mentality. I'm surprised people on a private/secret e-mail list of all places--SF/F fans, of all people--are so hidebound. (Okay, I'm not at all surprised--just disappointed yet again.)

On the other paw, "written ballot" doesn't leave any wiggle room so it does need amending, IMHO. "mail," also, IMHO. (I don't expect evoting--which needs payment, for site selection, methinks--to be via e-mail anyway, any more than Hugo voting is; and someone mentioned security--well, web sites can be made much more secure than e-mail [for the non-tech].) I'm not a fan of your first sentence ("Nothing in this constitution..."), but given your experience--especially with WSFS--I trust your judgement. ;-)

Anyway, best of luck--you're fighting the good fight.

Kendall

I'm using general, broad wording in the proposal because I'm concerned that if I do not do so, those people who want to find a reason to disallow e-voting will claim that the wording passed doesn't actually accomplish it, by citing narrow interpretations.

I still don't think "written ballot" disallows "ballot submitted through electronic means such as a web site," unless "written" also disallows someone filling out their ballot by using a typewriter or something like that, which seems silly to me. If, for instance, A4 had produced their PDF of the site selection ballot with fields in which you could type responses (they didn't, but it's understandable; Acrobat Pro is expensive), then if you used Acrobat to fill in the form, would it still be a "written ballot?" I think so.

Edited 2010-05-18 06:19 (UTC)

It wasn't (just) the generalness; the "ignore how the constitution's written" way it sounds seemed odd. But again--I trust that you know what you're doing and how best to get a workable amendment passed.

Interesting point re. Acrobat, though I'm not sure I agree. But if anyone ever needs it, we have Acrobat Pro Extended at work and would be happy to tweak a PDF so that Acrobat Reader can be used to fill in a form and save it.... ;-)

BTW, I'm curious: Does having lots of (not-at-the-BM) co-sponsors actually help??? Is it a way of demonstrating that support is broad, and does that tend to actually influence any voters at the BM itself?

Kendall

the "ignore how the constitution's written" way it sounds seemed odd.

It's because some of us -- starting with me -- don't think the existing wording actually prohibits it. The wording doesn't need changing; the interpretation does. And IMO some of the people who don't think it allows e-voting cannot be trusted, in that any specific patch to specific rules is apt to be twisted into a "it doesn't really mean what you think" interpretation, simply because they don't want electronic voting. Thus the need for a blanket statement dropping a 16-ton parliamentary weight on them.

Does having lots of (not-at-the-BM) co-sponsors actually help?

I don't know. Not many people have submitted proposals with a lot of co-sponsors like this. It's something of a "right of petition," you might say. We'll see.

It's not like there aren't people out there with Acrobat. I could do it, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes.

We have courts to decide when different peoples' interpretations differ. The Worldcon's jury of last resort is the business meeting. That being said, we stuck on this particular issue because the people who are anti-electronic voting are long-time SMOFs. So bringing this before the business meeting is probably the best (if longest) way to decide the issue.

In principle, it's difficult to see real problems or objections. It doesn't make concerted fraud significantly easier, or less expensive, which is a very real practical factor.
In practice, you're in the top echelon for creating phrasing which says what it means to in the peculiar idiom of the arena, so I woul dexpect changes to be minor friendly amendments.

When it is argued, I would be surprised if the opponents convinced anyone who wasn't already convinced, which is a different level of the practical. I would be surprised if it didn't sail through.

I'm a supporting member of Aussiecon 4, and I would like to be listed as a cosponsor.

Thanks! We'll see if having a bunch of supporting members petitioning WSFS for redress of grievances will make a difference.

How can there be fraud in an election where, for all the history I've been aware, there's only one serious thing to vote for? If someone somehow pulls fraud and puts in 40K votes for holding the next worldcon on Antares, are they really going to try and hold the con there? :)

I am a supporting member of Aussiecon 4, and would like to be listed as a cosponsor.

How can there be fraud in an election where, for all the history I've been aware, there's only one serious thing to vote for?

Beware of generalizing from insufficient data. Just because the last few elections have been uncontested doesn't mean they all will be. There have been some seriously contested races, and I was in the middle of them. In 1990, there were three bids on the ballot and a very serious write-in from Hawaii that placed second behind San Francisco. In 1991, there were two bids, 2,107 ballots cast, and Winnipeg's margin of victory over Louisville was less than the number of No Preference/Blank ballots cast. In 1995, there were four bids contending for the 1998 Worldcon -- I administered that election.

The Anaheim Worldcon of 2006 was a contested race, with Anaheim defeating Kansas City. Nippon 2007 was not a walkover, as they defeated Columbus. Denver had to face competition from Chicago and Columbus to host the 2008 Worldcon. Montreal defeated Kansas City in 2007 to win the right to host the 2009 Worldcon. So there have been a lot more contested Worldcon races than you may think. Reno would have been contested, but their competition (Seattle) lost its site and had to drop out. BTW, it's not fair to point at any of the losing sites and say, "But I didn't take X seriously," because every one of those sites I named took themselves seriously and were trying to win a bid.

We're currently in a period where conditions appear to be favoring uncontested bids. (2010 was Australia, uncontested. Chicago is bidding uncontested for 2012. There are other bids out there that so far have their respective fields to themselves for the near future.) This probably is a consequence of changes we made to make it easier for sites to bid. You no longer have situations where bids in a given zone are forced to either bid now or hold their place for three years before the window comes back around. Furthermore, by shortening the lead time to two years, we've increased some more variability into the field. For almost twenty years, people were comfortably projecting three seated Worldcons and three sets of bids -- a full six years ahead. Right now that projection only runs four years ahead, and we're still not used to it.

Thanks for the co-sponsorhip; I've added you to the list.

The wording seems a bit harsh, but I am in favor of such a measure. Will not make it to Aussie con to vote, but if it makes it to Reno I shall vote for this.

Y'know, the day before I made my comment on Smofs--and really, it did seem like a no-brainer--someone commented to me that the list had been awfully quiet recently. I hadn't expected my comment to open such a can of worms.

It seems that evoting in site selection has a few very vocal detractors--all of whom can afford to actually attend Worldcon every year (I can't). I wish you the best of luck in Melbourne. My suggestion is to try to bring the question to a vote as soon as possible, because I believe there will be a lot of grandstanding & hard feelings otherwise. Unfortunately, most of your supporters will be the people who would normally have to mail in your ballot rather than those who vote on-site.

I really have missed getting to site selection at least once, although I almost always mail in my ballot. And, if the whole family is a member of the current Worldcon, and going to the future Worldcon, I fill in their ballots too (per their direction: "I don't know, you vote for me."). Mostly just to get the cheap conversion rate. Usually all on one check, all in one envelope. And I bet I'm not the only one. Yet nobody has every pointed 'fraud' at me.

Thanks for your support. And yes, most of the co-sponsors are non-attending members, so passage is not certain, because some of the most likely detractors are people who in their hearts really dislike progress and want things to be the way they were in the Good Olde Days -- the date of which varies per person, but is probably at least twenty years ago and probably older.

I intensely dislike the attitude -- evident in a few influential people -- that we must abide by the will of the voters, except when it differs from my own personal opinion, in which case the voters are idiots and must be ignored for their own sake. There's one particular individual out there who I believe thinks "consensus" = "do what I say because I'm always right."

I am willing to be a co-sponsor of this proposal.

Got it; thank you!

Will be happy to co-sponsor and give moral support at WSFS business meeting ( as long as someone gives me a heads up when the meeting is) at A4

Assuming traditional scheduling, the Business Meeting will be on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of the convention at 10 AM. Friday will be when the motion first comes up and has to survive initial attempts to kill it or amend it out of recognition, while the vote on adoption would be on Saturday.

Write to me directly with your name so I can add it to the co-sponsor list. (This is true of everyone volunteering; if I don't know your name in A4's membership list, I can't add it because you have to be an A4 member to sponsor legislation. Also, I have to prove to A4's Business Meeting chair that I actually have all of the co-sponsors and am not just "voting the phone book.")

I agree and am happy to be listed as a co-sponsor (Rita Medany). I have a full membership and am hopeful about attending but not yet certain I will be able to.

Got it. Thank you!

I'm a supporting member of Aussiecon 4 (Jim Henry III), and am happy to co-sponsor this motion.

Thanks! You're on the list.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Electronic Worldcon Site Selection Voting

no subject

no subject

no subject

But...

Re: But...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Random thoughts

Re: Random thoughts

Re: Random thoughts

Re: Random thoughts

Re: Random thoughts

Re: Random thoughts

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject