This document outlines a pattern called "Public Accountability for Public Decisions made Privately" to address how voting processes can balance private voting with public accountability. The key points are: (1) Voting must be private to prevent intimidation but processes for recording, tallying and reporting votes must be public and understandable. (2) The design and oversight of voting processes should balance opposing political interests to ensure credibility. (3) Paper ballots with joint tallying by representatives of opposing parties is a positive example, while proprietary electronic voting is negative.

1. (1) Public Accountability for Public Decisions made Privately Pattern in PLML
Form
Pattern ID: 1 Sociotechnical-JCT
Pattern Name: Public Accountability for Public Decisions made Privately
Problem: Secret ballots pose a problem. How can we be sure that the
recording, tallying, and reporting of the individual votes is
accurate? If a person who tallies the votes, for instance, has an
interest in the outcome of the voting, they may make an
unconscious error or deliberately misrepresent the vote. If the
voting process is not seen by the electorate as a fair and honest
process for change, violent action becomes a more likely
alternative. .
Context: Some public decisions such as voting, if done completely
publicly, would subject each individual decision maker to
various kinds of pressure and intimidation, especially by those
already in power. For this reason, voting is often done by
secret ballot.
Forces: * Open public voting allows intimidation by those in power.
* Completely secret voting allows misrepresentation of results.
* People with opposed interests in the outcome but a common
interest in what is preserved by an honest process may keep
each other honest.
* A physical process of recording, tallying, and reporting can,
in principle, be understood and observed by the vast majority of
the electorate.
* To be an effective alternative for change to violent
revolution, a voting process must have credibility with the
majority of the electorate.
* A process which is observable and understandable, and
balances opposing interests, has credibility even among those
who do not actually observe.
Solution: Any process that touches private voting; e.g., deciding who is
allowed to vote, designing ballots, recording of votes, tallying
votes, and reporting on results must be observable and
understandable by the majority of the electorate. In addition,
the design of the process, its implementation and any remedies
for mistakes must be controlled by a balance of opposing
interests.
Synopsis:
Evidence: Thousands of experiences of voting processes that work.
1

2. Example: (1) Positive: Paper ballots with joint tallying by
representative of opposing political parties.
(2) Negative: Electronic voting machines with proprietary
software unavailable and not understandable by the vast
majority of the electorate.
Rationale: Power corrupts. People in power will tend to use various
means to keep that power and to use it for their own ends. If
there is no way to recall representatives or change things in
peaceful ways, people who feel perpetually exploited may
result to violent means.
Confidence:`
Literature: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-01.htm
Schwartz, John, Report Finds Risks in Internet Voting by
Americans Overseas. New York Times, January 22, 2004.
Related Patterns: This pattern is a part of a growing socio-technical pattern
language at:
http://www.truthtable.com/websitewelcome_page_index.html
and will also be submitted to the CPSR Public Sphere Project at
http://www.cpsr.org/program/sphere/patterns
Registered Anonymity
Random Testing for Compliance Assurance
Who Speaks for Wolf? (Ensuring Stakeholder Coverage)
Multi-part Keys for Security Assurance
Verifiable Electronic Voting
Balance of Interests to Insure Fairness
Author: John C Thomas
Creation Date: 21st January 2004
Revision Number: 2
Last Modified: 23rd January 2004
2