Mm-hmm.
Exactly.
The thing is that the i-Voting or whatever e-petition system, we can only bind the administration and we cannot ever bind the representation, the council or the legislative, exactly because of the property that you mentioned.
We can’t say that this population is more representative than the original voters who voted in the representative in the council. In the newer system you can, because it essentially carries the binding power of the full referendum without the cost of a full referendum.
It’s just like distributed ledger that’s a distributed relational database, right?
I generally trust my SQL folks, but...
Right. If stake is high enough then we can well imagine that this is an adversarial, but in general, everyday life we don’t actually do that, there’s a trade-off.
If citizens are used to it in their colleges, in their online and gaming guilds. Why not? [laughs] In their whatever, daily operation, if they’re just used to random-sample voting, then it builds the sovereignty...
...expectation of individuals and then they take this and demand that out of their government. I think that’s really grassroots and really the way to gain the legitimacy is just by using it more often and to not start with the Taipei City. The Taipei City, or the Central Election Committee at the moment really has plenty of trust actually...
...so if they run a centralized database people trust that they will run a centralized database well, is what I’m saying.
It’s simple. That’s good.
That answers my question, actually, my original question from way back.
Where there are people who are not even participating. Basically, you have population who are part of this game and people who are not. The people who are not cannot for sure know that they are not in it, just because their luck is bad or they’re being excluded was my original question.
People can volunteer to be a decoy.
After a few rounds, I imagine the price would drop.
Do you hand out decoy ballots to anyone who’ll sign up?
But also...
We’re not doing it remotely I think. We would have nothing to stop.
No, it’s for indigenous people to vote in a voting booth that’s not in their district, but it’s still voting booth voting.
The nationalist party has been proposing this for decades. But it’s not likely to be passed.
We don’t. It would require a flip in the Parliament. But there’s a real need for people to vote outside the voting booth in their district. But it’s still voting booth voting. You just mark their ballot with this ballot is actually for that district. But that’s it.
In some countries, you can override it by walking to the walking booths at the very end. But we don’t have that here.
Yeah, but we have witnesses for each party and the final tally we allow live streaming, it’s quite unlikely.
During the tallying.
How is that? Like a certain corner of things and things like that, like positional?
We’re not allowing people to photograph the actual ballot itself. We’re letting people...
...photograph the tallying.
What I’m saying is that...I’m just describing this thing. You see from your live-streaming point of view, mainly taking out ballots out of this, but it’s at a back view, but you photograph the witnesses looking at me looking at this.
The actual position is not visible to you. If any witnesses say, "This is miscounted," or whatever, then we look at that particular ballot.
We’re not doing that.
Yeah, sure.
Sure.
I think I read about it, but I don’t have any...
I’ve read the...Yeah.
I’m aware of this.
Yeah, but I haven’t seen this application anywhere in Taiwan yet.
Yeah.
I see.
It also performs some verification work.
That’s a very good idea.
I actually am, but yes.
I automate a lot of my administrative work.
[laughs] OK.
Yeah, I was just reading that picture.
It’s good enough.
It’s good. How do we get rid of the double-ballot?
Yes.
