Frank Ellermann [nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de] wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
lock out visually impaired people. Good idea... not!
The MD5 idea is cute, I trust that there are no collisions ;-)
I also trust that there are no collisions. Dare to bet on it? :-)
I refuse to compute MD5 sums for Wayne's complete list only
to check the published result.
Why refuse? It would be trivial to check.
Won't work without real names [...]
Wrong. Even if you don't want use MD5 digests, you can just number the
voters consecutively (or by whatever scheme) and tell each voter his
number in his confirmation e-mail. The concept is the same:
pseudonymization.
Maybe you also could name a few countries that actually
restrict media coverage in the sense you implied.
It's either a convention or a law in DE, no more campaigning
on the day of the vote, no exit polls during the vote. In
the US with more than 3 timezones the situation is different, no
surprise.
That's why I wrote "in the sense you implied". That's not what William
meant. He most likely meant that any public communication concerning the
subject of the vote should be suspended during the election. At least
that's what he implied when he wrote a few postings earlier that this
mailing list should be shut down during the election period.
people will always communicate if they feel the need
Sure. But pestering people on their way to the ballot box
would be a crime.
Do you honestly see the risk of that happening here?
Another example, it's not "verboten" to vote for yourself in
my coutry, it's only considered as disgusting by some people.
For _everything_ you'll find someone who finds it disgusting, as
"disgusting" is a purely subjective thing. So that's hardly a valid
argument.