[pep-8001] Explain why people cannot change their votes

pep-8001.rst

@@ -112,8 +112,10 @@ Which will have the effect of:
 * The detailed ballots will *not* include any identifying information
   and the email addresses of the voters will be thrown away by the CIVS
   system as soon as the email with their voting link has been sent.
-* Voters will *not* be able to write in new choices, and will be limited
+* Voters will *not* be able to write in new choices, meaning they will
-  only to the options specified in the election.
+  be limited only to the options specified in the election.
+* Voters will *not* have the ability to change their vote after casting
+  a ballot. [no-changes]_
 * The default ordering for each ballot will be randomized to remove
   any influence that the order of the ballot may have on the election.
 * Voters will have to rank all choices somehow, but may rank multiple
@@ -127,6 +129,12 @@ orders all candidate PEPs from the most preferred to the least
 preferred. The vote will be tallied and a winner chosen using the
 `Condorcet method <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method>`_.
 
+Note: each voter can only cast a single vote with no ability to
+revise their vote later. [no-changes]_ If you are not absolutely
+sure of your choices, hold off casting your ballot until later in
+the voting period. Votes cast on the last day of the election are
+just as valid as the ones cast on the first day.
+
 While the CIVS system does not provide an option for a "Pure"
 Condorcet election, any Condorcet method will select the "Pure"
 Condorcet winner if one exists and otherwise only vary if one
@@ -181,29 +189,37 @@ Why should the vote be private?
 When discussing the election system, a number of core developers expressed
 concerns with the idea of having public ballots, with at least one core
 developer stating that they were planning on abstaining from voting
-altogether due to the use of a public ballot.
+altogether due to the use of a public ballot.  A poll ran on Discourse
+identified the overwhelming majority of voters prefer private ballots.
+[private-vote]_
 
 A secret ballot is considered by many to be a requirement for a free and
 fair election, allowing members to vote their true preferences without
 worry about social pressure or possible fallout for how they may have
 voted.
 
-
 Why the use of CIVS?
 --------------------
 
 In the resulting discussion of this PEP, it was determined that core
-developers wished to have a secret ballot. Unfortunately a secret ballot
+developers wished to have a secret ballot. [private-vote]_ Unfortunately
-requires either novel cryptography or a trusted party to anonymize the
+a secret ballot requires either novel cryptography or a trusted party to
-ballots. Since there is not known to be any existing novel cryptographic
+anonymize the ballots. Since there is not known to be any existing novel
-systems for Condorcet ballots, the CIVS system was chosen to act as a
+cryptographic systems for Condorcet ballots, the CIVS system was chosen to
-trusted party.
+act as a trusted party.
 
 More information about the security and privacy afforded by CIVS, including
 how a malicous voter, election supervisor, or CIVS administrator can
 influence the election can be be found
 `here <https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/sec_priv.html>`_.
 
+Why cannot voters change their vote?
+------------------------------------
+
+CIVS does not allow voters to update their vote and as part of its goal
+to prevent the election supervisor from being able to influence the
+votes.
+
 Are there any deficiencies in the Condorcet method?
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
@@ -227,6 +243,13 @@ there are 21 or more voters, though, is
 `less than 1.5% <https://www.accuratedemocracy.com/l_cycles.htm>`_.
 
 
+References
+==========
+
+.. [no-changes] https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-8001-public-or-private-ballots/374/20
+
+.. [private-votes] https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-8001-public-or-private-ballots/374/4
+
 
 Copyright
 =========