In Labour’s Democracy Review, they argue for more IT and remote access and online balloting, they say

Carers, disabled members, shift workers, women and young members have argued it is the poor, disadvantaged and already under-represented who are least likely to have the time and resources to attend meetings. These points have been made particularly at the disability events we have had.

Who the fuck do you think are least likely to have internet access?

In the HuffPo article, they argue that Momentum is an example of how digital engagement creates activity and energy.

In my book, Momentum has some questions to answer about it’s on-line democracy. (It’s closed source, and its IT Security Controls are not public and its segregation of duties is not published, and probably non-existent. )

In my short essay,, I say,

Bruce Schneier, in a 2004 essay, posed four requirements, that voting systems be fast, accurate, scalable and anonymous. To these I add, transparency.

E-voting systems struggle to meet the Schneier’s first four criteria and yet the last is possibly the most important; critically losers must trust that the result is accurate.

I say [much] more in articles on this blog tagged e-voting.

Online Democracy
Tagged on:             

4 thoughts on “Online Democracy

  • 1st August 2018 at 8:35 am

    I amended this today as interest in this particular piece of the democracy review is, of course, attracting massive interest. I inserted the 2nd quote from my piece on e-voting and amended the anchor text for the e-voting tag search.

  • 1st August 2018 at 8:38 am

    Labour’s governance rules on elections do not contain an adequate segregation of duties in the conduct of the election. The General Secretary is a single point of failure.

  • 1st August 2018 at 8:39 am

    If voting on national policy, so much for Conference sovereignty!

  • Pingback:More on Labour’s e-voting proposals –

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.