Design doesn't address basic user requirements.

[mm0hgw]

Pretty sure most of you don't read the Google group.

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/democracyfoundation/_UaipZRowxI

For this software to be democratic, it is a hard requirement that it must produce evidence to substantiate the general claim that any epitome outcome, from any user's specific instance, has been democratically generated.

The current design, just doesn't address this basic issue of democracy.

The lesser half of democracy is how to count the votes of the people.

The greater half, unaddressed in the design, is how to produce evidence sufficient for the users, who are 'reasonable' in legal terms, or 'peers' in academic terms, to believe they can prove to third parties that any 'outcome' has been democratically generated when it is legally challenged.

As it stands, the design ignores the greater half of democracy.

I have referenced Austrailian Electoral Commission Law in the Google Group. They are not permitted to destroy a single ballot paper until 6 months have passed. They are also required to hold marked electoral registers for longer.

Thus Austrailian elections are fully auditable, in a manner that Twitter polls and opinion polls are not, and neither are epitome outcomes.

Honestly, I give up. I've made suggestions you don't like, because I proposed making something auditable, but that's not the design and you're not changing the design....

Given the anathema of what you do, to the basic substance of western law, I could just report you and have you deplatformed.

I don't want to, and I don't have to, as long as you can recognise that:

1. No plan survives first contact with the enemy.
2. I am not the enemy.
3. The users are not the enemy.

The enemy are third parties who legally challenge epitome resolutions as not being democratically generated.

You have no defense against them, and thus you're spending a lot of time reinventing the Twitter poll in lieu of coding anything that could be legitimately defined as democracy.

If it's unauditable, it's not democracy.