 |
W A H L ! |
 | |
 | |
|
F A Q |
| |
|
A K T U E L L E S |
| |
|
L I N K S |
| |
|
H A U P T M E N U E S E I T E |
| |
| « | S P R A C H E N |
FAQ - HÄUFIGE FRAGEN
1. Ist diese Homepage ein Witz? 2. Ist dies eine anti-amerikanische Homepage? 3. Was sind die Ziele des Projektes "The Leader of the Free World"? 4. Wer steht hinter dem Projekt "The Leader of the Free World"? 5. Wer trägt Kosten des Projektes "The Leader of the Free World" ? 6. Wie wurden die Präsidenschafts-Kandidaten ausgesucht? 7. Was heisst, die Antwortden der Kandidaten sind simuliert? 8. Wann zählen die Stimmen? 9. Welche Matrix Methoden wurden angwandt und wie funktionieren sie? 10. Warum sind Matrix Methoden allen anderen Wahlverfahren überlegen? 11. Welche politischen Konsequenzen hat die Anwendung der verschiedenen Methoden? 12. Diese Homepage wurde mit dem Slogang "Eine 16% bessere Welt" beworben. Was bedeutet dies? 13. Ich habe mich für die IRV Methode engagiert. Nun scheinen aufgrund der Aussagen dieser Homepage die Matrix Methoden besser zu sein. Was soll ich nun tun? 14. Sind Matrix Methoden bereits irgendwo im Einsatz? 15. Wie rangiert das computer-unterstützte Auswahlverfahren die Kandidaten vor? 16. Was ist eine politische Karte? 17. Wie weiss ich, das niemand erfährt, was ich gestimmt habe? 18. Wie kann ich sicher sein, dass meine Stimme gezählt wird? 19. Wie verhindert das System, dass eine Person mehr als einmal wählt? Warum wird nicht ein System gebraucht, bei dem eine EmailAdresse eine Stimme hat? Wäre das nicht einfacher, um Doppelstimmen zu verhindern? 21. Wie verhindert das System, dass man mittels einer Software Millionen Stimmen abgibt? 22. Wie kann ich sicher sein, dass die Wahl nicht durch die Homepage-Betreiber manipuliert wird? 23. Besteht nicht die Gefahr, dass die "Federal Election Comission" diese Homepage schliesst? 24. Wer ist Tim Stryker? 1. Ist diese Homepage ein Witz? Was?! Sie fragen, ob die demokratische Wahl des Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika ein Witz ist?? Im Gegenteil - wir sind eigentlich äusserst ernsthaft. 2. Ist dies eine anti-amerikanische Homepage? Im Gegenteil, diese Homepage wünscht der USA nur das Beste. Die USA hat ihr Wissen um die Demokratie immer mit der Welt geteilt - im Gegenzug will nun der Rest der Welt ihr neuestes Wissen über demokratische Prozesse mit den USA teilen. Dies, um Amerika im Aufbau, der Reform und der Feinabstimmung der demokratischen Wahlprozesse zu unterstützen. 3. Was sind die Ziele des Projektes "The Leader of the Free World"? Das Projekt "The Leader of the Free World" hat drei thematische Dimensionen: Wir wollen das öffentliche Bewusstsein für diese drei Themen stärken. Für die globale Demokratie haben auch wir keine fertige Antworten - nur Links zu Personen und Organisation, die diese Idee weiterentwickeln. Für die Wahlsysteme ist die Antwort einfacher. Wir sind der Meinung, dass alle politischen Körperschaften in dieser Welt beginnen sollten, neue Wahlsysteme, die sogenannten Matrix oder Condorcet Methoden, einzusetzen. Da es heute vielfältige Möglichkeiten gibt, Informationstechnologie für den demokratischen Prozess einzusetzen, sollten diese verschiedenen Anwendungen wahrgenommen und ausprobiert werden. Als quantitatives Ziel hat sich das Projekt "The Leader of the Free World" vorgenommen, die grösste Internetwahl zu werden. An additional goal is that before the end of 2004, one organisation from each continent in the world, be it the parliament of a major country or the student association of a small high-school, will have decided to adopt one of the m-methods as their official voting procedure. 4. Wer steht hinter dem Projekt "The Leader of the Free World"? Diese Homepage wurde von einer Gruppe von Leuten entwickelt, die sich selber als Weltenbürger sehen. Die meisten von uns haben zudem eine europäische oder amerikanische Staatsbürgerschaft - wir haben aber auch Hilfe aus allen Kontinenten gekriegt. LFW Projekt Team führt zu den Namen, Bildern und Kurzbeschreibungen der Teammitglieder. 5. Wer trägt Kosten des Projektes "The Leader of the Free World" ? Die Kosten für die Homepage und das ganze LFW Projekt wurde zum grössten Teil von den Leuten getragen, die diese Site und den Service aufgebaut haben. Zusätzlich notwendige finanzielle Unterstützung haben wir von Freunden gekriegt. 6. How were the presidential candidates chosen? Zuerst haben wir die drei grössten unabhängigen Kandidatenlisten auf dem Internet kontaktiert - diese sind: www.vote-smart.org, www.politics1.com und www.presidentelect.org. Auf diesen Seiten wurden 222 Kandidaten vorgestellt. In einem zweiten Schritt haben wir alle 222 Kandidaten angeschrieben und sie gebeten, unsere 10 Fragen zu beantworten. 52 Kandidaten haben den Fragebogen ausgefüllt und wurden zur Wahl auf unserer Homepage vorgeschlagen. Dieser Rücklauf lief bis zum 14. August 2004. Um das Bild zu vervollständigen, haben wir zusätzlich noch 14 Kandidaten in unsere Liste aufgenommen. Diese Kandidaten wurden in der Presse als die Hauptkandidaten der Wahl vorgestellt. 7. Was heisst, die Antwortden der Kandidaten sind simuliert? Für diese Kandidaten haben wir aus Mangel an authentischen Antworten den Fragebogen gemäss ihrem politischen Profil ausgefüllt. Dafür haben wir die politischen Voten der Kandidaten ausgwertet und den Fragebogen in zwei Gruppen beantwortet. Das Resultat dieser simulierten Antworten war der Mittelwert der beiden Gruppen. 8. Wann zählen die Stimmen? Die endgültige Stimmenzählung erfolgt am 2. November 2004, 18:00 Uhr (Hawaianische Zeit) - zur selben Zeit, in der die Wahllokale in den USA geschlossen werden. Die Resultate werden auf dieser Seite publiziert. 9. Welche Matrix Methoden wurden angwandt und wie funktionieren sie? (Erklärungen nur in Englisch - für die deutschsprachige Theorie konsultieren Sie bitte die Fachliteratur) Matrix voting is the ideal method for every single-choice situation, that is a situation where a collective voting body is to to elect only one of the alternatives / candidates. Matrix methods use complete preferential information about voter preferences. By giving a ranking order of candidates, each voter indicates a preference - or indifference - between each two candidates. By utilizing this information, a collective preference is counted between each two candidates. A majority preference for X against Y means more votes show a preference for X against Y than for Y against X. Candidate X is the winner of the election if no candidate has a majority preference against X (in rare cases, there may be two or more such winners). If there is no such winner, each possible subset of at least three candidates is formed. Then a majority test is used against each subset. If at least one non-member has a majority preference against at least one member of a subset, then this subset is eliminated. The largest of surviving subsets goes to the PCM (Procedure for Conflicting Majorities). The phenomenom of conflicting majorities (majority paradox) is a news for many readers, so here is an explanation. A majority preference of course cannot conflict with itseself, but it can conflict with some other majority preference. It is possible for X to be preferred by majority to Y, when Y, at the same time, is preferred by a majority to Z, and Z is preferred by a majority to X. Impossible? Not at all. For example, let's have 45 voters who prefer X to Y and Y to Z, 30 who prefer Y to Z and Z to X, and 25 who prefer Z to X and X to Y - and there it is, conflicting majorities. Each voter is a member of one or two majorities and a member of two or one minorities. Conflicting majorities are no obstacle to achieve really majoritarian voting methods. It is possible to completely define a few ways to solve the problem of conflicting majorities, and since any such solving procedure can be used, there is more than one possible matrix voting method. Each of them has a perfect majority guarantee property, which you cannot find from non-matrix methods (unless some complicated method is functionally identical to some matrix method). Majority guarantee property: if a majority preference exists against X, then X cannot be elected, unless there are at least two other majority preferences which together conflict with the former mentioned majority. Of the PCM's completely tested so far, BeatPath method (Schulze method) survives best from the test of the rationality criteria (at least until the day some new method is proved to be better). That's why it is our choice. Mathematical description of the Schulze method: If there is a candidate A such that a majority of the voters strictly prefers candidate A to every other candidate then candidate A is the winner. Otherwise: d[X,Y] is the number of voters who strictly prefer candidate X to candidate Y. If there is a candidate A such that d[A,B] > d[B,A] for every other candidate B then candidate A is the winner. Otherwise: A "path from candidate A to candidate B of strength N" is an ordered set of candidates C(1),...,C(n) with: 1. C(1) is identical to A. 2. C(n) is identical to B. 3. For i=1 to (n-1): d[C(i),C(i+1)]-d[C(i+1),C(i)] > 0. 4. For i=1 to (n-1): d[C(i),C(i+1)] >= N. If there is a path from candidate A to candidate B of strength N and there is no path from candidate B to candidate A of strength N, then we say: "Candidate A disqualifies candidate B". The winner is that candidate who is not disqualified by any other candidate. 10. Warum sind Matrix Methoden allen anderen Wahlverfahren überlegen? The best way to compare voting methods is through a rationality criteria, that serves as a test bench for the voting systems. While the reasoning why a voting system does or does not hold a criteria and what that means might be quite abstract, it still offers an easy way to have a quick look at how well a voting system performs comparing to others.
11. Welche politischen Konsequenzen hat die Anwendung der verschiedenen Methoden? In classical voting systems the voter can face a paradox. If the voter votes according to his or her true preferences, the outcome can be worse than if he or she did not vote. The individual is forced to make a choice. Not between the issues or the candidates, but a choice whether to follow his or her heart - their true preferences - or his or her reason - the tactical calculations as to what kind of voting would have the best chances of effecting the desired outcome. It is clear that when the core of the decision system - the voting method - systematically forces the heart and the mind against each other, the result is apathy, ignorance and suffering. There are millions of ways of that this can happen, but we must not allow ourselves to be distracted by these "symptoms". The root cause or the "disease" does not promote itself, like politicians do. It lurks out of sight and it has to be found and dragged out into the light if we are to rebuild national democracies, and build a truly fair global democratic system. It is only in the matrix, where the perfect spectrum of the individual's choices, hopes and fears, can be directly transmitted into the decision structure that governs us all. There are no distractions, no speculation and no artificial limits to the expression of one's unbounded free will. In the matrix, we will all be equal. 12. Diese Homepage wurde mit dem Slogang "Eine 16% bessere Welt" beworben. Was bedeutet dies? What if all voting decicions all over the world would be made by matrix methods? In every single election case, the balance between satisfaction and dissatisfaction among the participants would be either a) uneffected or b) moved towards more satisfaction. We believe maximization of voter satisfaction would also mean fairer, more rational and effective decicions. For example, how many percentage of internal and external wars, terrorist acts and other violent conflicts and social unrest would be avoided within ten years? How much less crime and corruption, ecological and economical disasters? Just think about it. In the long run, the 16% estimate may even be on the low side. 13. I have been campaigning for Instant Runoff Vote (IRV). Now you say m-methods are better. What should I do? Bleiben Sie bei der IRV Methode - man sollte Pferde nicht im Rennen auswechseln. Die wissenschaftliche Diskussion über die beste Methode ist von der politischen und strategischen Ãœberlegungen über eine Wahlreform getrennt wahr zu nehmen. Wir öffnen hier die Diskussion um zwei neue Sphären der demokratischen Reform. Die eine ist die Reform der Entscheidungsmethode, die innerhalb einer politischen Körperschaft eingesetzt wird. Die andere Sphäre ist die Reform der Struktur des gemeinschaftlichen Referendums. For the functioning of a democracy, the voting system used inside the parliament (and other decision-making bodies) probably has even greater effect than the electoral system. It is inside the political body where the voices of the people are to be transferred to actual laws and policies by their representatives. If the political body fails in making decisions by democratic principles, the fine qualities of the electoral system have no value. Democracy, from the people to the actual laws and policies, is as weak as its weakest link. At the moment, every parliament in the world uses a voting system that concentrates the power into the hands of the group leaders, thus silencing the genuine multi faceted voice of the electorate. This may be the biggest flaw in democracy as it is practised today. This flaw could be overcome by simply installing any of the new m-methods in place of the old voting procedures. One of the most important arguments against direct democracy has been that in direct democracy, the alternatives have to be presented within two options. The plurality vote can cause paradoxes where more than two options exist. The voting procedure that parliaments use today, with several voting rounds, would be too slow and costly for popular votes. When you take any of the m-methods and use it for a popular referendum, this problem no longer exists. Note that there are many other aspects of direct democracy that one must take into account when designing a political decision-making system. But from now on, one obstacle against direct democracy has been entirely removed. 14. Sind Matrix Methoden bereits irgendwo im Einsatz? Usually, when an organisation has to define a voting system for its use, it happens that a committee is set to make the choise. Then they search a bit and ask around, finally ending up with the implementation of one of the most commonly used methods within the greater society. People are just starting to awaken for understanding what implications different voting systems have. One of the front-runners is the Debian software developers' community, which uses Beatpath as a general decision-making procedure. (Debian is a GNU/Linux operating system.) 15. Wie rangiert das computer-unterstützte Auswahlverfahren die Kandidaten vor? The Candidate Matcher, or the "Neuro-Matcher", uses independent component analysis (ICA) to present the multidimensional questionnaire-data. ICA reveals hidden factors underlying the data. An independent component packs together questions that are related. The independent component space, rather than the original question-space, is used to calculate the rank-order of the candidates. Thus several similar questions have as big an effect on the closeness result as a question that is rather independent of the others. The closeness between a voter and a candidate is acquired as the opposite of the distance of their questions projected in the ICA-space. For more information on ICA : » www.cis.hut.fi/projects/compneuro/whatisica.html 16. Was ist eine politische Karte? Self-Organizing Map (SOM) is used to visualise the candidates' questionnaire-answers. SOM presents multidimensional data on a 2-dimensional lattice, preserving the mutual distances of the original space. Candidates that answered similarly in the questionnaire appear near to each others on the map, too. In order to equalise the effect of different opinions, SOM is used to visualise the independent component space, not the original question-space. For more information on SOM : » www.cis.hut.fi/research/som-research/som.shtml 17. Wie weiss ich, das niemand erfährt, was ich gestimmt habe? First, the voting at the LFW site occurs without email or any kind of personal identification or information that could lead a voter to loose his or her privacy. Second, when the user fills the candidate matcher's questions and the ballot, the internet connection can be secured by 128 bit, single root SSL encryption. So even if a determined cracker could identify the user by the ISP code, all that the cracker would get would be a scrambled packet of white noise. In most electronic voting systems the voter is left to take the software-builders word as a guarantee for the voter's privacy. There may also be innovative security systems built into the system. However, that fact does not rule out the possibility of purposeful human action to violate the voter's privacy. After all, how a voter can be sure that the software does the things that it is alleged to do? In the end, it is a matter of trust. Here, the point is that you don't have to trust us to trust the LFW voting system's integrity. The data needed to identify you or to trace you simply never gets to the LFW voting system. There is no way to find out who voted how. Note: For 1% of the voters we ask email address to be able to contact the voter wins in the included lottery. We recognise that this is a compromise to the voter's privacy when viewed outside. Here, it is just our word that the email database is not connected to the ballot database. 18. How can I be sure that my vote was counted right? The Leader of the Free World election is based on security-through-publicity approach, that ensures the voter a verifiable audit trail. After the election, all the ballots are publicised with the identification number attached. Every voter can then independently check that his or her ballot was included in the vote. Any person with programming skills can do a recount from the publicised data. In most electronic voting systems any proof that is provided requires both highly abstract reasoning from the voter and an inevitable measure of trust. Here, you can verify your ballot within the complete set of ballots without any in-between apparatus. What you see is what you get. 19. Wie verhindert das System, dass eine Person mehr als einmal wählt? It does not. Without a complete voter registry, rooted to a trusted source of the voters' identities, that is impossible. The LFW vote is an open suffrage election. Warum wird nicht ein System gebraucht, bei dem eine EmailAdresse eine Stimme hat? Wäre das nicht einfacher, um Doppelstimmen zu verhindern? We take voter integrity seriously. If we stored all the voters' emails, we would have no way of proving to the voters that we could continue to guarantee the secrecy of the ballot. It is our conviction that in any election where voter secrecy is a key principle, it should not simply be based on the word of the operators of the system. We believe that a voter is entitled to have a complete and unassailable proof that no one can see how he or she voted. Where there are no emails, there are no identities to be revealed. Besides, one vote per one email does not actually prevent a person from voting several times, given that anyone can freely open as many e-mail accounts, and under whatever names, as they wish. Finally, for a person who has the rights to create email addresses within a certain server, it would be easy to create a million email addresses. Leading from there, it would be just as simple for that person to write a piece of software by which he or she could vote a million times over. We have employed some methods that will scale down the double voting. To secure of the functioning of that system, the specific structure and methodology of this software will be kept secret until the election is over. In any event, the real problem is not to prevent the general electorate from double voting, but to prevent a single person from voting millions of times. 21. Wie verhindert das System, dass man mittels einer Software Millionen Stimmen abgibt? To cast the vote, the voter has to recognise the numbers in the picture. An easy task for a human, but almost impossible to a computer. 22. Wie kann ich sicher sein, dass die Wahl nicht durch die Homepage-Betreiber manipuliert wird? You cannot. As much as we have worked to offer the world the best possible combination of voter privacy and integrity, this is a qualification criteria that we have not been able to construct. Suggestions are taken into account for further use. The only conceivable way to offer this kind of qualification would come out of a complete register of eligible voters. That is something that the present open suffrage elections cannot have. 23. Besteht nicht die Gefahr, dass die "Federal Election Comission" diese Homepage schliesst? Not at all. While we are aware of the fact that FEC unlawfully pressured the NaderTrader.org to close down at 2000, we are prepared. LFW voting system operates at Sealand, the only geographical entity on Earth that is not connected to international community by a single treaty, yet is connected to the global economy with a high bandwidth. If USA really wants to close us down, it has to use military force to do so. With the case of LFW and Sealand, lawyers are just as useless as they are in Guantanamo base. 23. Who is Tim Stryker? Tim Stryker war ein Träumer, ein Denker, ein Patriot, ein Pionier der direkten Demokratie, ein Brückenbauer, ein Spieledesigner und ein Freund. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||